Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Cool Site of the Day, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Education, Energy, Health Care, Immigration, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, The United States, Unemployment | Tags: American Manufacturing, Regulatory Costs, Trump's Carrier Deal
Editor in chief of American Thinker Thomas Lifson has two important articles today, explaining Donald Trump’s Carrier deal. There has been much angst about the jobs saved at Carrier in the wake of tax incentives from the State of Indiana, because there are still a significant number of jobs going to Mexico. We misunderstand what Trump is doing, Lifson says, and explains what the President-elect has in mind. Do read both pieces, they really are important. What Trump intends:
He has announced that, reigning globalist economic theory to the contrary notwithstanding, the United States must maintain a manufacturing sector. The shift of manufacturing to low wage countries is not a law of nature, not an inevitability, and not a path that America will take in the future. We cannot abandon the regions of our country that have devoted themselves to manufacturing. He has not mentioned the national security dimension of such a policy, but it is obvious to all but a few theorists that you cannot maintain a strong nation if you depend on others to do your manufacturing.
The combination of information technology, robotics, new materials, and many other advances (including management advances such as lean manufacturing and continuous improvement organizational disciplines) has squeezed low value labor out of manufacturing. Global companies that locate within their most important market are able to create serious competitive advantages over companies assembling products in low wage companies through flexibility and rapid response time.
The second of the two companion pieces is “The Key to Trump’s Carrier deal: Next-generation manufacturing.” Do read both articles. There is a lot of important insight here.
Progressives are confident of their own knowledge and expertise, and feel completely confident in their ability to issue rules and regulations (backed up with enormous penalties to make sure you understand their importance) so that you will run your business in a way that the progressives find more agreeable. When I was looking for a new car last year, I learned the extent to which automobile design and performance has been changed and controlled by the EPA’s fuel efficiency standards. More aluminum, more substitution of light things for heavy things. One dealer said the outside mirrors would go soon because of that. Some have said that higher highway fatalities are probably due to the Fuel efficiency standards.
The addition of ethanol to gasoline, deadly for small engines like lawn mowers and appliances, has been shown to accomplish nothing in the prevention of greenhouse gases, and was a deal with the corn lobby to get enough votes to pass the 1990 Clean Air Act. Useless, but a highly expensive boondoggle that affected far more things than the amount of CO2 in car exhaust.
The federal demand to show calorie numbers for fast food on signs and menus has been shown to be completely ineffective because people don’t care. They know fast food is more caloric than an ordinary meal, but they want it because it’s fast and tasty. For the industry, the costs are enormous, but federal regulators are not interested in that. Ditto the drive for a $15 minimum wage, which is simply an unemployment program for the beginning or unskilled worker. McDonalds is already committed to a nationwide program of installing computer kiosks to replace workers.
The EPA is probably the biggest offender. Their ideas about what is environmentally friendly are weak on science and heavy on agency power and control. It’s an agency of zealots, and should be abolished. That may not happen, but their power will be cut back. Myron Ebell will be a terrific advisor on the EPA and it’s overreach.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Health Care, Intelligence, Law, National Security, Taxes, The United States | Tags: An Impressive Group, The Trump Cabinet so far, Trump Appointments
Courtesy of Jim Geraghty at National Review, here’s a list of the incoming cabinet so far: It’s a pretty impressive group!
Attorney General: Senator Jeff Sessions.
Secretary of Defense: General James Mattis
Secretary of Health and Human Services:Representative Tom Price
Secretary of Transportation: Former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
Secretary of Education: Philanthropist Betsy DeVos
Treasury Secretary: Banker Steven Mnunchin
Secretary of Commerce: Financier Wilbur Ross
Ambassador to the United Nations: Governor Nikki Haley
White House Chief of Staff: House RNC Chairman Reince Priebus
National Security Advisor: Former Defense Intelligence Agency director Michal Flynn
CIA Director: Representative Mike Pompeo.
Administrator Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Indiana health-policy consultant Seema Verma
Marine General James Mattis will need a waiver from Congress, as he has only been retired for three years, and the law specifies military officers must be retired for seven years. General George Marshall required such a waiver, which was promptly given, as will be the waiver for General Mattis.
Senator Kirsten Gillebrand, who replaced Hillary in the Senate, and reportedly has presidential ambitions, says she will oppose General Mattis’ appointment. I guess she will take advantage of any opportunity to get attention. You’ve probably noticed that Democrats are really having a hard time accepting the new reality.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2016, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes, Unemployment | Tags: A Little Humor, Election 2016, Riots and Mob Behavior
Of the 112 “protesters” arrested in Portland riots, 69 of them could not be found to have turned in a ballot, nor were registered to vote in Oregon. Interesting details largely unmentioned by the media.
Some Leftist remarked “Why can’t we run someone who’s beloved?”
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Crime, Domestic Policy, Economy, Health Care, Immigration, Law, Politics, Taxes | Tags: Ordinary Human Beings, Populism is Just a Label, The Media Has a Lot to Answer For
The pollsters and ballot analysts have a lot to answer for. To accomplish their ends, they separate the American people into a wide variety of pigeonholes—the working class, college-educated women, the rich, illegal immigrants, felons, residents of the inner-cities, millennials, aging baby-boomers. As if separating people into groups tells you, not just how people will vote, but who they are and what their issues are. Because those labels are broadcast over and over, there is the assumption that some important knowledge about the people has been portrayed. Not so.
People are individuals, and human nature doesn’t fit nicely into slots. The Left’s constant drive is for “diversity”which is their bow to people of different races. The Media latches on to convenient tags, without giving much thought to whether or not the tags actually fit anything. Human beings are tribal, it’s how we are made. We form little tribes of those who share the same interests and ideas, and we may belong to several distinct and different tribes. The Left rejects that idea, and wants to realign us into groups and neighborhoods that conform more closely to their ideas of what is proper. Colleges put in all sorts of affirmative action programs, try to reorganize people into more correct groups, and then cannot understand why all the black students sit at the same table in the student union. It is not, by the way, racism.
The Left always claims that Republicans collectively and individually are “Racist.”Anyone with the slightest smattering of history knows this to be absurd, but apparently far too many Americans have little historic knowledge.
College educated women were going for Hillary in a big way, we were told. I’m a college educated woman, and I certainly felt no compulsion to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor did any of my friends who are also college educated women. We’re pretty well informed as to what Hillary has been up to for the past 30 years, and reject her categorically as being unqualified for the job.
There’s a big difference between being anti illegal immigration, and being anti-immigration. We welcome immigrants but want them to apply and get in line. It’s hardly fair for those who have applied and have been on the waiting list for years, when the president forbids the Border Patrol from preventing anyone from crossing the border, and invites state officials to register them to vote.
Why should anyone be angry? Isn’t the jobs report improving all the time? 14.8 million private sector jobs have been created since February 2010. Obama brags about that. But the population grew by 16.4 million. Labor force participation ticked upward at 62.7%, but when the recession ended in June 2009 — 65.7 % of the adult population was in the labor force. Some improvement!
There are 94,539 people not in the labor force as of October 2016,who have looked for a job in the past 12 months, but have more or less given up.
Here’s a study from last year. Employees of the federal government earn far more than their counterparts in the private sector, according to a study by the Cato Institute.
The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014 compared to the private sector’s average of $56, 350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (BEA)
But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.
Add to that a link to a program from UC San Diego that is a guide to U.S. Government Acronyms and Abbreviations. Click on a letter, any letter. Yes, that is how bloated our federal government has become. Not quite what the founders envisioned.
There is talk of bigotry, nationalism, globalism, misogyny, and populism among other epithets flung around. But they are missing the point entirely. I may have voted against Hillary. Others voted against political correctness, many more at the eight-year long recession that just never seemed to recover. The labels don’t even begin to cover it. The media too often forgets that the convenient labels they find so useful in meeting a deadline— sway opinion, damage real people with real concerns. We are real people out here. The newly elected president is an ordinary flawed human being, as is the current president. They will make mistakes, they always do.
It remains a Republic, if we can keep it.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2016, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, Media Bias, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Science/Technology, Taxes, The United States | Tags: An Endorsement of Donald Trump, Billionaire Peter Thiel, Rocking Silicon Valley
Billionaire venture capitalist and entrepreneur Peter Thiel has rocked Silicon Valley with his support for Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump. Thiel will discuss that political endorsement and the 2016 election at a National Press Club speakers newsmaker event on Monday Oct. 31.
Thiel, who co-founded PayPal and Palantir Technologies Inc., endorsed Trump at the Republican National Convention in July and pledged a $1.25 million campaign donation in support of the candidate.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Education, Free Markets, Freedom, Health Care, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: David Horowitz, Respect for the American People, The Art of Political War
David Horowitz again from The Art of Political War:
The Republican Party claims to be the party of personal responsibility yet it has become a party; that takes no responsibility for the predicaments it finds itself in. Instead, Republicans blame bias in the media or the liar in the White House, or their unprincipled opponents, or even the immorality of the American people to explain their defects.
The greatest political deficiency of the Republican Party today is lack of respect for the common sense of the American people. “Respect” in this context does not mean following polls or focus groups or putting one’s finger slavishly in the winds. It means that what is right politically (whether a constitutional framework and consistent with deeply held principles) produces electoral majorities.
Liberals also fail to understand this. But they were fortunate to have in Bill Clinton a leader who did, who disregarded their advice, and who used his power as the head of their party to force them to pay heed to the voice of the people. The reason Bill Clinton survived his impeachment, riding high in the polls, is that he understood what the electorate wanted and gave it to them (or at least made them think that he had).
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Free Markets, Freedom, Law, Liberalism, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Google Censorship, Prager University Videos, YouTube Censorship
YouTube has just censored a video criticizing censorship. Yes, the one just below titled “the Dark Art of Political Intimidation.”
Beginning in 2010, the IRS intentionally targeted conservative nonprofit groups and delayed approving their tax-exempt non-profit status an attempt to render them politically impotent during the 2012 election, Strassel explains.
In Wisconsin, a Democratic prosecutor went after conservatives in a shadow campaign finance investigation. The real reason for the pre-dawn raids on conservative activists’ homes and the subsequent gag orders legally compelling them to stay quiet about it all were to enact revenge for their support of Republican Gov. Scott Walker, she says.
These are two of several examples she highlights in this five-minute-long video decrying censorship of one’s political opponents, which YouTube decided to censor by placing it on “restricted mode.”It’s common for schools and parents to place their YouTube account on restricted mode to keep obscene or graphic content away from children. But PragerU’s videos, including the aforementioned one about censorship, are G-rated, so it’s unclear why the video platform is placing these videos on the naughty list.
Goodness, don’t let children see the short educational videos that Prager University creates. Here’s a list of the naughty and salacious videos from which children must be protected. Sound scary?
The Dark Art of Political Intimidation
Are The Police Racist?
Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?
Why Did America Fight the Korean War?
Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?
What ISIS Wants
Why Are There Still Palestinian Refugees?
Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do
Did Bush Lie About Iraq?
Who NOT to Vote For
Don’t Judge Blacks Differently
Israel: The World’s Most Moral Army
Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology
The Most Important Question About Abortion
Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?
What is the University Diversity Scam?
He Wants You
Israel’s Legal Founding
Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?
YouTube is a Google company. Google had many subsidiaries, and last year reorganized with the parent company becoming Alphabet Inc. Visit Wikipedia.org and search for Alphabet Inc.
According to Wikipedia, Larry Page, Google CEO, said that “the establishment of Alphabet was prompted by a desire to make the core Google Internet services business “cleaner and more accountable” while allowing greater autonomy to group companies that operate in businesses other than internet services.”
A new study from SEO Competitive Analysis Company CanIRank finds that, confirming many conservatives suspicions, Google searches favor left-wing content.
It finds that top search results are almost 40 percent more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they are to contain pages from the right. Searchers are 65 percent more likely to encounter liberal search results than conservative search results among the five first returns to their inquiry.
Moreover, 16 percent of political keywords contain no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results.
Are these findings the result of politically neutral rules for determining which results appear first? The study concludes they are not.
Google highlights two key determinants for ranking content: (1) the number and quality of links pointing to a page and (2) the content (i.e., relevancy and comprehensiveness). According to the study, pages demonstrating a left or far left political slant made it into the top results with significantly fewer external links compared to pages rated balanced. And pages with a right-leaning slant needed still more links to make it into the top results.
In the case of actual content, conservative websites were more comprehensive, which they measured by number of words, yet they were less highly ranked. The study also considered the secondary factors in Google ranking. Both sides of the political spectrum agreed on where sites ranked in the study. Google appears to be biased towards the left. Voters get much of their information from search engines about elections and campaigns. This is not a minor thing, though many of us know to just keep going down the list until we reach a reliable website.
Go here to sign the petition to Stop YouTube from Blocking Prager U Videos.