Thursday, July 31, 2008
Exxon Mobil announced "record" (depends on how you look at it; Exxon is far from the most profitable American company by any real economic measure) profits today, and leftist Democrats immediately jumped on that as a way to deflect voters from the INSANE refusal of Democrats to ALLOW (not subsidize) development of our own domestic oil, and other, resources (offshore drilling, ANWR, oil shale, nuclear power, coal, etc). Attacking Exxon will not reduce gasoline prices ONE PENNY (as Democrats know), but this is an opportunity for Democrats to DEMAGOGUE--what they do best (certainly THINKING is not their forte').
Let us state a truism: One coumpany earning profits of 10 billion dollars is NO different from 100 companies earning 100 million dollars each, if the profit margins are the same. Google, for example, is MUCH more "profitable" than Exxon, but not as BIG. But it is fallacious to say profits are "obscene" when one company has a cerain profit margin on a LARGE equity base, while not obscene if 100 companies make the SAME total profits on the same profit margin, but with each having 1/100 of the equity base.
Notice, however, taht this blog is almost always right. What have I told conservatives for YEARS? I have told conservatives that BIG MERGERS are a DISASTER politically for conservatives and the free market. That is NOT because the profits of the "merged" companies suddenly become obscene when they are the profits of one company , instead of several. It is because it gives LEFTISTS a chance to do exactly what they are doing: DEMAGOGUE on the matter by attacking "Big Oil" or "Big Drug" or big corporations in general--giving them an easy argument that ONLY big government can counter these large corporations.
Firtjer. tjere is NO reason to allow BIG MERGERS of healthy companies. Exxon is a perfect example. Exxon used to be SEVERAL seaparate companies, with adequate resources to compete on their own. That included Gulf, Mobil, and several other very profitable, separate companies. The present Exxon Mobil is the result of BIG mergers that never should have been allowed. As stated, they are a godsend to Democrats. Beyond that, however, there is NO reason to allow them under free market theory. Free market theory assumes an infinite number of free market units, and that none of the units are big enough to affect the market by themselves, or in tacit ccombination with a few other big companies.
I have told you recently, corretly, that T. Boone Pickes does not agree with free market theory I have also told you that these big corporate empire builders, like those who formed the present Exxon BY MERGRE, do not believe in free market theory. Too many conservatives do not truly believe in free market theory, becase they fail to recognize that BIG MERGERS violate free market theory by creating entities that are too BIG. That is the real problem with Exxon. It is NOT that Exxon makes such obscene profits. Bill Gates' Microsoft was MUCH MORE profitable, and Bill Gates himself became RICHER than anyone connected with Exxon. (I question, by the way, whether Bill Gates really believes in free market theory, but at least Microsoft did NOT primarily grow from MERGER.) The problem is NOT "profits", but SIZE created by MERGERS that should never have been allowed.
It follows that the size of Exxon does not necessarily have anythng to do with the price of gasoline. The price of gasoline might well be the same if Exxon were 10 separate companies, instead of one huge one. But the size allows Democratic demagoguery, AND it reduces the decision makeers and competitors (two key advantages of free markets over the CENTRAL PLAINNING in which T. Boone Pickens and leftist Democratts agree). Ten companies instead of one means TEN decision makers (managements) instead of ONE. It means TEN competitors instead of ONE. Over the long term, that probably will have an effect on the price. Even if it does not, however, if you really believe in free market theory TEN separate decision makers representing competitive units are better than ONE.
Now are Democrats making this point. Don't be silly Democrats LIKE big corporations. They have no interest in preventing corporations from merging. They may DEMAGOGUE by mentioning it from time to time, but they are not serious That it because they KNOW that the larger the corporation, the more leftist Democrats can DEMONIZE (demagogue about) the corporation. That is what is happening now, and it is exactly what I have been telling you for more than 4 years (well before gasoline prices became a problem). It happens in Big Drug, and everywhere else BIG MERGERS have created these huge corporations (for nogood free market reason, since the mergin corporations had more than enough assets to compete as independent companies).
I repeat (and you should know by now): This blog is always right. The whole distorted, miserable saga of Exxon Mobil has proved it again. Think of how much better it would be for free market advocates if Exxon were still 5 separate companies!!!! The profits would not be "record". The villain would not be so convenient. Nope. Those mergers were a disaster for conservatives and free market advocates, and a godsend to leftist Democrats trying to DISTORT and DEMAGOGUE the significance of the profits.
By the way, do you want proof that leftist Democrats (not to mention John McCain) do not believe in free market captalism. Consider their assertion that Exxon Mobil has an OBLIGATION to use its profits to benefit the public, the way DEMORATS (central planners all) are instructing. Out of what "free market manual" does that socialist view come? None, of course. IT is a Democrat CONCEIT that profits of corporations, as well as wages of us all, belong to DEMOCRATS (the government, which Demcorats regard as the same thing), to be used as DEMORATS desire.
The problem, of course, is that even these huge oil compniaes (who don't much, as stated, believe in free markets themselves) play into this by suggesting that they ARE acting in the "ublic interest", as if they AGREE that they have an obligation to do so.
Free market theory suggests that the opporunity for PROFIT (the very engine that makes the thoery work) will entirce MULTIPLE decision makers to allocate resources where the opportunity for profit is greatest, simply to earn that profit. This means that resources are automatically allocated where the public as a whole VOTES (with their pocketbook--more reliable than any political vote) that the resources should be allocated. In this case, that SHOULD mean MORE DRILLING, except that Democrat CENTRAL PLANNERS have excluded the most promising ares from drilling. Not that this free market allocation of resources does NOT rely on corporatiions acting in the PUBLIC interest. In fact, the theory assumes that the private entities will act in their OWN interest, but with the RESULT being that the public interest in the best allocation of resources is advanced. It DISTORTS the theory if businesses are trying to figure out what the PUBLIC interest is, rather than acing in their own, private interest, because that is again CENTRAL PLANNING rather than the free market at work.
And you wonder why I, as a conservative who believes in free market theory, get depressed. You should at least not wonder where you will get accurate information. Day in and day out this blog is proven right, even as to future predictions (such as the way leftist Democrats USE big, merged corporations for their own demagogic purposes).
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
If Barack "World" Obama had not already earned the nickname (with continued apologies to former NBA star "World" B. Free), he would have done so this week.
"This is the moment the world has been waiting for. I have become a symbol of America returning to the traditions that made her great."
The aboove is an approximate quote of what Barack "World" Obama said in a meeting with Democrats in the House.
Then came the usual "explanation" that the above quote was not as arrogant as it sound (even though it pretty much merely REPEATS the Berlin arrogant speech: "People of the world. This is our moment. This is our time."). Rather, Obama is supposed to have made clear that it is not about "him", but that he has merely become a symbol of the aspirations of the entire world looking for a Messiah--OOPS!!! I meant looking for a symbol to express what they want.
Think about that a little bit. Is not the "explanation" MORE arrogant than the words themselves. So Obama is a SYMBOL upon which the entire WORLD is placing their hopes. Gee. Americans are bad (as Obama keeps telling us; see previous entry). Best iindications are that HALF of us believe McCain is a better, and safer, vehicle for our hopes and aspirations.
Is Obama sayimg the WORLD would be justified in rejecting the United States totally, or even RIOTING, if we rejected the SYMBOL that the whole world now believes in? That is what the "explanation" suggests. The more simple, straight forward interpretaion is that Obama has come to believe his own rhetoric--to believe that he really is the Messiah read to save the world, and lead us all to the Promised Land.
For a man with almost NO accomplishments, and little experience, Obama is full of himself. Again, this blog told you FIRST that this is one DANGEROUS man, beyond being a creature of the far left.
P.S. Let us go back to that non-visit to the troops in Germany--a visit that had been SCHEDULED. What did Obama say in LONDON, after the first tactic of blaming it on the Pentagon fell apart? He said that he was told that one of his CAMPAIGN ADVISORS could not go with him, because it would make the visit "too political", and that therefore he cancelled the visit (rather than the campaign advisor, for the time of the visit). Now it is unclear whether Obama could really have thought that media and/or cameras could go with him on this visit. He may be ARROGANT enough to have though so. But my previous comment about cameras being more important to Obama than soldiers stands, because it is obvious he chose his CAMPAIGN over the soldiers. It is further obvious that PHOTO OPPORTUNITIES (cameras) were what were IMPORTANT to Obama on the trip. Again, the "explanation" hardly makes Obama look any better. Everyone agrees that he could have visited the soldiers privately, or even with a Senate aide or two. He was just not allowed to involve his campaign in the visit. Did Obama, in his arrogance, merely get ANNOYED that he could not take whom he wanted? Did he really think the media could somehow be involved? Who knows, and who cares. The man is all about portraying himself as the Messiah to the MEDIA, and it is hard to be "unfair" to a man enamored of himself and his own image to that degree. Contrary to the "explanation" about the statement quoted above at the beginning of this entry, for Obama it obviously IS all about HIM. If ever anyone deserved a sarcastic nickname, Barack "World" Obama does.
"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Is T. Boone Pickens really a communist/Marxist? Of course not, but that is the problem, and why conservatives are facing exile in the wilderness. The reaction to solving every problem today is reflexively the CENTRAL PLANNING soulution--NOT making the free market and decentralized decision making we that is the foundation of this country work better. Central planning is the Communist (with a capital "C")/socialist approach to "solving" problems--in the face of experience that it does not work (including recent experience in the inability of the Federal Government to act efficiently in ANY area).
It is amazing how the left cries out about freedom in the most inconsequential areas (monitoring o finternational terrorist communicatios), while pursuing COERCION (taking away freedom) in the most important areas of our life. This includes the freedom to drive the vehicle we want and to use the light bulb we want.
This brings us to T. Boone Pickens, central planner and all around arrogant human being (as ALL central planners have to be, to assert that THEY know enough to TELL us what to do).
T. Boone Pickens wants to MANDATE that we "solve" our depednence on foreign oil by COERCING people to generate energy in the exact way that T. Boone Pickens thinks it should be generated. One of the reasons I am not religious is that I don't concede that GOD should be able to tell me what to believe, and what to do. T. Boone Pickens is not God. He is just, like all central planners, a "God" wannabe.
You heard it here first, and I heard T. Boone Pickens confirm it yesterday on Sean Hannity's radio program. In fact, I listened to that segment of the ratido program just to confirm my impression of good old T. Boone. As usual, I was vindicated by what he said.
Pickens wants the Federal Government to MANDATE that ALL vehicle "fleets" in this country buy ONLY "natural gas" powered vehicles. That would include the Federal, and all other, governments, but would also include all private "fleets" This shows you that T. Boone is like all central planners. He is not only about coercion, but about DECEPTION. The idea is to leave you the illusion that you, as an individual, have choices, while doing your best to take away those choices by degrees. The man is a menace. I have nothing but CONTEMPT for him.
You doubt me on DECEPTION? You FOOL you!!! Good old T. Boone is deliberately PANDERING to the other, leftist central planners out there by saying that we "can't drill our way out of this problem" (fuel prices). That is the leftist mantra, and gold od T. Boone knows it. He is cynically trying to USE the same slogan (meaningless, since every barrel of oil we drill domestically is one LESS barrel we have to import from elsewhere, whether we "can drill our way" out of the (whole) problem or not. T. Boone Pickens has no real idea whether we can "drill our way" out of the problem. He simply wants to COERCE us into doing what he thinks should be done (which, incidentally, would make him a lot of money).
This is entirely cynical and contemptible, because Pickens wil say he is for "drilling"--for trying everything--while trying to MANDATE that we do it his way. That is deceptive as Hell, and cynically manipulatitive as Hell. Did I tell you that I have nothing but conempt for good old T. Boone?
Does T. Booone Pickens believe in free market theory? Of course not. The OTHER aprt of his "plan" is MASSIVE subsidy of wind and solar power. He wants "production tax credits", and other government aid, to FORCE the use of solar and wind power by the GOVERNMENT paying for it--wheen those "alternative energy" sources cannot stand on their own.
Lefitst Democrats are fond of calling cuts in TAX RATES as government "expenditures"--a LIE. That terminology assumes that ALL money belongs to the government, and that the government merely lets you keeep some of it to give you an illusion of freedom. Yes, I understand that, to leftists, this is not a lie, because that is what they really BELIEVE. Objectively, however, our country was founded on freedom, and the idea that your money and property is yours, and not the government's. It is NOT an "expenditure" to let people keep more of their own money.
However, things like "production tax credits", and other subsidies for alternative energy, generally ARE expenditures. They are, in effect, direct PAYMENTS of government money to distort the free market. Thus, as my brother (the co-owner of a trucking company) has noted--passed on previously in this blog--people have made money by IMPORTING diesel into this country, adding "biodiesel" for purposes of making money out of the subsidy, and then EXPORTINGthe SAME diesel.
If the government sets up a situation where people can make money only BECAUSE of the government expenditures, that is a distortion of the free market. Now, you can justify one time accelerated deductions, or even credits ("expenditures") to enable people to make capital expenditures necessary to get economically desireable activities off of the ground. However, if you have to KEEP massively subsidizing to keep the "alternatives" competitive, then they are NOT really competitive. You are engaging in a central planning distortion of the free market. That is what good old T. Boone wants to do. He is really TELLING you that is what he wants to do. This shows how far we have sunk: where "businessmen" and "investors" are willing to come out and TELL you they don't believe in the free market.
Lucky, isn't it, that T. Boone Pickens does not have a snowball's chance in Hell of selling his "plan" (although he can cause damage in the WAY he is trying to sell it). Do you think that environmentalists are really going to want to MANDATE one fossil fuel in place of another to run cars. They want ELECTRIC cars, or other types of vehicles that do not run on fossil fuels at all And the free market SHOULD be able to sort out which "alternatives" to prsent day vehicles are economic, and which are not. The whole, correct, theory of free markets is that they make those decisions without the CETRAL PLANNING of fallible human beings, who FORCE their deicisions on us in a way that we can't even correct disasters until they are already terrible ("Lysenkoism"). T. Boone Pickens (and too many of our "capitalists) does NOT believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand". Rather, he believes that He is God, and capable of making infallible decisions.
Maybe electric cars ARE the future. Maybe hydrogen cars are the future. We KNOW nuclear power could be the future, if the government (and environmentalists) did not make it impossible. MAYBE oil shale will allow us to continue to devleop the future without forcing uneconomic (expensive) energy sources on us. Maybe oil shale is still uneconomic. We, and good old T. Boone, do not KNOW unless we allow these various "solutioins" to compete in the free market on a somewhat level playing field. If we try to FORCE on "solution" or the other, we may well choose the WRONG one.
Contrary to asserrtions by good old T. Boone, and others, the "technoloty" is NOT there for these "alternatives" UNTIL thaey are efficient enough to be COMPETITIVE, without making the "profit" come solely from GOVERNMENT expenditures.
I have already told you, in this blog, how to bring down gasoline prices. T. Boone, and the left, are BOTH not interested in that so much as they are in FROCING their own agenda on us all.
The one are I agree with good old T. Boone on is that the Federal Government, and other governments, should put their money where their mouth is. If the Federal Government believes that people should buy electric cars, then the Federal Government should be purchasing electric cars for ITS us (rather than FORCING central planning "solutions" on the rest of us),. I have said that the Federal Government should IMMEDIATELY announce that it is IMMEIDIATELY reducing its gasoline use by 20%--whatever it takes to do it, INCLUDING WALKING. The Federal Government should act by EXAMPLE, and NOT by force trying to impose central planning "solutions" on us all.
Yes, it is lucky that T. Boone's plan is going nowhere (although I am afraid that we are going to create a boondoggle in wind and solar, where people "invest" money where the only economic reality of the investment is to make a profit out of Federal expenditures).
The free market actually works. We should try it sometime.
Monday, July 28, 2008
If you read this blog, you know that Barack Obama has earned the nickname of "Spanish" Obama. That nickname was earned when Obama answered a question from a person concerned about illegal immigrants/immigrants not speaking English by saying: "Parents should not worry as much about immigrants learning English--they'll learn--as they should about their (the parents') children learning SPANISH." (Entire, Exact quote is in entry noting Obama's new, earned nickname).
Saturday, July 26, 2008
population, reminded him of Iraq."
population, reminded him of Iraq."
See Tuesday's entry and the upcoming Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate prsentation in this blog later today.
However, you will note that CNN has the gall to be running one of those over-the-top, hysterical series called "Black in America"--the point of which is to denigrate all of the progess made on racial discrimination in this country. The very network that is quoting all of those statistics to show what they do not show (see my entry analyzing the AP attempt to do that very same thing with regard to blacks in the military), printed an article from the AP with the following sentence:
population, reminded him of Iraq."
population, reminded him of Iraq."