SOME ECONOMICS

That evil capitalism! "It should come as heartening news that 2004 was one of the most prosperous years in history. Not because the U.S. economy grew by a solid 4.3 percent, but because developing countries experienced an explosive 6.1 percent economic growth. According to a recent study by the World Bank, 2004's growth reflected "an expansion without precedent over the past 30 years." Equally encouraging, the report notes that "the rapid growth of developing economies ... has produced a spectacular, if not historic, fall in poverty." Amazingly, the World Bank report did not get much coverage in our mainstream media. It seems the press was more interested in covering the evils of globalization than in taking notice of how world trade -- which grew by an astounding 10.2 percent this year -- is driving economic growth.... In fact, the recent success of developing countries at fighting poverty could be an Economics 101 lesson for today's American classroom. In East Asia and the Pacific region alone, the number of poor dropped from 472 million in 1990 to 271 million in 2001. By 2015, that number should shrink to 19 million, according to the World Bank.

"Buy American" hurts Americans: "President Bush has a plan to address the so-called trade deficit, which worries people so much. According to the wire services, Bush said, 'People can buy more United States products if they're worried about the trade deficit.' That will appeal to many Americans in a nationalistic fever. What could make them feel better than passing up inexpensive, high-quality, foreign-made products and buying pricier, American-made counterparts? But it won't help the economy or the American people in general. Frankly, I can't tell whether President Bush is kidding or not."

Big shrimp: A protectionist mess: "Critics often accuse free trade proponents of carrying water for big business. But maybe unrestricted trade isn't always in the best interest of all business. Manufacturers who use steel (car and appliance makers, for example) oppose tariffs on imported steel. However, steel producers of course support them, as they keep competitive foreign steel off the market. While the car maker might opposed steel tariffs, they might support tariffs on foreign-made cars -- to protect their share of the domestic market. And steel manufacturers would likely oppose them, as they make it more difficult to sell U.S. steel overseas. Protectionist policies often become quite convoluted. Recent shenanigans from the U.S. shrimp industry present an excellent opportunity to examine how big business' support for free trade isn't as firm as conventional wisdom might suggest."

Rent control to go? "Rent control perversely hurts the very people it is supposed to help. New York City, for example, is chronically short of housing, and rents are outrageously high. Many New York apartments are "rent stabilized." It's no surprise that developers prefer to build condominiums or cooperatives, which they can sell outright. Such sales give them real profits-- or at least the prospect of gains--and none of the risks of politicians forcing them to charge rents that are not economical. Chicago, in contrast to New York City, has no rent control, and it has abundant housing for all levels of income earners. Free markets work when politicians allow them to.... the state of Hawaii put a cap on the amount of rent that oil companies can charge their service stations. A federal court has recently ruled that form of rent control as being unconstitutional, saying that such a cap discourages investment and therefore leads to fewer independent dealers. If the Supreme Court upholds this finding, then rent control in New York City and elsewhere could very well fall by the wayside.

Old jobs have to go: "Saving time and freeing up resources for other, more efficient uses, is good. Sure there is displacement and alienation: 50-year-old pipe-fitters who may never again make union scale and parents who rarely see their infants awake. But -- and I apologize for being so presumptuous at my still tender age -- that's the way the world works. Would we prefer to be in stasis and consign the next generation to dead-end jobs at best? Or to deny young people the opportunity to give their progeny the material comforts and fancy educations they may have lacked growing up? Or maybe we should skip the industrial revolution too and have everybody working the fields: full employment!"

**************************************

ELSEWHERE

On Dec. 26th., I reproduced two excellent letters from readers of the Pasadena Star Weekly. The lady who wrote the second letter has just emailed me as follows: "Thank you for finding and posting my "Jesusland" letter to the Pasadena Weekly. As you know, I was crucified as a "pseudo-intellectual" who voted for the fascist Bush and am willingly sending my family members to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I write this, my son-in-law has been coming under mortar attacks and is bravely doing what he believes to be right for his country and his beautiful little girl. I have been attacked by many Leftists who tell me and secretly hope that my family in the military will die and are fighting a useless battle. My friends served in Vietnam and I have never, never seen such vileness and hatred. You have given me a bit more resolve to go on. Bless You!"

Hmmm... I got a lot of email in response to my posts about the Trinity. I do rather regret raising the matter as I think that what I wrote did disturb a lot of good Christian people whom I really had no wish to disturb. For that reason most of my replies were a bit brief as I was reluctant to continue the discussion. Even so, I think that what I wrote did seriously disturb the faith of some. So that gives me a real dilemma. I could paternalistically refuse to continue the discussion, which does not treat my readers with much respect, or I could continue the discussion under DO NOT GO HERE warning flags. I have chosen the latter. I will for a time put up a separate blog devoted to scriptural exegesis which I would advise readers NOT to visit unless they are prepared to risk exposure to possibly threatening unorthodox views. So see "A scripture blog" for that. Today I look at John 1:3.

There is a rather aptly named Australian Leftist blog called "Cut-price Commentariat". A recent post there referred to "A Western Heart" (a group-blog I post to) as "Mike Jericho's posse of (now) out-and-out fascists". Why? Because one of the contributors welcomed the rumour that Osama has been warned that he risks Mecca being nuked if there are any more attacks on the USA. It should be noted that there have been no attacks on the USA since 9/11/2001 so the rumour is a plausible one. Our Lefty blogger however seems to think that using the THREAT of nuclear attack (which was also what kept the Soviets at bay and ensured the long post-1945 peace in the Western world) is "Fascist". Like most Leftists, however, he conveniently forgets his history. Who was the only national leader who ACTUALLY USED nukes? It was of course Democrat President Harry Truman, the heir of that great Leftist hero, FDR. So Harry Truman was clearly a "fascist" by the lights of our Lefty blogger -- which makes about as much sense as Leftist accusations usually do.

Sad news about the dippy Steve Kangas, whom I referred to yesterday. Gerry Jackson of Brookes News writes: "If this is the Steve Kangas I'm thinking of, he committed suicide sometime ago. Kangas was a very sad case and a very disturbed man. Nevertheless, he was still an "ass" who knew nothing about economic history, economics or any real political history. I completely demolished his defence of FDR's damaging economic policies. His response was pathetic".

The latest posting on MarxWords shows that Marx believed in dictatorship.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftists are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions.

Comments? Email me or here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************