Dr. Ben Carson has been getting a lot of attention from the conservative side of America since his critical speech at the president's prayer breakfast back in February. What a speech it was!
He spent most of his time discussing the importance of an educated populace in order for a free society to be successful - a point I passionately agree with. He went on, though, to talk about some other important policy issues such as deficit spending, tax code, and healthcare.
He approached these issues from a clearly conservative perspective: the debt is a major issue that needs to be reduced immediately, a flat tax makes more sense, and healthcare needs sensible reform that the Affordable Care Act does not provide. He gave his speech with passion and in the presence of the president, which many have interpreted to mean the man has courage.
At CPAC Carson joked about a run for the White House. We could debate how serious he is about doing it but if you tune in to the conservative media and talk to conservatives, there is a strong movement to give this guy a presidential run.
I will not pull any punches, pushing this guy to be president would be the stupidest idea the GOP could make.
My hope is that the party would be sensible enough not to do it, but given the candidates who showed up for the 2012 race and how the party has conducted themselves... really for the entire 21st century, I wouldn't be surprised if we see Carson in the running.
Why is Carson such a bad choice, you may ask. Simply put, the man is not a figure capable of winning the highest political seat in the world.
There are a lot of things that go into winning an election, even at the local level. I have had the privilege of studying how this is done with some brilliant political minds and one thing has been very clear to me - it's complicated. So I won't go into detail as to why specifically this it is a bad idea to have the first political campaign be one for the president.
Just apply some common sense to the matter. Politicians work for decades to build a coalition of volunteers and voters, establish their image, and craft legislation all in the hopes that one day they might live in the White House... and the vast majority of them fail. An untested, untrained, and previously unknown character like Ben Carson wouldn't stand a chance.
But I don't want to be completely negative on the man. In fact, many of the things he has said I agree with. My concern is that conservatives - who are without strong leadership - will prop him up to a position he is unable to hold. Let me offer an alternative. Let's try to make Carson an advocate for conservative policies outside of the political sphere.
This may seem confusing. After all, how can you discuss public policy and not be political? Well on one hand you can't but I want to introduce nuance to how we view our reality.
Often people like to lump any discussion of public policy into what is called "politics." These politics are in its most basic form a group of people separate from the daily lives of the non-political. The result of this is terrible on many levels but for this specific discussion it causes us to push people like Carson into running for office.
The result of thinking there is this gap of the political "haves" and "have-nots" means we think the only solution to our problems is to put "our guy" into a political appointment. So when the Dr. Carsons of the nation come out and speak passionately about policy we agree with we think, "Here is a man who gets it! And he's outside the corrupt political establishment! He's the ideal candidate!"
We make these leaps and bounds to conclusions that are just preposterous. I agree that Carson has spoken very well about some important policy issues, but I'm not about to elect the man. He has spent his career as a very successful doctor. I won't say he can never do politics, but he'll have to earn some political credentials before I can trust him. It's like hiring an electrician to fix your pipes.
Carson has proven that he is a good public speaker, though. That's the role I think conservatives need to ask him to fulfill - as an advocate for conservative policy. You see, you can be an effective voice for public policy without holding office. The man probably understands the medical system better than most everyone. That makes him an ideal person to advise senators and congressmen on medical legislation.
At the end of the day, a presidential run for Ben Carson would lead nowhere. I simply ask that conservatives stop this silly talk and focus on some legitimate candidates for the job - and there are quite a few. Let's place reasonable expectations of people and maybe, just maybe, we'll begin to see some effective change.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Do New Technologies Hurt an Economy?
The argument that technology will take away jobs is not a new one. People have written on the matter since the Industrial Revolution. Advances in farm technology had people fearing farmer’s who didn’t adopt it would go hungry. There was concern that improvements in textile manufacturing would devastate the economy, throwing millions of people on the street.
And yet, that didn’t happen.
That is because this view has an incomplete view of how economies – and how people – work. Yes, these technological improvements caused people to lose their jobs, but what happened to the economy as a whole?
Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., said in a recent interview, “Machines and tools make us more productive. They don’t destroy jobs, they liberate labor to pursue other things.”
Let’s work through an example.
A textile factory that makes blankets recently bought a machine that allows the same level of production for half the people working the line. That means that half of the factory workers lose their jobs. This is what the media covers as terrible and economists claim causes a reduction in jobs, but there’s more to the story.
The factory owner now has more profits as a result of paying few employees. This can allow him to do any number of things. He can expand his business to create more blankets, he can invest in a separate business – perhaps he’ll make Snuggies, or he can spend the money he earned on himself buying a bigger house or a yacht.
In all of these scenarios, more capital has been created and the economy has grown, whether it be an increase in blankets, Snuggies, or boats. Also, because there is always competition in the free market, the businessman will have to keep his prices low. He could then reduce his profit margin to make blankets cheaper, increasing the standard of living.
Furthermore, by purchasing the machine in the first place he has helped the manufacturer that made it, boosting that sector of the economy. What if he needed to take a loan out to buy the equipment? He just helped the bank out which means a higher return for investors, who can then spend that money on things like boats or blankets.
In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt writes, “The belief that machines cause unemployment leads to preposterous conclusions. Every technological improvement must cause unemployment. The logical conclusion would be that the way to maximize jobs is to make all labor as inefficient and unproductive as possible.”
So what happens to all the people who are now unemployed? That is up to them. At the end of the day, they have to provide for their well-being. Some of them could go to work for a competitive blanket factory. Perhaps others will pool their resources and start a factory of their own. Others may be the inventors of the Snuggie and sell the design to their former employer.
The important factor is that whatever they can produce, they are now freed from their job as a line worker to do. This is often referred to as human capital. Technology allows human capital to be freed to pursue other things. This freedom results in many things. A man can pursue a new invention, new markets can be explored, or leisure time can be afforded.
When newer, more efficient processes are introduced in an economy, products are cheaper which means people can buy more or save their money for investments or non-essentials.
Without technology we would be scratching at the dirt trying to grow what little food we could. Technology is not the cause for our poor economy, technology is a main factor in a growing economy.
And yet, that didn’t happen.
That is because this view has an incomplete view of how economies – and how people – work. Yes, these technological improvements caused people to lose their jobs, but what happened to the economy as a whole?
Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., said in a recent interview, “Machines and tools make us more productive. They don’t destroy jobs, they liberate labor to pursue other things.”
Let’s work through an example.
A textile factory that makes blankets recently bought a machine that allows the same level of production for half the people working the line. That means that half of the factory workers lose their jobs. This is what the media covers as terrible and economists claim causes a reduction in jobs, but there’s more to the story.
The factory owner now has more profits as a result of paying few employees. This can allow him to do any number of things. He can expand his business to create more blankets, he can invest in a separate business – perhaps he’ll make Snuggies, or he can spend the money he earned on himself buying a bigger house or a yacht.
In all of these scenarios, more capital has been created and the economy has grown, whether it be an increase in blankets, Snuggies, or boats. Also, because there is always competition in the free market, the businessman will have to keep his prices low. He could then reduce his profit margin to make blankets cheaper, increasing the standard of living.
Furthermore, by purchasing the machine in the first place he has helped the manufacturer that made it, boosting that sector of the economy. What if he needed to take a loan out to buy the equipment? He just helped the bank out which means a higher return for investors, who can then spend that money on things like boats or blankets.
In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt writes, “The belief that machines cause unemployment leads to preposterous conclusions. Every technological improvement must cause unemployment. The logical conclusion would be that the way to maximize jobs is to make all labor as inefficient and unproductive as possible.”
So what happens to all the people who are now unemployed? That is up to them. At the end of the day, they have to provide for their well-being. Some of them could go to work for a competitive blanket factory. Perhaps others will pool their resources and start a factory of their own. Others may be the inventors of the Snuggie and sell the design to their former employer.
The important factor is that whatever they can produce, they are now freed from their job as a line worker to do. This is often referred to as human capital. Technology allows human capital to be freed to pursue other things. This freedom results in many things. A man can pursue a new invention, new markets can be explored, or leisure time can be afforded.
When newer, more efficient processes are introduced in an economy, products are cheaper which means people can buy more or save their money for investments or non-essentials.
Without technology we would be scratching at the dirt trying to grow what little food we could. Technology is not the cause for our poor economy, technology is a main factor in a growing economy.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Regarding Sequestration
We all knew this would happen. The cuts made by the sequestration have started to be implemented and people are upset. There are three cuts that are getting a particularly heavy amount of news coverage: national parks, secret service, and defense.
The national park system has received a 5% cut to funding. This has resulted in less seasonal hires and plans on opening parks later in the year. The secret service has had to put staff members on furlough and no longer has enough people in place to allow public tours of the White House. The cuts to the Defense Department have led some branches of the military to stop funding tuition and housing aid for servicemen and veterans.
My response to this is pretty simple: what did you expect?
Our nation lives in a delusion. We believe we can have our cake and eat it too. Let me give you a healthy dose of reality - our financial situation is a joke.
Let me put it in easy to understand terms. We are spending more money on government programs than we are currently taking in on taxes. Think of it like this: the government makes $24 a day but spends $37 a day. It doesn't take a genius to realize that formula is unsustainable.
There are three solutions to this - and seriously, there are only three. You can spend less, you can make more, or you can do a little bit of both. That's it. You can't magically balance the budget by any other way.
Our government has decided that the way they are going to solve our problems is in part by spending less. So the sequestration cuts of a whopping $85 billion happened. That seems like a big number - and by all means, it is a lot of money. But in the context of the federal budget, it is a drop in the bucket. Using our numbers above, it is roughly $0.08. So now the government is only spending $36.92 a day. Hooray! We're saved!
Oh wait.
These "draconian cuts" have almost no effect on the greater picture of government expenditure and yet people complain.
Folks we have to face reality here. There needs to be some tough decisions made in the road ahead. Very few people look at the economy and think we need to tax more. Yet these sequestration cuts show that people don't want to give up the government benefits they are used to receiving. Bottom line is, the status quo can not be maintained much longer. We either tighten our belts now or face some serious consequences in the future.
There's another more sinister side to this situation, though. As I just showed, sequestration didn't actually cause large cuts to government expenditures. So why is it that we're feeling that substantial government programs are being cut?
This is a political ploy by those in power to stir the people against future cuts. By stopping tours of the White House, the Obama administration has chosen a very public example of government closure. Parks are remaining closed instead of limiting services. What they are trying to show us is that we need the government to maintain its level of expenditure. They could have chosen to cut other programs that would not have had such a public backlash. That would have been the responsible thing to do. Instead they want to be in your face about the cuts.
What concerns me is that these school yard bully techniques might actually work. Instead of stopping $250 million dollars being sent to Egypt, the Defense Department froze spending on tuition for vets which cost $310 million last year. Which would have been a more responsible cut, looking after our own citizens or paying a country whose people burn our flag and has no stability?
This isn't a right or left issue. We shouldn't be split across ideological lines. There are legitimate cuts that can be made that won't be painful. Down the road there will be cuts, or at least should be cuts, that will be more painful. But we need to start breeding a culture today of government fiscal responsibility. It should start by cutting unnecessary expenditures. The political ploys being played out in multiple sectors shouldn't deter us from the greater mission - reigning in out of control government spending.
I urge everyone to stay strong in the face of these stupid cuts. Pull back the curtain on these political maneuvers and see the truth behind the decisions being made.
We can't have our cake and eat it too.
The national park system has received a 5% cut to funding. This has resulted in less seasonal hires and plans on opening parks later in the year. The secret service has had to put staff members on furlough and no longer has enough people in place to allow public tours of the White House. The cuts to the Defense Department have led some branches of the military to stop funding tuition and housing aid for servicemen and veterans.
My response to this is pretty simple: what did you expect?
Our nation lives in a delusion. We believe we can have our cake and eat it too. Let me give you a healthy dose of reality - our financial situation is a joke.
Let me put it in easy to understand terms. We are spending more money on government programs than we are currently taking in on taxes. Think of it like this: the government makes $24 a day but spends $37 a day. It doesn't take a genius to realize that formula is unsustainable.
There are three solutions to this - and seriously, there are only three. You can spend less, you can make more, or you can do a little bit of both. That's it. You can't magically balance the budget by any other way.
Our government has decided that the way they are going to solve our problems is in part by spending less. So the sequestration cuts of a whopping $85 billion happened. That seems like a big number - and by all means, it is a lot of money. But in the context of the federal budget, it is a drop in the bucket. Using our numbers above, it is roughly $0.08. So now the government is only spending $36.92 a day. Hooray! We're saved!
Oh wait.
These "draconian cuts" have almost no effect on the greater picture of government expenditure and yet people complain.
Folks we have to face reality here. There needs to be some tough decisions made in the road ahead. Very few people look at the economy and think we need to tax more. Yet these sequestration cuts show that people don't want to give up the government benefits they are used to receiving. Bottom line is, the status quo can not be maintained much longer. We either tighten our belts now or face some serious consequences in the future.
There's another more sinister side to this situation, though. As I just showed, sequestration didn't actually cause large cuts to government expenditures. So why is it that we're feeling that substantial government programs are being cut?
This is a political ploy by those in power to stir the people against future cuts. By stopping tours of the White House, the Obama administration has chosen a very public example of government closure. Parks are remaining closed instead of limiting services. What they are trying to show us is that we need the government to maintain its level of expenditure. They could have chosen to cut other programs that would not have had such a public backlash. That would have been the responsible thing to do. Instead they want to be in your face about the cuts.
What concerns me is that these school yard bully techniques might actually work. Instead of stopping $250 million dollars being sent to Egypt, the Defense Department froze spending on tuition for vets which cost $310 million last year. Which would have been a more responsible cut, looking after our own citizens or paying a country whose people burn our flag and has no stability?
This isn't a right or left issue. We shouldn't be split across ideological lines. There are legitimate cuts that can be made that won't be painful. Down the road there will be cuts, or at least should be cuts, that will be more painful. But we need to start breeding a culture today of government fiscal responsibility. It should start by cutting unnecessary expenditures. The political ploys being played out in multiple sectors shouldn't deter us from the greater mission - reigning in out of control government spending.
I urge everyone to stay strong in the face of these stupid cuts. Pull back the curtain on these political maneuvers and see the truth behind the decisions being made.
We can't have our cake and eat it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)