American Elephants


Elizabeth Warren Destroying Her Campaign One Speech at a Time by The Elephant's Child

A writer at the Opinion Page of the Wall Street Journal remarked several years ago that “Elizabeth Warren has only a child-like understanding of economics.” That was so spot-on that I’ve always remembered it.

Elizabeth Warren

@ewarren

Seems like she has only a child-like understanding of the Constitution as well. There really is a very sound and longstanding reason for the Electoral College, and it is to protect the people’s vote from people like Elizabeth Warren, who was a law professor, was she not?


Oh-oh! The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” by The Elephant's Child

Refugees

The European Union is in the midst of political turmoil over the United Nations pact on migration. There is a December 10 deadline when representatives from 180 UN member states will meet in Morocco, a Muslim-majority country in North Africa, to formally adopt the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” as the pact is called officially.

First, we need to get our terminology straight. Migration is not “Immigration.” Immigration is something legal according to the laws of the nation involved, and has to do with that nation’s borders. Who gets in, who can belong, and what is legal and what is illegal. Migration is about people deciding they want to illegally enter a nation other than the one to which they are native and to which they owe allegiance.

President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the global compact in September, and he was promptly followed by Austria, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Belgium is only the latest country to have it’s ruling coalition near collapse over the dispute about migration. Europe has already had its fill of migrants, and it isn’t going well. They know what their elites are talking about, and they don’t like it.

Our problems with migrants have been much in the news in recent weeks, and it’s not over yet. Those seeking asylum have to meet certain standards. If they are fleeing persecution, they must apply for asylum to the first nation they come to. Mexico offered asylum to the migrants coming, waving their national flags, but there were not many takers. Their spokesmen said they were not seeking asylum, but just wanted jobs, something our media usually neglected to mention.  Nor did they define the difference between migrants and immigrants and the laws defining their status. Clearly there have to be some limitations, but the Left usually falls back on “globalism.”

Globalism is usually the answer of the elite to the perennial question “Why can’t we all just get along?” They are always quite sure that the next good law will fix things, which is nonsense. And a law that allows migrants to go wherever they wish is the height of absurdity.

Families have a hard time getting along, when you add in aunts and uncles and cousins, it gets even worse. Add neighbors, who perhaps have a constantly barking dog, or keep odd hours, you can add annoyances from your own experience. Move to the community level and you have public works, police, school boards, local business and traffic problems. A fair amount of the news in other countries consists of what’s happening in the United States€—of course the most scandalous, disrupting, celebrity linked news to be found. It’s partly because we hang all our news out on the proverbial clothesline for all to see, and they don’t.

That may have something to do with our difficulty in selling free-market capitalism to other countries. They have seen what they probably consider to be murders and riots and guns and scandal, without any understanding of the freedom that allows us to become the richest, most successful nation in the world, without understanding the U.S. Constitution and our system of government that was designed to protect our freedom, which allows us to invent, discover, and profit from what we can achieve. We can’t, you probably have noticed, even sell free-market capitalism to the Democrats. A fairly large percentage of them seem to be globalists, at least when it seems that might help them to get elected. And when you have a political party that is all about “feelings” it gets confusing. Aren’t we just mean when we turn away people (usually mothers and their children) who just are looking for safety. Yes, that’s why the migrant caravan put women and children at the front of the line, while the majority seemed to be young men of military age.

President Xi of China has a different way of controlling the population of his country. Everyone is electronically monitored at all times, and those who obey the laws, even crosswalks and traffic lights, get basic privileges, and extra points for donating blood or volunteering, that will allow them to use public transportation or travel by air or railroad.  Jaywalking will take away points. It might be wise to keep that in mind, for that has become an accepted (at least in China) method for control.

The elites are apt to fear freedom, because if you grant a lot of freedom to the people, who knows what they might do? They might even overthrow the elites.

ADDENDUM: I neglected to add that the “Global Compact for Safe Orderly and Regular Migration “which seeks to criminalize criticism of migration – is a dangerous effort to weaken national borders, to normalize mass migration, to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and to suggest that people claiming to be refugees enjoy rights in countries where they have never before set foot. Nobody has been clamoring for this. This is a globalist power grab, and a project of the globalist elites. It is a UN power grab, and an effort to enhance the clout of the UN’s largest and most influential power bloc– the Arab and Muslim states. Criminalizing criticism is to a free-market capitalist country like ours, an anethma. This deal is not only absurd, but very bad news for the West, freedom, identity and security.



The Clunker Stimulus Didn’t Stimulate. Are You Surprised? by The Elephant's Child
September 20, 2010, 7:20 pm
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Liberalism | Tags: , ,

It is becoming clear that the Obama stimulus programs were a flop.  But would the economy have been worse without them?

Economists Atif Midan of the University of California, Berkeley and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago have studied the $2.85 billion program that gave consumers a subsidy to turn in their old cars to be destroyed and buy new ones.

We called it “Cash for Clunkers.”  They concluded that the program “had no long run effect on auto purchases.”  It boosted sales during its two-month run last summer by about 360,000 cars and then quickly hurt sales by about the same amount.  In effect, it stole sales from the future, and was a complete wash in only seven months.

The goal of White House economists was to stimulate “aggregate demand” in the regular economy.  It wasn’t sold as a discount for cars that people were already planning to buy. Christina Romer, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers wrote that ‘cash for clunkers was “very nearly the best possible countercyclical  fiscal policy in an economy suffering from temporarily low aggregate demand.”  It was meant to encourage economic activity like more consumer spending and job creation.

Economists Mian and Sufi caution that their findings that there was no noticeable difference in economic outcomes in the 957 metropolitan areas they studied, does not mean that all forms of fiscal stimulus fail to boost long-run economic output.  There was a blip in the cities where the auto industry concentrated, but that can’t be disentangled from the bailout money.

The article doesn’t indicate whether the study included the long-term effects of removing so many cars from the used car market and the parts department.  Supposedly it raised the cost of used cars across the board, but I have not seen that confirmed.




%d bloggers like this: