Views on Free Markets

In times of great productivity and success, many people speak out and call for a free market. That is, a market that has no interference from the government. The population sees cash flowing in, but then the government is taking a slice they don't deserve. However, then the going gets rough, or even, heaven forbid, really rough, and the same populace screams "Help, Help! Save me!" Make your mind up! Everyone wants what is the best for them at the time. No one thinks of the future! Even when times are bad, though, I think, the free market is the way to go, despite how much someone may lose, because if the free market remains free, then it will not die, and it will pick it self up. However, with regulation at both best and worst times, inevitably a point will be reached where that government force inadvertently causes an irrevocable failure.

There are several reasons for this. The first is bureaucracy. Although the least of the several reasons, it makes the most immediate sense. I mean, take our congress, for example. Can you imagine them running a business? Putting everything to a vote? Splitting every decision 50-50? Debating on every little thing? I can imagine it now.

"I say we put the tampon advertisements on a billboard on the highway to no where. That way it has a purpose."

"No, that's absolutely ridiculous! Do you not care about black people? These need to go on port-a-potty's on skid row. Apparently there's been a slump in sales. We can get them cheap spots."

See what I mean? This is exactly the pathetic way that congress argues. What business in their right mind commissions a highway to no where merely for the sake of it? And pork-belly spending? That method of liberal money throwing wouldn't even be tolerated at Enron! And to top it off, look at how they run their own business! Trillions of dollars of debt? Budget deficits? It's a wonder the white house hasn't been given a foreclosure notice. I can see it now.

"We're here to evict an umm.... Mr. George W. Bush? No, no, I don't care that you're giving a foreign leader a massage. I need you to leave. What? You're gonna tell Dick on me? Tell that to the bank."

Plus, the corruption and scandalous behavior that is done by our wonderful representatives on capital hill would rip a company to shreds! At least in the office it's only bosses doing their secretaries, not 65 year old men soliciting gay sex from an undercover police officer in an airport bathroom! And Elliot Spitz! He paid 85 dollars an hour to that chick? Where's the fiscal sense in that?

The second, more serious reason, is the statistical data on the track record of past governments, as well as simple economic common sense. Destruction of the free market delivers inferior products, and a lot of that is what hurts us. Our inferior products cannot compete with European and Japanese goods, seriously damaging our economy and overall GDP. The lower quality goods started with cars, and electronics, and has now spread to crappy mortgages, in a strange, twisted way. Penalties, mandates, and extra taxes force companies to take shortcuts and end up delivering those lower quality items. Germany and Japan, some of the strongest economies int he world, have governments that strictly protect the free market from interference, and their nations have profited greatly for it.

Finally, mandating and regulating the sale of certain items and business practices leave us no room for error. Free markets fall and heal; with this bailout, we won't get a second chance. Backing the wrong technologies or policies, may leave us with banks shutting down faster than we can handle, a bankrupt government. None of the security and illusions we had will be there anymore. And this time, there won't be a drop of oil left to give us a second chance.

Electoral College Analysis, September 20

The key states in the election are:

• Pennsylvania - Obama will have a tough time winning without PA. If PA goes McCain, I'd say there would be an 85% chance of a McCain victory.
• Florida - the reverse applies here. If FL goes Obama, he'll have about an 85% chance of victory
• New Mexico - the key to winning the 2008 election will most likely be in the west. In NM, Obama and McCain need to compete for the Hispanic vote.
• Colorado & Nevada - Here, it's the libertarian vote that counts. Colorado is a bit harder for McCain, Nevada is a bit harder for Obama. It will depend how many "Ron Paul Republicans" vote for Obama or Barr, and not McCain
• Virginia - Another important state more for Obama, if he gets it, he can afford to lose a bit in the west.
  

Max's Electoral College Predictions, Monday, September 15, 2008

Both the conventions are over, and Sarah Palin has been picked as VP for McCain, so I've made some changes. First of all, Montana changes from "Obama-Leaning" to "Strong McCain," and Alaska, the Dakotas, and Georgia changed from "McCain-Leaning" to "Strong McCain." Palin has excited the conservative base so much that it is unlikely for Obama to have a chance at winning Georgia, and her status as an "outsider" to national politics will help McCain get more turnout, and take back some Ron Paul supporters in Montana, Alaska, and the Dakotas. However, I still consider the Ron Paul factor to be important in Nevada, because of the problems with the state Republican convention. West Virginia is still a factor in the race, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama pulls an upset there because of Biden. Although polls showed Virginia leaning more toward McCain after the convention (also because of Palin), and I was going to move it to "McCain-Leaning" a SurveyUSA poll released today shows Obama up by 4% (with a 3.7% margin of error), so for now, I'll keep it in "Obama-Leaning." The EC totals are:

Strong Obama: 197
Obama-Leaning: 95
Total Obama:292

Strong McCain: 157
McCain-Leaning: 89
Total McCain: 246

Max's Electoral College Predictions, August 23, 2008

Well, Obama just picked Biden as his VP; before, I was going to put West Virginia into the "Strong McCain" category, but this should make WV a McCain-leaning swing state. I'm also tempted to move Pennsylvania into "Strong Obama," but I'm going to wait for some more polls to come out first. Here's the totals.

Strong Obama: 196
Obama-Leaning: 99
Total Obama: 295

Strong McCain: 129
McCain-Leaning: 114
Total McCain: 243

So, Russia is invading Georgia, while the rest of the world just sits still. It's sad. Let's take a look at the hypocrisy that's going around in the United States and the world right now. First of all, right now, the United States refuses to trade with Cuba, because of the communist government, but we have no sanctions directed at Russia, even though their invading a sovereign nation. Secondly, the media is spending more time covering the John Edwards' affair which took place TWO YEARS AGO, instead of covering hard, serious news that will have a huge effect on the world. If Russia is allowed to proceed unchecked, they'll see no reason why they shouldn't just go invade the Belarus, Azerbaijan, the Ukraine, or any one of the central Asian countries. I don't think military action is necessary yet, but an invasion, even at this point, would not be like the second Iraq or the Vietnam war, it would be comparable to the war in Afghanistan or the first Gulf War. Right now, though, we need to go for harsh economic sanctions, and only consider a military operation if that doesn't work.

Congress Apologizes for Slavery

So, on July 29, Congress issued a statement apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow laws that the nation had previously used. Slavery, and Jim Crow laws were horrible things that our nation did in the past. However,

Is this really what congress needs to be doing now? Look at the state that our nation is in. We're in the worst recession our nation has ever had since the Great Depression in 1929. Sure, slavery was horrible, but we need to be fixing our current problems first. It's no wonder that Congress has such low approval ratings. It's because they aren't doing anything useful.

About gun control.

I'm of the opinion to suspect that the average American would not have the guts to shoot someone with their gun that they're allowed to have as stated by the Constitution. Even in self defence, people neurologically have a difficult time taking another human life. Let's take a proverbial man named Bob. Bob lives in Detroit, and today he's standing on his porch watching as a dude in a ski mask with a black car is driving up to his house. Now let's put a gun in Bob's hand. The man in the ski mask pulls his car into Bob's driveway, and lifts up the garage door. He doesn't see Bob standing there, holding a gun pointed at the dude's head. Bob's hand is trembling because he's never killed someone before, but his three year old daughter is inside the house sleeping, so he pulls the trigger. The bullet rips through the burgler's left thigh, by any means a completely survivable injury. The burgler drops the garage door and falls to the ground in agony, and pulls out his own gun which he bought legally at a gun store (he had no criminal record, and turned to burglary because he'd lost his job and was desperate for money so that he wouldn't have to live in his car). Meanwhile the neighbors call the cops because they hear gunshots. Bob, feeling relieved that the man isn't dead, because this means his conscience is clear of the guilt that tends to come along with killing a man, is now faced with the possibility of being shot himself as the burgler is now holding his gun at Bob. The burgler has never killed anyone before either, and is using the gun in hopes of scaring Bob into not killing him, because the burgler doesn't want to die any more than Bob does. Bob, scared out of his wits, pulls the trigger and plugs the burgler square in the chest. This is a fatal wound this time, but in the moment before death the burgler pulls the trigger, more from the shock of the impact than intent to kill, but the damage is done and Bob dies as well. The police arrive to find two dead men on a driveway clutching pistols, with a three year old child screaming in the house. Had neither of the men had guns the scenario would have ended most likely with a high speed chace as the burgler tries to escape with the stuff he stole from Bob's house. He would have been caught, since he wasn't evil, just desperate, and eventually realizes that escape is futile. Bob is badly shaken, but otherwise he's fine.

And as to the use of guns to protect the populace from the government, I feel this is a useless pursuit because the army, especially after having its ranks swelled out of proportion by the heavy recruitment and new technology from the iraq war, could not exactly be stopped by a few civilians with handguns. It takes more than your neigborhood firearms dealer to bring down a tank.

I think gun control is the correct avenue to take in this moral conflict.