The Ethan Show

Obama Begins His Assault on the Private Sector

Mar 30, 2009 8:05 am // Barack Obama // bailoutcapitalismliberalism

"You two: Get me sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!"

The cat’s out of the bag: Barack Obama wants complete control not only of government but of the entire private industry in America — the same private industry that, through no government “help,” created the airplane, the air conditioner, life-saving vaccines, and ShamWow, just to name a few.

But Obama can’t just go right in and usurp control of every firm in the United States. That would be unconstitutional and too easy for the opposition — basically, Rush Limbaugh — to point out.

So how can the government take over private industries but make it seem like they’re not? It’s a simple, three-step process:

Regulate the target industry to the point of unprofitability;
Use the expanded powers of the Treasury Department to seize the firm for the “good of the country”;
Install government-approved executives to run the company at the behest of the White House.

Several American industries are at different steps in the process. For example, the banking industry, after already being regulated to death concerning mortgage-lending practices followed by a sweeping government takeover, is now at step 3. The auto industry has recently finished step 1 and is on the verge of step 2. The healthcare industry is struggling to remain in step 1, but it’s not looking good for them. The energy industry will be the next to enter the process, as a cap-and-trade scheme will be the first of many regulations producing widespread profit loss.

The fact that Obama had no part in implementing regulations that have been around for decades is beside the point. The point is what he plans to do from here going forward. He may be a new player on the scene, but the concept of statism has been making “progress” and bringing “real change” in America since FDR in the 1930s; some would argue even earlier.

Here’s a recent story from FOX News perfectly exemplifying the three-step process:

The White House says neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money…

Instead, the administration has decided to give Chrysler 30 days to work out a deal with Fiat and GM 60 days to come up with a new restructuring plan…

Officials confirmed GM CEO Rick Wagoner was asked to leave, but denied it was a condition for receiving more government aid. The official said “we wanted to start GM with a clean sheet of paper. We felt the change in leadership would assist that.”

In other words, GM, your fate is now in the hands of a few politicians. Play along and they’ll keep you around; don’t play along and they’ll show you the door — if not the bottom of a lake.

0 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

Obama Tightens Grip on US Auto Industry, You

Mar 28, 2009 8:39 am // Economics // bailoutliberalismobamaus auto industry

Every car must be fuel-efficient! Unless, of course, it's a car for President Obama.

President Obama's not a fan of the SUV; unless, of course, it's his SUV.

I feel bad for the executives of the US auto industry, whose fate is now totally in the hands of a few demagogorific (don’t look that one up) politicians, namely Barack Obama, Barney Frank, and Timothy Geithner.

Here’s Bloomberg with the story:

The U.S. will announce a U.S. fuel- economy requirement of 27.3 miles per gallon for 2011 cars and light trucks, an increase of 2 mpg, as early as today, an Obama administration official said…

The guidelines are part of a 2007 law intended to curb emissions and fuel use…

President Barack Obama’s administration has a March 31 deadline for setting the standard, giving the industry about 18 months to prepare its 2011 models…

For those of you who are not so economically inclined — i.e., those of you who voted for Barack Obama — I can hear your response already: “So what? Gas is bad; fuel standards should be higher!”

And therein lies a shining example of the dichotomy between the intent of liberal policies and the real impact of liberal policies. Yes, it sounds nice to force car companies to make more fuel efficient cars, but in reality it will put them out of business — moving the intended average of 27.3 mpg all the way down to 0 mpg.

Oh wait, I forgot about something: this is the age of the bailout; the age where a few politicians have the power to arbitrarily decide which companies can stick around and which companies can take a hike. And surprise, surprise — just as soon as Obama announces tougher fuel standards, he also announces more bailout money for the US automakers.

You see? He knows he’ll bankrupt US auto manufacturers — he just doesn’t care. Because as long as they “play along” with his global warming agenda, he’ll take care of them.

“Taking care of them,” by the way, means forcing money away from you and giving it to them; it means your money, which is a product of your labor, a product of your time, does not rightfully belong to you — it belongs to “society,” or the “community,” as President Obama would say.

I say, Don’t tread on me.

0 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

Susan Collins (R) Threatens AIG Employees

Mar 22, 2009 12:42 pm // Politics // aigbailoutbonusesspendingstimulus

Please leave the class warfare to the Socialists, Ms. Collins.

Today’s most idiotic/dangerous political quote of the day comes from Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) speaking on This Week, when she said the following, concerning the AIG employees who received bonus payments:

We can make sure there’s pressure for people to voluntarily give the money back or else they’re going to lose their jobs…

That’s right, AIG bonus-receiver: a sitting United States Senator just threatened you not only with the loss of your job, but with whatever other government measures entail “pressuring people.”

Remember, though — it’s up to you to give the money back. It’s “your choice.” It’s a “voluntary decision.” Yeah right.

Voluntary decisions can’t happen when there’s a gun in your face. And if the government threatens you, and you refuse, and the police arrive to arrest you, and you resist — at some point, there will be a gun in your face.

I expect this kind of double-talk from President Obama and his minions, but when a leader of the supposed party of the free market does it… let’s just say it makes me want to go dump teabags into a harbor.

1 comment

// //

Printer-friendly version

Eric Holder Fights Change, Wants Extra Gov’t Help for Newspapers

Mar 20, 2009 9:32 am // Economics // bailoutcapitalismeric holdernew media

Is there a brain between those two ears? If so, I suggest he start using it.

I know that most politicians have had substantial amounts of schooling — bachelor’s plus law or master’s degree, sometimes doctorate — yet the amount of ignorance they display is almost incomprehensible to a learned observer like me — and hopefully you. I say “almost” because they’re either really stupid or simply playing politics, a stance I can comprehend.

Here’s Reuters with a perfect example:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday preserving a healthy newspaper industry was important and he was open to adjusting antitrust policy if it could help.

“I’d like to think 20, 30, 40 years from now people will still be reading the newspaper,” Holder told reporters…

He said he is a regular consumer of online news “on my computer and iPhone and all that.” “But I think that we need to have a healthy, vibrant newspaper industry, and I don’t mean just online.”

So Mr. Holder believes the government should prop up an antiquated, unprofitable industry. He gives no real reason other than That’s just what I think.

Attention Thomas Jefferson: centralized power alert.

Let me break it down for Mr. Holder: Newspapers don’t make money; i.e., consumers have decided to receive their news from other sources, such as the web or cable news. Mr. Holder himself even recognized as much. Propping up (or “bailing out”, or “preserving”) the newspaper industry means forcibly taking money away from consumers and foisting it upon a sector that produces almost no valuable goods or services — that is, if no one’s buying it, it ain’t valuable.

The best advocate of the consumer is the free market, not the government. If a newspaper fails it’s because we, American consumers and taxpayers, have decided for ourselves that we no longer value its existence. How better to express your opinion than with your checkbook?

Government control impedes on technological change — which is change I can believe in, by the way. What if the horse and buggy industry was bailed out when the automobile hit the scene? Or how about if the beeper industry was bailed out when cellular phones began growing in popularity? Or Atari vs. the original Nintendo? Or the Super Nintendo vs. the Playstation? The list could go on and on and on; but every time the new technology takes over it benefits everyone on the planet, and, in most cases, increases the overall standard of living. What better way to fight the War on Poverty!

News communication is changing, Mr. Holder, from bulky sheets of paper to svelte digital media. It will make the world a better place. To fight it would do a disservice to mankind.

0 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

Dinosaurs May Have Been Hairy

Mar 19, 2009 7:07 am // Science // dinosaursfossils

Sure, they still would have killed you, but don't you want to pet them now?

In a remarkable example of scientific discoveries that will have absolutely no effect on your everyday life, Chinese researchers have uncovered a fossil that hints dinosaurs may have been feathered and furred. Here’s the BBC with more:

Previously, experts thought the first feathered dinosaurs appeared about 150 million years ago, but the find suggests feathers evolved much earlier. This has raised the question of whether many more of the creatures may have been covered with similar bristles, or “dino-fuzz”…

“Maybe all dinosaurs…had fuzzy parts…We now need to think completely differently about the evidence we already have,” [said Lawrence Witmer of Ohio University]…

“The world of dinosaurs would [have been] more colourful and active than we previously imagined,” [Dr. Hai-Lu You] said.

I don’t understand how a little “dino-fuzz” makes the world of dinosaurs more active, but whatever. Maybe they were into that kind of stuff.

Seriously though, you ever wonder how scientists “know” certain attributes about long-extinct species? I mean, how can they examine a few bones and conclude, “The beast was friendly, and liked to travel in large packs.”

The answer is: they don’t know; they just use logic to come to the most probable conclusions from the evidence given. Which is not bad practice, but remember that nothing is known for certain about times before recorded history.

Maybe dinosaurs were furry. Maybe they smoked pot. Maybe their practice of dino-sodomy caused God to reign down a giant fireball, wiping them out.

Remember, an event with a .00000001% likelihood of occurrence may not be that rare at all, especially when you factor in the age and size of the universe. So don’t be surprised when “miracles” happen.

And more importantly, don’t practice dino-sodomy.

2 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

How Long Until Twitter Becomes Not Cool?

Mar 18, 2009 7:45 am // Science // bailoutinternettechnology

"lol. got my finger stuck in the eniac today. #

"lol got my finger stuck in the machine today. #eniac #dimaggiofans"

Internet communication is and has always been evolving, resulting in a non-terminating list of fads: from BBSs to email to IRC to ICQ to social networking websites like mySpace and facebook to who knows what’s next. At every step along the list, functionality is added. What starts off as a small experiment eventually becomes a world-wide standard bearer.

It makes sense though, right? I mean, who would prefer a BBS over the communication methods at our disposal today?

That’s why I’m scratching my head when it comes to figuring out Twitter’s success. If you’re not familiar with Twitter, it’s a website where you type brief messages and they appear on your “profile.” You can “follow” other Twitter users, enabling you to receive their updates when they write something new. And…. actually that’s about it. It’s pretty freaking simple.

The first time you use Twitter, your initial reaction will probably be, Oh. What’s the big deal? But then your friend who urged you to create your account will say something like, Dude, just wait. You’ll get addicted! But I’ve been “tweeting” for a while now, and I’m not addicted. Quite the contrary: I’m already sick of it.

That’s why I was pleased to read a Newsweek columnist shares my feelings, and posed these three questions in a recent column:

1. Why can’t I just use instant messaging or Facebook?
If I want to tell my BFF what I’m up to in real time, why wouldn’t I just use BlackBerry Messenger or, better yet, call her on the phone? That way, only she has to know that I just fell up the escalator at Whole Foods for the third time in one day. And if I should want to tell everyone I know that I’m frustrated by my inability to stop eating Fat Witch Brownies, I’ll post it on Facebook. So what’s the point of Twitter? Why do I want Barack Obama to know that I’m clumsy and chocolate-addicted? Which brings me to my next question …

2. Why does Barack Obama want to follow me on Twitter?
In a fit of exuberance (and because I have a wicked crush on his press secretary, Robert Gibbs), I signed up to follow the president on Twitter. Well, it’s been a week and I haven’t heard word one. I read the newspaper; I know he’s been doing Twitter-worthy stuff. I mean, most of the tweets I get involve what people are eating or drinking at any given time (the rest seem to be about the weather). Doesn’t Obama eat? I did, however, get a message from Twitter that said Obama wanted to follow me! Even though I suspect that Obama wants to follow everyone who follows me, I’m touched and honored by the illusion that he’s singled me out. But then, do I want the POTUS to know that at 2:37 p.m., I went to Dunkin’ Doughnuts? And I don’t feel I know him well enough to tweet about my trip to the subway in the rain (without an umbrella!). The “magic” of Twitter is supposed to be the hundreds, if not thousands, of messages that come into places like the White House and CNN at the same time, resulting in a kind of portrait of the country’s mood at any one time. But the sense I get from MSNBC’s review of popular Twitter topics is that rather than measuring the zeitgeist, Twitter has turned thousands of cranky people into cranky haiku writers.

3. What were you doing before with the time you now use for Twitter?
Like every other grown person in America, I have too many responsibilities and not enough time-work, husband, kid, friends, chores and so on and so on-I barely have enough time to play Scramble on Facebook, never mind catch up on my incessant chats. And I am now officially as bad at returning e-mails as I am at returning letters. I can’t even return phone calls regularly, and my AIM has been blinking since last Thursday, so how am I going to find the time to tweet? Do I really need to carve time out of my day to tweet my craving for pomegranate juice? Though it may not be immediately apparent, it does take a fair amount of thinking to write these pieces, and it’s nearly impossible to work and read or respond to the 20-25 tweets my Aunt Raquel sends every day. I think social networking is going to make us stupid. We’re not giving ourselves any downtime to just use our brains, for reflection, fantasizing, problem-solving, whatever. Why are we Twittering when we should be figuring out what to do with all that space junk floating around in orbit?

My best estimation is that people use Twitter only because lots of other people are already using Twitter. How did this inertia begin? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. But because Twitter makes no money — that’s right, zero revenue — and offers scant new functionality, I’ll give it three years: that’s two years and eleven months of growth immediately followed by one month of precipitous decline and implosion. After that, it’s going to need a government bailout to stay afloat.

Side note — you see why bailing out companies is bad? It impedes technological advancement, which is the primary factor in economic growth. Would we be better off if Netscape Navigator or companies that produced 56k modems were bailed out? Certainly not.

2 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

Pelosi Wants to Save San Fran Newspapers

Mar 17, 2009 7:08 am // Nancy Pelosi // liberalismmainstream medianew media

Nancy Pelosi standing in front of an American flag -- awkward.

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot or a liar, potentially both.

Here’s the San Francisco Chronicle with the reason:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, worried about the fate of The Chronicle and other financially struggling newspapers, urged the Justice Department Monday to consider giving Bay Area papers more leeway to merge or consolidate business operations to stay afloat.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder… the San Francisco Democrat asked the department to weigh the public benefit of saving The Chronicle and other papers from closure against the agency’s antitrust mission to guard against anti-competitive behavior.

“We must ensure that our policies enable our news organizations to survive and to engage in the news gathering and analysis that the American people expect,” Pelosi wrote…

“Public benefit”? Last time I checked, newspapers operate in a free, competitive market; one in which consumers have the choice to subscribe to whichever publication they please; one in which consumers have a right to subscribe to no publication, and receive their news from other sources, such as the internet or cable news — two media that are booming, by the way.

This means if a certain newspaper (or two or three) goes out of business, it was wholly because it couldn’t survive in the free market, i.e., the public deemed keeping the newspaper around wasn’t in their best “benefit.”

But here comes the Washington bureaucrat Ms. Pelosi proclaiming she knows best, even when the public has already clearly spoken on the issue. So either she doesn’t understand economics, making her an idiot, or she understands economics and just doesn’t care, making her a liar.

Also, notice that she embraces policies that “ensure survival.” Where did this mentality come from? Capitalism is not and has never been about keeping old, bloated firms alive; instead, capitalism is about ensuring a thriving environment for regular folks like me and you to start our own firms and overtake larger firms through hard work and innovation — a process Joseph Schumpeter dubbed “creative destruction.”

Perhaps I should forward this post to Ms. Pelosi’s office to enlighten her.

2 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

Ben Bernanke, Like All Others, Can’t Predict Economic Future

Mar 16, 2009 9:06 am // Economics // bailoutbernankedepressionrecession

"Actually, on second thought, I have no idea what I'm talking about."

When are we going to understand that no matter how many degrees or accolades an individual has attained, from doctorates to knighthood to Nobel Prizes, he still will never be able to predict the future?

Modern scientists are edging closer to the reality that every aspect of life, from brushing your teeth to planning your 401(k), is based on probability and randomness — “randomness” being the keyword. Sorry to break it to Einstein, but it appears God does indeed play dice.

Don’t misinterpret this tidbit as my ringing endorsement of nihilism, the sophmoric doctrine of Screw it, nothing matters anyway. Probability does mean anything can occur, but it also means that the most probable outcome will likely occur. So let’s not throw everything out the window just yet.

Perhaps I should start over. The purpose of this post was not to spread angst concerning our inability to predict the future, but rather that we should stop dogmatically relying on “experts” possessing the greatest amount of man-made standards of achievement to do just that.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Harvard and MIT graduate, recently told “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley that “we’ll see the recession coming to an end probably this year.”

Rejoice! Or not. I mean, what did you expect the guy to say? Yeah, our financial system is screwed, so if I were you I’d be stockpiling canned goods and ammunition. Of course he can’t say that — it’s his job to control the financial system. That would be like a baseball player predicting he’ll strike out for the rest of the season.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the baseball player won’t strike out for the rest of the season; or in Bernanke’s case, that the financial system won’t be in tatters by the end of the year. Because it might, no matter which “expert” predicts otherwise.

So play it cool and hedge your bets. Remain optimistic, but don’t be afraid to stock up on canned goods and ammunition. And gas, for that matter, in case everything gets all Mad Max-like.

Not that I’m an expert, though.

0 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

Obama’s “Politics of Change” Includes Record Number of PACs

Mar 14, 2009 10:38 am // Barack Obama // democratsobamapromisesstimulus

"Mr. Axelrod, oh wise one, are they on to us already?"

Most politicians have a tendency to lie from time to time, making it very hard to interpret the true meaning of their words.

Barack Obama doesn’t have that problem — he lies all the time, which is why he’s such a great communicator. Just listen to his words, think of the total opposite, and bam! There’s your real message.

For example,

a pledge that citizens can review bills for five days before he signs them = rushing 1,000+ page bills through Congress in just over a day;
no lobbyists in his administration = lobbyists in his administration;
eliminate small business capital gains tax = keep small business capital gains tax;
earmark reform = thousands upon thousands of new earmarks;
bringing the Iraq troops home = not bringing the Iraq troops home;
government transparency = government opaqueness.

You see, it’s all very simple!

Now let’s play a little game: I’ll give you an Obama quote and you tell me what it really means. Ready?

Here’s the President during his February 28th address to the country:

“I know [my policies] won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business…”

Alright time’s up. What did he really mean?

If you said, “I know my policies will sit well with special interests and lobbyists,” you’re a winner!

Here’s the AP with proof:

The number of groups contributing money to presidential and congressional candidates has soared to an all-time high… [reflecting] a desire for access and clout when lawmakers tackle upcoming issues.

Among those forming new committees were the National Asphalt Pavement Association… the International Union of Operating Engineers… the Patriot Coal Corp. … and Varian Medical Systems…

“The hope is that a member of Congress will consider them part of their policy team, in the sense that they’ll take a phone call or meet with a representative of the group,” [Paul Herrnson, a University of Maryland professor] said.

How curious: If his policies didn’t “sit well” with special interests, why are they forming a record number of PACs (Political Action Committees)? Could it be because they know if their special interest pulls on the administration the right way they’ll be getting a substantial dole of taxpayer funds?

Answer: yes.

It’s just another lie from the Obama administration, which no longer surprises an informed observer like myself.

0 comments

// //

Printer-friendly version

Greed Is Not the Cause of Our Economic Crisis

Mar 13, 2009 8:43 am // Economics // Community Reinvestment ActFannie MaeFreddie Mac

"Hmm... who could be the cause of our crisis? Could it be... the government!?"

"Hmm... who could be the cause of our crisis? Could it be... government!?"

Nothing gets me going more than those who claim the “greed” of banks practicing “predatory lending” precipitated the current financial crisis.

Answer me this: If a bank knew that a certain borrower would be unable to pay off his mortgage — say this person put a scant 3% down and his income clearly makes him a high-risk candidate — why on Earth would the bank have granted the mortgage in the first place?

This is not “greed” we’re talking about; it’s stupidity.

Imagine if you gave a thousand dollars to a homeless man and expected to get it back, plus interest, in a year. That doesn’t make you a predatory lender; it makes you an idiot.

Of course, rational people and businesses would never act like this; and if a bank had grown large enough to be able to grant mortgages to thousands of people it obviously has acted rationally in the past, or else it would not have prospered in the free market.

But empiricism shows that formerly-rational banks have been acting in an irrational manner. Why is this? There must be something other than profit and rationality that I have not yet accounted for.

Hmmm… I wonder who could it be? Could it be… force!?

Yes, it must be! A rational actor would only act irrationally if he was being forced. And the only entity in the financial system that has the power to force is — you had better know the answer to this — the government.

Enter the Community Reinvestment Act, officially described as a measure “intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate.” Translation: government is going to damn well make sure banks are lending to people who have no business applying for a mortgage in the first place.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Meet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) established to “make homes affordable” to previously unqualified borrowers. The official definition of a GSE is “a company that gets to keep its profits but distribute its losses amongst American taxpayers.”

This means that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t have to worry about risk — as does every other firm in the free market — so they could start doling out mortgages like under-the-seat gifts on the Oprah Winfrey show. But because that scheme would quickly crumble and be exposed, the government decided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn’t do any direct lending; they merely purchased existing mortgages from lending institutions (which created the subprime mortgage market).

Now put yourself in the position of a banker, and you’ve got a less-than-desirable candidate for a mortgage sitting in front of you. You know his application should be denied; your bank would have gone out of business long ago if you had recklessly lent to high-risk applicants.

But the government is pushing you with the Community Reinvestment Act, so who knows? Maybe you’ll get thrown in jail if you don’t approve the mortgage. The potential borrower is black, so maybe he’ll file a discrimination lawsuit against you, claiming you to be a racist, which would damage not only your bank but your personal reputation as well.

On the other side, the government is pulling you with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both screaming in your ear, Go ahead and approve the loan. We’ll get it off your hands, no big deal.

So what’s a banker to do?

Of course, if it were you, I’d imagine you would approve the mortgage. (I would do the same.) But was it because of your “greed”? Or was it because the government put a gun to your head and backed you into a corner?

The real source of the current economic crisis is not greed; it’s force, manifested through the government.

Greed does not create economic crises; it creates economies. You should thank your lucky stars that guys like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and John Rockefeller were greedy; your life has benefited immeasurably from it.

I would recommend that unless you like standing in a long single-file line to get one ladle of chicken noodle soup, you should embrace — not stigmatize — greed.

1 comment

// //

Printer-friendly version