The Roots of Obama's Rage

I just finished reading Dreams from My Father, 1995 by Barak Obama.   The book indeed does closely follow the themes outlined in a book about President Obama by Dinesh D'Souza.   Why does Mr. Obama do what he does?  What motivates him?  How can we understand him?  This book goes a long way to explain these things, and I highly recommend it.  Thanks to my friend Bill for recommending it.   You can read my review/summary by clicking below:

 

A Book Review by Bernie Iven: The Roots of Obama's Rage by Dinesh D'Souza

 

Please click here>>>>  http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/127081842

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

After you read the review, below is an analogy between the Obama way of thinking and the American Conservative habits of thought.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Check out this photo.  It's a photo of the world at night.   From it, you can see the developed parts of the globe because of the lights.   

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~ina/images/infographics/lights_earth.jpg

 

There are two ways to look at this photo. 

 

In the anti-neocolonialist vision, the world is finite, and it not being fair that some parts of the world have lights and others don't, then what needs to happen is for the developed world to use less energy, so that the world will be equally dark, equally powerless.

 

In the free market vision, the world is continually surpassing limits.... and... gee, there sure are a lot of dark places in the world.   What can we do to bring light and power there too?

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

 

PS.  Did Obama actually write this book?  I don't know.

The President's Jan 25, 2011 State of the Union Address

Last night's State of the Union Speech was notable in the  unusual disposition its audience; Democrats and Republicans sitting together rather than across the aisle in separate sections.  

 

I suppose that was nice.  

 

But what is important is not where one sits, but where he stands.

 

President Obama and the Democrat legislators stand for unlimited government, the diminishment of liberty, exemptions for privileged groups, unending spending (investment as Mr. Obama repeatedly and euphemistically called it) the restriction of the production of wealth in the free market, welfare state reliance, business regulation and control, opaque government operations, and abortion on demand.

 

Our new Conservative legislators in the House of Representatives stand for Limited Government, Liberty, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, a relatively unrestricted market, entrepreneurship, transparency in government, self reliance and the sanctity of life.   We put them in office, because we believe in these American values too. 

 

We need to keep supporting them when they uphold those values and correct them when they stray.

 

Two years ago, when President Obama came into office, he promised an end to earmarks.   One of the first bills he signed (ARRA, the stimulus bill) contained over 6,000.

 

Last night, as if the previous promise never happened, he pledged to eliminate earmarks.  A bold repetition of an empty promise.

 

The federal deficit was high at the end of the Bush administration.    Under Obama it increased nearly exponentially.

 

But now he's realized the error of his ways and  made during his speech a "commitment" to fiscal responsibility.   He's promised some $40 billion of cuts in government spending over the next 10 years.  Sound like a lot, but given our nearly $14 trillion deficit, this amounts to  about 1/28 of the debt, or if my calculator is working right, a reduction of less than 3.5%.   Some commitment.

 

It'd be nice if we could hold our breaths until 2012 but that's not practical.  So let's take deep breaths and continue the struggle.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

Creative Destruction in the Manufacturing Sector

From Bernie:

 

The United States is the world's number one manufacturer.   But you wouldn't know that by hearing the way many people talk.  What's been confused is the actual amount of manufacturing (maybe we should manufacture more, but we're still tops) and the actual number of people working in manufacturing.  Manufacturing employment has gone down, just like agricultural employment, because we've gotten more efficient... more productive.  Here's an excerpt from a recent article by Economist Walter Williams that does a good job of explaining what is going on...

 

How about this statement:  "The United States got to where it is today by making things." "There's nothing made here anymore." "One-third of the nation's manufacturing jobs have vanished in the past decade." These statements suggest that we are no longer the world's top manufacturer; we have all but turned into a nation of "hamburger flippers."
According to data assembled by Dr. Mark Perry, in his article in The American (12/23/2009) titled "Manufacturing's Death Greatly Exaggerated," "For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion." If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The 2008 GDPs were: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent, and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Because of automation, the U.S. worker is now three times as productive as in 1980 and twice as productive as in 2000. It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.

U.S. manufacturing is going through the same kind of labor-saving technological innovation as agriculture. In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture. What would you have had Congress do in the face of this precipitous loss of agricultural jobs? Should Congress have outlawed all of the technological advances and machinery that cost millions of agricultural jobs and made our farmers the world's most productive? Also, had Congress done something to save those agricultural jobs, where would we have gotten the workers to produce the millions of things we enjoy that weren't even around in 1790? We would have been poorer.

Let's not stop with agriculture. In 1970, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 workers, in good-paying jobs as switchboard operators, handling 9.8 billion long-distance calls yearly. Today, the telecommunications industry employs fewer than 60,000 operators, and they handle more than 100 billion long-distance calls yearly. That's an 85 percent job loss. The spectacular advances in telecommunications, which raised productivity, made the cost of long-distance calls a tiny fraction of what they were.

What we're witnessing in many of our industries is what economic historian Joseph Schumpter called "creative destruction." The adjustment to it can be painful, but to stand in its way will make us a poorer nation.

Resilient America

People are frightened of China.  With their economic growth rate and voracious appetite for new business opportunities they will soon be overtaking the US, think many.  

 

I've always thought this was bunk.  It's the old trap many fall into that current trends will extend indefinitely into the future.  

 

In the 80's we thought the same thing about Japan.

 

The truth is, there is likely to be a correction. 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about China's growth--- especially when it translates into a more aggressive military, and financial control resulting from their US investments.   I'm just saying that they will meet many roadblocks shortly which will alter the track they are on.

 

In the below article, Victor Davis Hanson understands the resilience of America well.

 

Bernie

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2010/12/31/the_american_21st_century

Hi-Speed Rail is not Transformative

A perceptive person, commenting on my opposition to government financed hi-speed rails in Ohio and other states told me that ideologies can lead one astray.  True enough.  But they can also serve as a guide.   I thought thusly:  no matter how close to truth an ideology, slavish fidelity to it can in the end produce destructive enterprises.   Ideologies are only a guide and each individual case should be looked at in light of the facts of its particular situation and applicability. 

 

That was my mumbo-jumbo way of saying that while its a generally good rule of thumb to say that government programs are wasteful and mostly counterproductive, we should still look at individual cases..... such as..... proposals for slow or high speed rail programs. 

 

I have many objections to the specific slow-speed program that was planned for Ohio, but below is an excellent article  that addresses the general problems even with high speed rail .

 

While I might concede to you that certain intra-city rail transportation,  might have some positive (as well as negative) transformative effects for a city, this article notes that this is generally not the case.  Rather, most people utilizing rail travel will only be substituting rail for other modes of transportation.  This is not transformative... just costly.  The article also points out that train travel is by far the most expensive mode of travel, costing some 5 times per passenger mile than the automobile.  Also, existing high speed trains in Europe and Japan, despite the hype. are grossly underutilized, except of course by tourists, who very much impressed, advocate these financial sink holes for America.  

 

Transformative modes of transportation have always been lead by private industry.  High speed rail promotion is being lead by government.  That alone is enough reason to pause.

 

Of course, it would be a wonderful opportunity for politicians to attend grand opening ribbon cuttings, but wouldn't be money be better spent more boring things like maintaining and upgrading existing road systems?   Apparently not.   As mentioned, when Kasich inquired of the Obama administration as to whether Ohio might keep the $400 million offered by the Feds and use it for more appropriate transportation projects, he was rebuffed.   Instead the money will go to  lackey states  willing to follow orders from the boss.  These will no doubt be blue states already drowning in red ink like NY, CA, and IL.

  

Best Wishes,

 

Bernie

click for article below>>>>>>>>

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12188

A Train Wreck

Here is a letter that I wrote to the Columbus Monthly regarding the proposed idea of building a high speed rail system in Ohio. The letter was later published in the same magazine.  Kasich elected Governor in Nov 2010, weilded his power to end the foolishness, but for sometime, it was a much talked about issue......

Re: Columbus Monthly, January 2011, "A Train Wreck" by Molly Willow

In “A Train Wreck” Molly Willow makes a stupendously inane analysis of Kasich’s decision to ditch the proposed 3-C rail line.  

She makes no mention of its projected average speed of 39 miles per hour;  No discussion of whether a slow-speed train could actually attract customers, much less pay for itself; No projections as to how the state will fund its yearly maintenance;  No disclosure of Kasich’s request to use the $400 million for legitimate state obligations, or that at least that the feds apply the funds to reducing the deficit.

No, indicates Willow , Kasich’s decision was wrong because he had “overlooked one central point: Trains are cool.” Shall we surmise that she never got that Christmas train-set she’d always wanted?   

Bernie Iven

Geography of a Recession

Check out this unemployment map.  Press play, for a graphic geographical look at the changes in unemployment in the United States from 2007 to the present.

http://www.latoyaegwuekwe.com/geographyofarecession.html