Buy American! Is not the answer...

A dear friend sent me a link to this video which initially seems to make so much sense, but is so misleading.

https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/4FrGxO2Fn_M#action=share

The philosophy in this video leads to a decrepit economy, much like Greece's in the long run.  

The problem is that if we focus our consumption on 'buying American', what we end up doing is paying more for less compared to the other option, of buying the 'quicker, better, cheaper, faster' good or service.  The reason jobs left America is that business is in business to make a profit.  They are responsible to the shareholders (amazingly, many of us are shareholders directly or indirectly via 401k's and 403b's)  to return the best dividend, otherwise the shareholding investor will seek out better investment options with better returns.  So the businesses find the 'quicker, better, cheaper, faster' production option.  They are neither pro nor anti American or domestic production.  They are in survivalist mode.

Now, how can we address the first half issue in the video?  Make American labor and production the 'quicker, better, cheaper, faster' option.  Due to labor laws and amazingly complex regulations from work place safety to environmental concerns (OBTW...these are important, but we've passed the point of diminishing returns some time ago) the costs of American labor are generally higher.  

Please note that American labor can still be paid at a higher wage rate if that same labor can be commensurately more productive than foreign labor options.  Example, if we assume the Michigan factory worker costs (wages, benes and taxes like Unemployment insurance, workman's comp, etc.) $60 per hour, but produces $100 worth of goods in that same hour will be the 'quicker, better, cheaper, faster' option compared to the foreign laborer that may only cost $2 per hour, but only produce $2.50 worth of goods.  How to achieve this?  We are already (especially in Michigan) WANTING MORE LABOR!  We lead the country in manufacturing jobs, and America STILL leads the world in manufacturing (as of 2012).  But jobs have been lost.  Yet so many firms in Michigan have job openings that are going unfilled because that more productive laborer is not to be found.  This is due to individuals foregoing education in engineering and other high-skill fields.  Students would rather major in a liberal art than in a math-intensive study.  Due to this, we lack the labor force and our businesses are not as competitive as they could be.

DO NOT BE FOOLED into thinking a solution of 'buying American' will solve this.  It will just lead to higher priced goods vis-a-vis the world, and a waste of scarce, valuable resources.

Rush is Right!

Someone, anyone, please explain to me the difference between propaganda and today's journalism in America.

Read this, then explain to this poor, ignorant-on-this-issue person the difference...
------------------------------------------------------------------

Somebody Fed the Media Bad Information Yesterday, But I Should Have Known Better

April 18, 2013

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I finished yesterday's program, and I can't tell you how embarrassed I was.  I realized that I didn't originate any of the news yesterday.  I simply repeated what I heard everywhere else in the Drive-By Media.  And I know better.  Yesterday we heard dark-skinned.  We heard light-skinned.  We heard a male-looking female.  We had a gay-looking transgender.  I mean, every possibility was thrown out, in terms of the suspect.  We were told there are pictures.  We were told there's video.  We were told about a Saudi national who had been questioned and released.  There's more stuff being pumped out today about the Saudi national. 

At any rate, I know better.  Every day I sit here and I chronicle for you -- this is not a matter of opinion -- every day I chronicle for you the bias, the lack of professionalism, the agenda, the preferences of everybody in the mainstream.  A day like yesterday comes along and they report something, and I just repeat it as though it's gospel.  I know better.  Whatever they say isn't gospel.  Whatever they say is agenda-oriented.  Whatever they report and whatever their objective is, it isn't news anymore. 

I got to thinking about this last night.  There really isn't any news.  I've said this before. People call the media.  But it's not news gathering.  It's not really the media.  For example, yesterday I said that the two big things being pushed were immigration and gun control, and they rotate and they alternate.  One day it's one, the next day it's the next.  You look at polling data on both of those issues.  Gun control, 4% of the American people support the president's idea of gun control.  Ninety-six percent don't.  And yet, if you look at television news every day, it is the most important issue going, you would think that that's all anybody cares about. 

Now, to the extent that people care about, it's stopping it, preventing it, and pretty much the same thing on immigration.  Four percent of the American people support the whatever number of illegals here being granted citizenship.  Four percent support, 96% don't.  So you could say that while the media is out pushing both of those stories, as though they're the only thing that matter to people when in fact what matters to people is what they're not covering:  jobs, the economy, debt, what's happening to the country, in a general sense.  That doesn't get covered.  And what does get covered is whatever the Democrats want to happen every day.  That's what gets covered. 

I think everything has to be looked at through that prism.  I know this each and every day, but yesterday I got caught up in it.  It's hard not to.  It's hard not to, because it smothers us.  The media's everywhere and smothers us.  The point is, we don't know about the Boston bomber, or if they do, they're not telling us.  You know, where we are now, there are so many different -- there's a vacuum.  People want to know who, people want to know why.  There hasn't been an official answer.  So all kinds of things are out there now filling that vacuum, some of them wacko, some of them sound very sensible and believable, but we don't know.  And they didn't know yesterday.  And yet I repeated what they were saying as though I worked for them, or worked there, and I of course don't.

I've heard all the things that you've heard.  I've heard about the Saudi national. I've heard about him being deported. I've heard about him being a prime suspect. I've heard about the cover. I've heard all that.  I don't know whether that's true.  I've heard the New York Post is running a picture of two suspects.  It turns out that those two guys are on a high school track team.  Now, I don't have the picture in front of me.  I don't remember what they're wearing, but they're two young guys. They look like Middle Eastern guys, but they're high school track team guys, one's a coach.  They're in a picture of possible suspects.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm being sent a note. "Rush, don't apologize. You were simply passing on media reports yesterday to show their agenda was affecting their reports." I know that. I know that. But I still passed it on. I don't think I did a good enough job. (interruption)

No. No, no. No, no. I'm not supposed to ignore it. No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not supposed to ignore it. But I don't know. I think I could have done a better job. I'm not saying it wasn't a good job. Obviously I do a good job by breathing, but I think I coulda done a better job of explaining. For example, poor old John King. Let's look at John King at CNN for just a second. John King and Fran Townsend are out there, and John King's (muttering), "They got the guy out there, and it's very sensitive.

"We have to be very, very careful! It's a dark-skinned guy. I can't say anymore, Wolf! I can't!" Now, somebody told him that. I know that John King and CNN are part of the pro-Obama, pro-Democrat Party agenda, but somebody told him that. He didn't just make it up out of thin air. Somebody that he believes, somebody that he counts on as a source, told him that -- and then, after telling him that, they pull it back. And after telling Fran Townsend what they told her, they pull it back.

And then after all the media's out there reporting all these different things, then what happened? The Feds start bleating about irresponsibility. It's the local authorities that were telling all these media people what they were working on, what they had found, what their suspicions were. After everybody had reported all that, it's the Feds who then tell everybody, "Hey, you know, you guys? None of this is happening. There hasn't been an arrest." I don't know what's going on, but you guys had better pull it back.

I was thinking last night. I don't think it's gonna be the case now, but last night I was thinking, "This could be a tipping point. If Obama's media is being used and manipulated and made to look like idiots by Obama and the Feds, at what point do people in the media say, 'You know what? To hell with this!'" At what point do they say, "You know what? To heck with Obama!" At what point do they all of a sudden turn into the media and start actually examining, being curious about power, instead of covering for it.

And then of course I got, "Rush, ha-ha-ha, don't be ridiculous. That's never gonna happen," but I was toying with the idea. What if they're being so manipulated and they're made to look like such idiots, that they get mad at being used? Because John King was burned. I don't know him. I've run into him in line waiting to get into the White House Christmas party, but that's it. I know he was former AP before he got into television.

I know we probably disagree left and right, and he's part of State-Run Media. But still: Somebody told him that, and he went out with it and not long after, they pulled it back after sending him out with it. Fran Townsend and everybody else said it. Fox was confirming it. Everybody was. And where are we today? Where we are today is that the consensus opinion is whoever did this got away with it and is now on the way out of the country and we're never gonna get 'em.

I don't know if that's consensus but there are a lot of people who think that and are afraid of it. I mean, stop and think. The skin angle yesterday, who made that happen? Who was it that steered everybody toward the skin color? Well, it was CNN, but who told them? Do you think they just made it up? Somebody knows that they were susceptible to that. I think events like this... Human beings are human beings. In events like this, I've seen it. I watch it. These people in the media, they lose it! They go nuts.

It's a chance to be relevant, a chance to be first.

They go wall-to-wall with this stuff.

It isn't news.

It's media stars trying to become bigger stars, and they're being played by somebody. Somebody told 'em all that stuff, that we ended up repeating here. I mean, you might say somebody had skin in the game yesterday, but who was it?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's John King yesterday afternoon on CNN with on The Lead with Jake Tapper. They brought John King in to explain what happened here with the report of the dark-skinned person who was very sensitive.

KING: Fran Townsend, our national security contributor who has excellent sources in the federal government, she had a federal source say an arrest was made. I had a Boston police source who would not waive me off that information. The Associated Press said there was an arrest. Others said an arrest was imminent. Uh, I'm not saying that to spread the blame. It's very frustrating in a breaking-news situation when that happens. But clearly now we have on the record from the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Boston police that no arrest has been made. Clearly there was a significant turn in the investigation, and clearly at this point it appears that people who have been reliable sources to us in the past 48 hours, either were giving us inaccurate information or got out ahead of themselves on something. That's what we're trying to piece together.

RUSH: This is my point. Somebody told him this stuff. Somebody told him. Did you hear this? They got all these sources from the Boston police. Fran Townsend said she had a federal source, FBI, Boston police. After they had gone out and repeated everything they'd been told, then it was all pulled back from 'em. The repeated news, an arrest has been made, was just a small part of this show yesterday, I know, but it was still... Look, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this.

I coulda done a better job.

It's not a big deal.

But I'm just telling you that King's out there saying, "Okay, look, here's what happened." They clearly felt embarrassed over what had happened, and somebody did it to 'em. That's my only point. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me try to address something here.  We're being blitzed on the phones with people who are begging me to say with ontological certitude what they believe.  And here's what it is.  I first heard this, by the way, last night.  I had a number of people feverishly e-mail me last night and tell me that they had heard this and they find it credible.  Here's what's going around.  You remember one of the first reports out of the Boston Marathon investigation was that a Saudi national had been sought.  Then the Saudi national had been found and detained, held for questioning, and then released on the basis that the Saudi national was a dead end, nothing there. 

Now, I don't know the origin of the story. I don't know the source. That's why I'm not signing up for it, but I just want to tell you it's out there and it's one thing, by the way, the Drive-Bys won't touch.  This is a theory, and that's all they had yesterday were theories, but this is a theory the Drive-Bys are not gonna touch.  The Saudi national is the prime suspect, so goes this theory.  The Saudi national is part of a Boston terror cell and has been known as such for a while and, in fact, was scheduled to be deported next Tuesday, before the massacre at the Boston Marathon happened. 

Yesterday, unscheduled, President Obama has a meeting with a Saudi government official, unscheduled, emergency. It turns out it was about Syria I think, but people started to wonder, "Hmm, I wonder if the Saudi government got to Obama."  Because the rest of the story is that the Saudi national is 19 or 20 years old, is the prime suspect and is part of a prominent family in Saudi Arabia and is gonna be sent home with no action taken and the case filed, closed and sealed.  That's what's going on today.  It's no different than anything CNN said yesterday.  It's just as valid as anything that was out there yesterday, which has now been walked back. 

Now, I have no idea.  This is really my point.  I was repeating what these people in the media were saying yesterday.  I don't know what happened.  I spend my entire career telling you not to trust those people because they're agenda-focused, and here I was repeating what they were saying.  Now, I had my proper caveats but I still repeated it.  And the bottom line is I don't know what happened, and I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that I do. I'm not gonna take the occasion of this event, try to launch myself to some new height based on something I know or believe. 

I'm not angling for somebody to say two weeks ago from now, "Limbaugh had it." That's not what thrills me.  You know why I don't like doing interviews?  This is just a way of explaining -- you may think this is a great departure from what I'm talking about, but it's not.  I don't like doing interviews. I've told you before I don't like 'em. I despise 'em and  there are a bunch of reasons.  One, why should I listen to somebody that's just gonna repeat what I already know and think back at me? 

But I also know this, any time I do an interview, whereas, as far as you people in this audience are concerned -- and you are all that matter to me, maintaining my credibility with you is all that matters to me.  I never play games with that. I don't lie or make things up, say outrageous things just to get noticed, none of that.  I'm, as you know, trying to have a lower profile.  It's not working, but I'm trying.

In any interview, I know that where you're concerned, the most important part of any interview I do is the questions I ask, not the answers that I get.  And say every interview I do is pressure packed.  Most people look at interviews as a way to take a break, you know, fire off some questions, let the guest roll and settle back.  To me it's the exact opposite of that.  If I cave on questions I lose credibility with you.  If I don't ask what I think you want to know, then that's not good.  It's the same thing here.  I'm not going to pass along information that I don't know, just so that somebody will say three weeks from now, "Limbaugh had it, Limbaugh was first, Limbaugh was at the top," whatever.  I'm not uncomfortable with saying I don't know. 

Now, I'm a totally comfortable with analyzing what is being reported and what's not being and what it all means.  For example, I'm totally comfortable telling you the following -- and it's this kind of thing that gets me in trouble with left-wing critics and so forth.  I'm totally comfortable telling you that I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we were to learn that however this investigation in Boston is going, the ultimate objective is to end up making Obama look good at the end of the day.  They're all Democrats doing this.  "Mr. Limbaugh, that is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard you say, and you've said so many outrageous things.  Why would you possibly say --" Well, I'll tell you why. 

The governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, one of the first things he said when asked about the investigation was (paraphrasing), "Obama called us. He cares. Obama's looking into this. Obama's taking care of us."  What's Obama got to do with this?  Why does what happened at the Boston Marathon matter to Obama at all in terms of political fortune?  Why does it matter?  How does it possibly affect Obama?  Why does what happened there in Boston, why is what Obama says about it, the most crucial? 

Folks, I can go through the Stack of stories today.  Every story, from places like The Politico or CNN or MSNBC, every one of those stories is done through the prism: What does this mean for you Obama?  What does this mean to Obama?  So everything is covered through that prism.  Gun control bill, what does this mean for Obama?  Immigration, what does this mean for Obama?  Anybody care what it means for the country?  Hurricane Sandy.  What does this mean for President Obama?  Sandy Hook Elementary, what does this mean for Obama's gun control efforts? Everything, everything, it gets tiring. Every news item is reported with an angle.  What does this mean to Obama?  What does this mean for Obama's agenda? 

Gabby Giffords gets shot and it doesn't take long, "How can this help Obama? How can this hurt Obama?  How can Obama use this to advance --"  It gets really offensive.  And before Obama was Clinton.  How can this help Clinton?  All of this, how can it help Democrats?  How might it hurt Democrats?  That's how news is covered. That's how national news is reported. 

I guarantee you the explosion at Waco last night, what do you think people's first reactions were when they heard that the fertilizer plant blew up in Waco?  I'll tell you what they said in the media.  Timothy McVeigh, isn't that what ticked him off, what happened in Waco?  Waco, Waco, Waco invasion, McVeigh got mad at that.  That's when he blew up Oklahoma City.  Wasn't it about this time of year?  That's what they were thinking.  Average, ordinary people, fertilizer plant, they're looking, first Boston, now this, my God, are we in the middle of another protracted 9/11?  Average Americans wonder, are we in the middle of another terror assault?  The media, of course, is wondering, oh, my God, have the descendants of Tim McVeigh come back to life or something?  That's the way they look at it. 

In the process, as yesterday was evidence, we don't get what we think the media is for, i.e., news, information that they have learned that we don't know, passed on to us.  That's what we've always thought the media is, and it isn't anymore.  It's just a political action committee for the Democrat Party.  Kermit Gosnell, anybody?  Can't cover that.  Covering Gosnell trial, that might hurt our War on Women theme.  The Republicans have this War on Women.  Meanwhile, it's an abortion doctor wreaking havoc on everybody in Philadelphia. "Oh, we can't cover that. There's no news there." 

What do you mean, there's no news?  You got an abortion doctor killing babies that survive abortions and butchering them.  It's sickening, really sickening, squalid stuff.  Can't report that because there's only one narrative when it comes to abortion, that is, a woman's reproductive rights are under assault by the Republicans.  That's it.  If the story doesn't contain that element, it's not gonna get reported.  That is not news; that is the Democrat Party agenda.  They can deny it all day long, but that is what it is. 

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/18/somebody_fed_the_media_bad_information_yesterday_but_i_should_have_known_better   Accessed 20 April 2013

Blue County in a Red State: What does it take to not be poor in America?

Interesting...using math and data to back up one's assertion...almost sounds like science!

Blue County in a Red State: What does it take to not be poor in America?

Free market solution to healthcare issue...

• Supply and Demand
• Diminishing Marginal Utility
• Subjective Value
• Imperfect Information

This guy says it all.  Love it, and love this guy!

Respond to his comments, try to support and/or refute his assertions, specifically at 18 minutes in to the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PFb6NU1giRA

Good v Bad Economics

Political Economy...an essay excerpt from  Frédéric Bastiat   

Read this and wonder...

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must beforeseen.

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

This explains man's necessarily painful evolution. Ignorance surrounds him at his cradle; therefore, he regulates his acts according to their first consequences, the only ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only after a long time that he learns to take account of the others.**2 Two very different masters teach him this lesson: experience and foresight. Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. It instructs us in all the effects of an act by making us feel them, and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having been burned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far as possible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle: foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequences of several economic phenomena, contrasting those that are seen with those that are not seen

Guess what he's about to discuss?  This guy wrote in the mid 1800s, just imagine what he'd say about gov'ts and policies today?  Whoa.

Makes one recall the phrase, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

More political than purely economical...

Political left or right...  Is it true that communism is 'leftist' and fascism is 'right-wing'?

 Too often history profs/teachers will launch into a diatribe on how the Nazi's and Hitler were right-wing fascists and the Soviets with Stalin were communists (and they may actually mention 'left') and were bitter enemies because they were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. 

Hmmm...a real student or political scientist should stop right there.  Ask this question, "NAZI...what did that basic acronym stand for?  Oh yeah, 'National Socialists'."  We all know how right-wing socialists are.

Long story short, as one becomes a greater student of history, economics, of basic social trends, one sees a movement toward collectivization, of a greater concentration of power, wealth, etc. to the government.  Only at pivotal times does this concentration become scattered, usually through violent revolutions that shatter the social structures and economic activities, resulting in death on a super-scale, of massive destruction.  There are but few exceptions to this rule, the American Revolution and the fall of the Roman Empire come first to mind.  One had few deaths or disruption, and the other occurred over a few centuries.

The most efficacious means to distinguish 'left' and 'right' politically, is to determine a power/wealth concentration index.  Many scholars have in fact calculated these, each with a set of assumptions that may differ one to the other.  However, the point remains, the more concentrated, the further to the left.* 

Ayn Rand's objectivism, or the Founding Fathers' drive for equal opportunity, are clearly toward the right side of the spectrum.  With the knowledge that there are no guarantees in life, that risk is inherent but reward is possible, people accept this and try try try.  They usually also fail fail fail, but once in a while they make it big.  And because they do, society in general benefits, too.  Bill Gates became exceedingly wealthy, but his efforts resulted in many, many others having tools to increase their own standards of living (like the program I'm using to write this now, Microsoft Word).  Steve Jobs and his Apple company became very well-to-do, but the products they sold to willing customers enhanced the same customers' life-styles.

   

Obviously the costs likely out-weigh the benefits at the extremes.  The real trick is similar to a bell curve distribution as to the majority's wishes, and how 'majority rules' is equated to mob-rule by the Founding Fathers, hence the republican form of gov't we have.

Have you noticed the increases of power accrued by the Federal (should be 'National') gov't?  The benchmarks:  adoption of the U.S. Constitution (recall Jefferson's adamant opposition to it as a power-grab), Civil War and Lincoln, Roosevelt and the Progressive movement, Roosevelt and the New Deal, LBJ and the Great Society, Reagan's failed attempt at pushing it back to the right in his New Federalism, then the most recent efforts at healthcare reform providing precedent for the gov't, who will become the payer of all healthcare costs, to assume the role of nanny, to dictate reduction in the lifestyle choices that will be more likely to incur higher healthcare costs (already we see it with regard to smoking...and like Mayor Bloomberg in NYC on size of beverages, the subtle change in advising the public on cancer screenings being less necessary now...).

My goal here is to illustrate the way major shifts occur slowly, with an occasional quickening, but always to the side of greater gov't control and the ratcheting effect (or slippery slope).  To achieve any type of 'reset' brings with it great socio-economic upheavals and death, with very few exceptions, notably the American Revolution.

French Revolution, Soviet Revolution and Russian Civil War, then the roll-back of the early 90's, China with Mao, but then the adoption of State Capitalism which seems to move to the right side, but doesn't, Germany in the 20s and 30s, post WWII Great Britian over several decades, etc.  Even the rise of empires of Rome and Persia, or the Aztecs, whoa.

*Caveat, this concentration is about public or government acquisition, NOT private acquisition.  For those of you about to go off on a diatribe about the evils of rich capitalists, may I point out that almost to a one the 'robber-barons' became monopolists because of crony-capitalism wherein they lobbied the government and received special treatment that skewed the competitive market structure, distorting it in the favor of the rich.  The 'evil rich' are inherently motivated to maintain the status quo, and do so using the power structure of gov't, making the fascist partnership model between big business and gov't, or the 'simpler' model of gov't take-over as we find in communist societies.  Note that the individuals in that power structure are in fact, the rich.

Thorium and Economics...yes, it is here, too.

What in the world does Thorium to have to do with economics?  Well, if you click the link and watch the vid, you will SO understand so much more.

Electricity = Great quality of life.

How to make electricity, how to generate it?  Uranium?  No...check it out.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw

A Rush Commentary...Prosperity

Rush Limbaugh made a great comment that synopsizes the whole issue of where a country's wealth originates, where prosperity comes from.  He was in a diatribe about Nancy Pelosi's comments about how unemployment payments stimulate the economy, that for each dollar given to an unemployed individual (couldn't bring myself to say 'worker') produces a dollar and seventy three cents of activity due to the multiplier effect.  Well...check it out and comment.

"If people don't know where prosperity comes from, then all the rest of it is academic and doesn't matter.

If people think that prosperity comes from not working and receiving unemployment benefits, then we're finished. If a majority of people who vote really believe that or can be swayed by that -- that prosperity comes from government providing for people who can't work -- then we're pretty close to over. In truth, prosperity comes -- prosperity is created -- by people doing useful things for each other.

In fact, you could say, if you wanted to make a really literal point, that prosperity doesn't even have to deal with money. It could be accomplished with bartering. Money just makes the process more efficient. Via bartering. Okay, you don't use money; you barter. It means you offer to change the tires on the butcher's car and he gives you a steak. That's barter. But instead of that, people pay each other for doing useful things for them.

People pay other people for performing useful things. People pay other people for inventing useful things. People pay other people for making useful things. People buy useful things because they want them. This is how prosperity is created. Therefore, what is required for prosperity? As many people as possible doing useful and desired things for each other. At its root level, this is so simple.

But economics is taught as this very complex, intricately woven web of deceitful, hard-to-understand things. But economic commerce happens when people engage in economic activity, i.e., you buy something that somebody's made because you want it, and they sell it for profit. That's their incentive to make it. If they're only going to get back what it cost them, there won't be any reason outside of passion (which doesn't feed you) to make it. Simple as that.

As many people as possible working, producing and offering as many things and services as people need and want, equals prosperity. Therefore people sitting at home destroys it! People sitting at home doing nothing for anybody not only doesn't create prosperity, it destroys it, and people like Nancy Pelosi... This is near criminally incompetent in basic economics. She says this...

Now, I don't know whether she's that dumb and really believes it or if this is simply the result of some strategic thinking and knowing their voters and knowing their audience and saying silly things to justify stupid government policy. It doesn't really matter outside of the point of curiosity. But she said it; it couldn't be more wrong. It is irresponsible for political leadership to be speaking this way, but she does.

And they're winning right now."

Time to comment.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/11/flashback_pelosi_claimed_jobless_benefits_were_economic_stimulus

Taxes Schmaxes

Now that most Americans have received a pay day, and have had opportunity to view their pay stubs, it is very likely they've noticed fewer numbers going into their bank accounts.  Taxes have increased on them, and they didn't even think they were rich!

FICA, Medicare or 'payroll taxes' have increased, taking a couple percentage points away from take-home pay.  This in addition to the increases on the marginal income tax rates on those that have incomes in the upper six figures plus?  Gives rise to this interesting fact...Rolls-Royce had it's best year of sales EVER!  One may think this due to China et al accounting for more demand for luxury goods, but hey, the USA increased it's demand by 17%.  HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!?  A luxury good, more sold, this implies more disposable income on the part of the rich, right?

Maybe not.

When the taxes on economic activities involving investment (business expansion, etc.) increase, the opportunity costs of alternative dispositions of $ change so now the rich guy takes his money and puts it to other uses, specifically purchasing 'real' assets instead of 'paper' assets; gold, collectibles, etc. instead of expanding businesses (which then would have hired people, who would have more $ and then more economic activity...).

People respond to incentives.  If a all-knowing third party (gov't) establishes 'perverse incentives', do not be surprised when those with resources (rich) do something other than what was expected.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/11/rolls-royce-records-highest-annual-sales-in-107-year-history/