I have recently been turned onto some old PBS based presentations by economist Milton Friedman.
Turns out he is one of the most respected under recognized economist of the mid to late 20th century. His presentations on PBS aired in the early 80's.
He really advocates for a more limited government and more free market. Especially, he argues that we need to do it and not wait or try to make the rest of the world go along. He thinks it will benefit us more even if there is unfair competition out there in the world.
His PBS series of ten(10) video segments and debate are very provocative. He purports to not have all the ideas but, uses examples around the world where his ideas of limited government are helping to create a better of citizenry and also sights examples where the reverse is true. He's very good to not make it exclusively about the United States. As we have become more global and interconnected many of his ideas and principals have become more poignant, prudent and relevant.
I'm going to include a link to all 10 episodes. Each one is a good hour long so it is a lot of heavy viewing. He covers topics like schools, free markets, dealing with poverty, consumer regulation, and much much more.
Free to Choose: Part 1: Power of the Market
Free to Choose: Part 2: Tyranny of Control
Free to Choose: Part 3: Anatomy of a Crisis
Free to Choose: Part 4: From Cradle to Grave
Free to Choose: Part 5: Created Equal
Free to Choose: Part 6: What's Wrong with our Schools
Free to Choose: Part 7: Who Protects the Consumer
Free to Choose: Part 8: Who Protects the Worker
Free to Choose: Part 9: How to Cure Inflation
Free to Choose: Part 10: How to Stay Free
Well you may think that some of these topics or elements of discussion are dated. True they seem to be as things have changed. Interstate commerce restrictions seem to have been lifted. Some changes have been made to welfare and the FDA seems to have improved their approval process for drugs. At least more seem to be getting out into the market though it still can take years of testing. However, due to some of things that have been brought up in these discussions may well have help win the election. In light of the points and topics brought up here you might want to rethink Mitt Romney's 47% comment.
He's clearly a libertarian at heart. And a laissez-faire kind of guy.
The ever difficult task is to find that proper balance of Government intervention and the free market. To find the proper blend of hands off economics and general protections we expect to have in society.
I'd say that Mitt Romney was more of a Friedman economics guy then Obama, and clearly we would have likely been better off if he had been elected. Only time and hindsight will tell...........
Just as it will with the whole Gay marriage debate!
So watch the videos if you have not already and become enlightened. It might not make you change your mind completely but it could help you to see things from more then one side.
Well you can say that on November 6th 2012 we had another historic election. Our first US black president was reelected. Our first major party Mormon candidate did not win the election.
One way or the other many things occurred in the election that beg to be analysed.
Due to the fact that we have an electoral college system only about 10 states were in play. What that means is that only these 10 states were close enough in the polling that no one could predict which way the would go there. Places like Utah are in general so conservative that it is a foregone conclusion that the Republican candidate will win there from now till well "Hell freezes over"; basically forever.
Many people complain that the electoral system needs to be removed and that the popular vote needs to be put in place. There are visible down falls to each of these systems. Many complain that "safe" states are only used as piggy banks by the candidates. While others mention that small states like New Hampshire get attention not normally given a small state due to the fact it is in play. The reverse might occur if you have a popular vote scheme.
States like California, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, and New York could determine everything. Places like Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan etc with larger populations would become the second tier places to court. You would sure have a lot more movement around the nation. But, you can guarantee that states with small populations like Rhode Island, Maine, the Dakotas, Montana etc would be left out all together. Why spend time going after 1 million votes when you can run some ads in Los Angeles and cover 5 million people. Simple economics, and critical mass.
It might be better to do an electoral college based on the the popular vote in each state. Thus Wyoming with 3 electoral votes would have handed them out as follows - 2 for Romney, 1 for Obama. Colorado with 9 would have been as follows - 5 for Obama and 4 for Romney. Why? Near ties and odd numbers gives the extra to the winner. Wisconsin with 10 would have been 6 for Obama and 4 to Romney or something along those lines.
Something to thin about.
So what are my opinions on the election. Several of the so called swing states - Ohio for example had a vote spread of around 100,000. That is dang close in my opinion. If you check out the map of Ohio you see that Mitt Romney won most of the less populated counties, and Obama got just a few counties though the ones with more population. It vary well could have gone either way. There are about a half dozen states that the spread of fairly small. This means that had the turn out been lower likely you'd have gotten a Republican president. Though it all depends on where things are lower in turn out. Sadly, this is one of the worse things about our system.
You have multiple steps to getting a vote as a presidential candidate. First the eligible person has to register, and then they have to actually bother to vote the day of the election or send in their vote via mail if applicable. So most people that vote are fairly informed and are making an effort. The lazy bum, uninterested person with little or no knowledge of the facts is not likely to even go out and vote let alone register to vote. It's the semi-informed people that get swayed by advertising and propaganda that turn into the dangerous voter. That can swing an election and do so sometimes based on emotions, lies, and other poppycock.
The election out here in California is a classic example of the semi-informed being lead astray by lies, and the like in ever kind of perceivable of propaganda.
I'm including a link to a few of the bad ones.
So if you watched each these ads you get both sides of the picture. Somebody has to be lying since both sides can't be right in the end, right? That is where things get a little choppy. You end up with so many mixed messages and poppycock. That forces you go go and read the real language of the proposition. Then you open your eyes. But, mister semi-informed will not really bother to go and read the actual language. He'll start believing the ads if he is given enough of them. Or become a little more confused and vote no since that usually leaves things with the status quo.
it's easy to see why people get confused. It's also does not help that the actual propositions are written in such a way as to be confusing. I actually did some digging on Prop 37 the genetic engineered food act. Not to clear in the language that the NO or Yes guys were right. In those cases it is better to leave it alone.
Who knows what the semi-informed voted. Bottom line is that the proposition did not pass.
Beyond the typical proposition with all the associated lies and distortions we had two competing tax measures. Both were to fix the budget cuts that have been laid on the schools over the last several years as California has struggled with the effects of the recession. One planned on boosting the sales tax 1/4 ¢ and hit up those making more them $250,000 for more income tax. The other main claim was that the money would go more directly to the schools (K-12) and it would hit everyone with an income tax increase.
Here are the final results
Proposition 30 - Increase Education Tax
Jerry Brown's Tax Increase.
100% reporting
Option
Votes
Pct.
✓ Yes
4,967,039
53.9%
No
4,251,558
46.1%
Proposition 38 - Increase Tax K-12
Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase.
100% reporting
Option
Votes
Pct.
✘ No
6,509,127
72.3%
Yes
2,493,398
27.7%
Do you see how one went down in flames and the other passed by a small margin. One might wonder why. I think the analysis I heard on KFIAM640.com would sum it up best.
In essence it states - "We are willing to have someone else foot the bill but, when it comes to effecting us we say 'NO Thanks'."
People don't mind taking that guy seen as rich that lives in another city far away up north. It's not their money so why not force that guy to pay his fair share. The old fair share argument.
That 'Fair Share' argument has come up a lot during this election.
What is a fair share? It likely will be different to the guy making minimum wage compared to the small business owner.
Could this visual example of "Fair Share" logic be where we are heading as a country. We do have an exuberant number of people dependent on the government. From Health Insurance, to social security to Food Stamps. Likely that 47% statement by Romney is not that far from inaccurate. However, not all those benefiting from the government vote for the party more associated with handouts. It all depends on why your getting the benefit.
But, are we turning ourselves in to a bunch of lazy bums. Those that feel they are entitled no matter how hard they work. That the successful must pay their ever growing 'Fair Share'. We have to stem this tide of thinking. We have to rise above and make this country great once again. Get out of this entitlement feeling and go back to the get the job done sentiment of the farming days.
We also have to find more common ground and things we can build on. Not the stuff we can not agree upon.
I like the way the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints put it.
Over the weekend we were able to view a session of Meet the Press where they interview Mitt Romney Republican Candidate for President of the United States of America.
I really liked the interview. Not only because Mitt is from my church and religious persuasion. It was more on some of the responses that the provided. Naturally some of his responses had the old political talk with vagueness and non-commitment.
There were mainly a couple points that the interviewer was going after. One was how different will he be in regards to the economy and secondly, a few thoughts on him as a person and the fact that he and his wife are "insensitive" etc.
He brought up a good point in regards to the economy. Basically, you want things to get better. And to solve some of the revenue problems we have at the Federal level we need to get more people back to work and not just tax the rich because they have so much. Yes, per the typical republican response he is not a redistribution type of person. He is more the lift things up from the bottom type of person. If let's say 1 million people become employed and that all of them make $8 per hour. That is a ton of money back into the system. Now some of those people may have been getting assistance from the government or other location. They now with some increased income can begin to buy necessities (Not luxuries and the like). It may be hard to follow but, people employed even at lower rates is better then people that are not employed. It generates a certain amount of tax revenue (income and sales) as well as purchases etc. which then go toward revenue and profits for the companies or institutions.
Unfortunately, he was pressed a bit on what kind of tax incentives/breaks and loopholes he would remove so that we stay revenue neutral when he implements his plans to lower the tax rates of the higher income earners and middle class. He just kept going back to the loopholes and incentives. He did not provide any examples. Now, in reality not providing specifics is a good thing because when you go and have to compromise you might find that one thing you promised has to be taken off the table to get the votes needed for overall reform. So yes he was acting like a typical politician in the end. What does he need to do to not get that evasive branding and that of "he really only wants to help the wealthy"; he needs to provide some things that would be on the table for consideration. Take for example, capital gains taxes, or mortgage deductions, or some types of limits on donations etc. Maybe even increasing the amount of income that is taxed for social security or medicare. Does not mean he would be committing to actually removing those deductions or loopholes. He'd be saying they are things to be considered, things that could make a difference in the overall picture. If in the end it is found that removing the mortgage deduction would have an overall adverse effect then they would not touch that. Until you have some real numbers you should not be promising to touch anything.
Vague may work for a while but, as things get tighter in the race there will be people looking a little more at the specifics. Then as they get a more broad picture of the candidate and his ideas or principles they will begin to feel comfortable with said candidate.
But, making empty promises never helps. It's a kin to lying and no one needs that label.
As for the lack of empathy the Romney family have for the average person - Ann Romney give one of the best responses.
"MS. ROMNEY: Well, I think the-- the thing that I want to communicate
to people, and that it's so important that people understand, is that
Mitt and I do recognize that we have not had a financial struggle in our
lives. But I want people to believe in their hearts that we know what
it is like to struggle. And our struggles have not been financial, but
they've been with health and with difficulties in-- in different things
in life. And one thing that I-- that I again like to remind people is
that multiple sclerosis has been my teacher. It has been at times a
cruel teacher. But it has also been a great gift in my life because
what it has done it has taught me to be more compassionate and caring
for others that are suffering. And I know that people are suffering
right now. And for people to think that we don't have empathy just
because we're not suffering like they're suffering is-- is ridiculous.
It’s-- it’s ridiculous to think that you can’t have empathy for somebody
that’s struggling.
Our life has always been devoted to those that are struggling more
than we are and I was grateful for the opportunity that we had at the
convention for others to speak up and talk about the kind of lives we’ve
led-- we’ve led. And in particular for Mitt who really has been
demonized in many ways as being heartless. And for people to stand up
and say, excuse me, he was there when my son was dying of leukemia. He
came to my son’s bedside. He did all of these things for my son. And
then another woman saying how Mitt was there for her. So there’re
hundreds of those stories that haven’t been told. And it was refreshing
to me for the American people to finally be able to see the lens
through which I see my husband and the perspective in which I understand
how he operates." Meet the Press Sunday September 9th 2012
Yes it might be hard to think of what is like to be Homeless for them. But, when you begin to consider the other struggles and challenges you begin to see they do have a unique perspective. They are not totally insensitive and callus. And his work as a Bishop and Stake President allowed him to come into contact with a bunch of people from all different walks of life. The labourer or store clerk to the business owner, or operations manager.
And Ann Romney gave another great response earlier on when asked how she would feel if Mitt became the first Mormon President.
"MS. ROMNEY: …I-- I certainly hope so. I mean it's always wonderful
when milestones like that are accomplished. And I think that was why we
were all so pleased with so many Americans. We’re so pleased with
the-- the last election and seeing that a black man was elected as
president of the United States. It made us proud as Americans to know
that those prejudices that we've had in the past are-- are falling away." Meet the Press Sunday September 9th 2012
So let us give him a little slack for all he's being hit with. It's not easy to give your life story and have it examined with a fine tooth comb. Let's look to the good things he has done and hope he can give some more concrete ideas as to how he will fix things. If you go by the view point that Obama has squandered the last several years then we do need a change. But, we need to verify what type of change we are getting ourselves into.
But, as for me it is looking much better to have a change then none at all....... what ever you do please make an informed decision when you vote. Get additional information and verify the facts from both sides of the isle. You'll be glad you did and will then vote with a good conscience.
