Recently, some friends and I were having a bit of a debate over the minimum wage. It actually came up during a discussion of a $900,000 federal grant that was given to a local organization to train 720 youngsters in “soft job skills” aka basic customer service. The idea is to provide them with at least the bare essentials of workplace behavior so they might stand a better chance of gaining employment. A worthy goal, but it got me to thinking why such a program was necessary. The answer was obvious.
Colorado’s minimum wage is currently $7.36/hour. When you factor in unemployment insurance, workers comp and payroll taxes, it’s closer to $9/hour. Now consider a 15, 16 or 17 year-old starting their very first job. They aren’t familiar with any workplace, never mind yours, or the equipment, the procedures, basic workplace etiquette; they are essentially clueless. It’s likely going to take a month on the job before they are productive enough to justify even $9/hour and you’re only going to have them for 3 months total.
The investment in training a brand spanking new entrant into the job market might make sense at say $5.50/hour. At $7.36, it’s a much bigger risk. This is why unemployment among teenagers is around 25%. The math just doesn’t make sense.
The opposition comes from the notion that nobody can live on $5.50/hour or even $7.36/hour. But that’s a straw man. The entry-level wage isn’t intended to be a living wage. Most teenagers are looking for some spending money. A low-paying summer job gives them valuable experience so they can get a better, higher paying job next year and it keeps them in iPhones, concerts and their favorite jeans over the summer.
In the longer term, the ability to fill very low skill positions with very low paid workers enables businesses to expand and provide better jobs. The workers gain experience which they can use to get better jobs. The alternative is what we have now. Those jobs simply don’t exist and junior sits on the couch playing video games at Mom and Dad’s expense, gaining zero work experience. The business can only hire employees who are ready and able to produce on day one, i.e. experienced employees. There is no room for entry-level.
I know the intentions of those who favor mandated wages are noble, but the results are in. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact. When you remove the bottom rungs on the ladder of opportunity, there are people who just can’t get on it. There aren’t enough federal programs in the world to fill the void.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
America at a crossroads? or have we already crossed the event horizon?
For a while there, it looked as though there might be a chance that the United States would do what was necessary to get back to some sort of fiscal sanity....for a while there.
Today we still have our $14+ trillion dollar national debt, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and, perhaps more importantly, something like $57 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that is, money we've promised to pay out in entitlements that nobody has a clue where it's going to come from.
Paul Ryan and friends proposed to cut the growth of Medicare at least, by block granting fixed amounts to the states. You would have thought he proposed internment camps for the elderly. "Hands off Medicare" is the popular chant. I don't imagine Social Security reform is going to fare any better. Lest you think that government will be forced to make reforms just in the nick of time, consider Eastern Airlines. Unions knew full well that if they didn't make major concessions the company would go under. They didn't, it did. In the case of the auto industry, the government took the companies from the rightful owners, the bondholders, and just gave it to the unions. No incentive for concessions there. It's not just unions. It's everyone that get some kind of check from the government, and boy there are a lot of them.
Americans still like to think in terms of the land of the free, home of the brave, baseball, apple pie, etc., but they also seem to want to continue to work toward a society where everyone's basic needs are taken care of by somebody else. This has never worked and never will, but that's not slowing down the movement. Americans are looking for that fairy tale hybrid of capitalism and socialism. They want the vitality, innovation, creation, wealth and productivity of capitalism, with the carefree security of cradle to grave socialism. I guess the hope is that there are enough people who are genetically inclined to produce and excel, regardless of incentive or motivation, that they will deliver enough to take care of everyone else. It's a fairy tale.
It's entirely possible that hundreds of years from now, the decline and fall of the United States of America will be marked as beginning around 2007. I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't see any popular movement that would change it. No China is not going to be the new global superpower either. In fact, the alleged economic behemoth wont even be able to produce enough electricity to keep their own factories operational this summer. They have tightly controlled the power industry to the point that it's tied up in knots and they have no idea how to fix it. Getting out of the way is not on the proposed solutions list. I think a rudderless, backwards world economy is the more likely scenario for quite a while.
I don't know exactly what the future will bring in my lifetime. But I do know that, in general, the American public is not in the mood for limited government and real free markets and politicians are not going to do anything long term or substantial without the express consent of the voters.
I'm beginning to feel that we are not, as many like to say, at a "crossroads", a point where we can determine whether we're headed for greater prosperity or history's dust bin. We may have already crossed the event horizon into the black hole of "something for nothing" land. We're just too close to the situation to see it clearly.
Today we still have our $14+ trillion dollar national debt, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and, perhaps more importantly, something like $57 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that is, money we've promised to pay out in entitlements that nobody has a clue where it's going to come from.
Paul Ryan and friends proposed to cut the growth of Medicare at least, by block granting fixed amounts to the states. You would have thought he proposed internment camps for the elderly. "Hands off Medicare" is the popular chant. I don't imagine Social Security reform is going to fare any better. Lest you think that government will be forced to make reforms just in the nick of time, consider Eastern Airlines. Unions knew full well that if they didn't make major concessions the company would go under. They didn't, it did. In the case of the auto industry, the government took the companies from the rightful owners, the bondholders, and just gave it to the unions. No incentive for concessions there. It's not just unions. It's everyone that get some kind of check from the government, and boy there are a lot of them.
Americans still like to think in terms of the land of the free, home of the brave, baseball, apple pie, etc., but they also seem to want to continue to work toward a society where everyone's basic needs are taken care of by somebody else. This has never worked and never will, but that's not slowing down the movement. Americans are looking for that fairy tale hybrid of capitalism and socialism. They want the vitality, innovation, creation, wealth and productivity of capitalism, with the carefree security of cradle to grave socialism. I guess the hope is that there are enough people who are genetically inclined to produce and excel, regardless of incentive or motivation, that they will deliver enough to take care of everyone else. It's a fairy tale.
It's entirely possible that hundreds of years from now, the decline and fall of the United States of America will be marked as beginning around 2007. I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't see any popular movement that would change it. No China is not going to be the new global superpower either. In fact, the alleged economic behemoth wont even be able to produce enough electricity to keep their own factories operational this summer. They have tightly controlled the power industry to the point that it's tied up in knots and they have no idea how to fix it. Getting out of the way is not on the proposed solutions list. I think a rudderless, backwards world economy is the more likely scenario for quite a while.
I don't know exactly what the future will bring in my lifetime. But I do know that, in general, the American public is not in the mood for limited government and real free markets and politicians are not going to do anything long term or substantial without the express consent of the voters.
I'm beginning to feel that we are not, as many like to say, at a "crossroads", a point where we can determine whether we're headed for greater prosperity or history's dust bin. We may have already crossed the event horizon into the black hole of "something for nothing" land. We're just too close to the situation to see it clearly.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Jefferson the American Prophet
Among the many inspirational and insightful quotes collected for Brett Sizemore's book 'Here's a Straw, Suck it Up.' is this gem from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 that's eerily relevant today:
"Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all their property until their children wake up homeless..."
Here's how that works. First, consider the purchase of a home. Now hold the value of the home constant and consider it is the value of the currency that fluctuates. During a time of inflation, or rapidly rising home prices, you buy your house (with a mortgage) at $200,000 with the expectation that prices will continue to rise. Now, deflation hits the housing market instead. Prices fall. Your house is now worth $100,000. You were counting on rising home prices to allow you to take out a mortgage to cover your other bills. Now you can't afford the payments and you can't sell the house for enough to cover the mortgage.
Whether you foreclose or walk away, the bank gets the house back. Not only that, they were insured against losses with companies like AIG, so they also get the other $100k. On paper it looks as though the bank just broke even, or took a loss after expenses. In reality, if we're still keeping the value of the house constant, they started with the house, ended with the house + $100k minus expenses and insurance premiums. They did fine. The fluctuating value of the dollar is a smoke screen.
In the simplified scenario above, a number of players are inclusive in "the bank". I don't believe banks and real estate financing are inherently evil, but they are susceptible to great abuse if customers are not wary.
Banks give currency value in that they provide an orderly, secure delivery and storage system. They are run by human beings, who must not be entrusted with all our cash unsupervised and unchallenged. Trust, but verify.
The recipe is simple: Inflate, Deflate, Repeat.
"Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all their property until their children wake up homeless..."
Here's how that works. First, consider the purchase of a home. Now hold the value of the home constant and consider it is the value of the currency that fluctuates. During a time of inflation, or rapidly rising home prices, you buy your house (with a mortgage) at $200,000 with the expectation that prices will continue to rise. Now, deflation hits the housing market instead. Prices fall. Your house is now worth $100,000. You were counting on rising home prices to allow you to take out a mortgage to cover your other bills. Now you can't afford the payments and you can't sell the house for enough to cover the mortgage.
Whether you foreclose or walk away, the bank gets the house back. Not only that, they were insured against losses with companies like AIG, so they also get the other $100k. On paper it looks as though the bank just broke even, or took a loss after expenses. In reality, if we're still keeping the value of the house constant, they started with the house, ended with the house + $100k minus expenses and insurance premiums. They did fine. The fluctuating value of the dollar is a smoke screen.
In the simplified scenario above, a number of players are inclusive in "the bank". I don't believe banks and real estate financing are inherently evil, but they are susceptible to great abuse if customers are not wary.
Banks give currency value in that they provide an orderly, secure delivery and storage system. They are run by human beings, who must not be entrusted with all our cash unsupervised and unchallenged. Trust, but verify.
The recipe is simple: Inflate, Deflate, Repeat.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The oil pantry effect
Crude oil supplies are plentiful. Use has not spiked, yet prices did? What's going on?
Well, the common explanation is "speculators". But, I'm familiar enough with speculation to know that paper trading of commodities one never takes delivery on cannot cause sustained price increases. It must be something else. So what?
What do you do if you believe food prices are going to go up substantially in the near future? You stock up your pantry and your freezer. I have to believe that large corporations and governments that consume a lot of petrol do the same.
The U.S. government publicly discloses figures for the U.S. strategic oil reserves, but private companies, the military and most other governments do not. If they see uncertainty ahead in the market, it is only prudent that they fill their reserve storage. This would explain how you get a spike in prices even without a spike in actual usage.
It also explains why the price of crude sometimes falls like a rock. When end users stop filling reserves, demand falls. If they actually start drawing from them for their day to day use, demand plummets. Prices follow.
This is the most logical and simple explanation for the behavior of oil prices, and according to Occum's razor, the most likely.
Well, the common explanation is "speculators". But, I'm familiar enough with speculation to know that paper trading of commodities one never takes delivery on cannot cause sustained price increases. It must be something else. So what?
What do you do if you believe food prices are going to go up substantially in the near future? You stock up your pantry and your freezer. I have to believe that large corporations and governments that consume a lot of petrol do the same.
The U.S. government publicly discloses figures for the U.S. strategic oil reserves, but private companies, the military and most other governments do not. If they see uncertainty ahead in the market, it is only prudent that they fill their reserve storage. This would explain how you get a spike in prices even without a spike in actual usage.
It also explains why the price of crude sometimes falls like a rock. When end users stop filling reserves, demand falls. If they actually start drawing from them for their day to day use, demand plummets. Prices follow.
This is the most logical and simple explanation for the behavior of oil prices, and according to Occum's razor, the most likely.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
What you're really up against
Recently a friend of mine called, very upset at something he had just read. In the newest Superman comic, the Man of Steel will allegedly renounce his American citizenship. So much for Truth, Justice and the American Way. He was also irked by the fact that while we put moratoriums on drilling for oil in the U.S., we have actually proposed subsidizing drilling in Brazil, and a number of other policies and trends that seem to be leading to the decline of the U.S.. Has the world gone mad?
As I explained to him, when you understand the game plan, it all makes perfect sense. I used to think the differences between free market capitalists and Progressives was simply a disagreement in how to reach a common goal; a better quality of life for everyone. I have come to learn that this is not the case. Progressives believe that the world would be a better place if the production and distribution of its resources were overseen by an elite group of our best and brightest (as determined by Progressives) rather than by the cumulative effect of individuals making decisions on their own. The world being a better place, in their minds, is not contingent on improving anyone's quality of life. It's all about fairness and sustainability. If everyone lives in squalor, that's okay, as long as it's fair and sustainable.
In fact, worrying about the happiness of any one individual, especially yourself, is not only frowned upon, it's heresy. One should derive satisfaction and fulfillment only from the knowledge that you have served the collective well. Praise is heaped on those who demonstrate the least concern for their own well being. After all, the self is irrelevant. Unfairness must be wiped out wherever it is found. Evidence of unfairness is when one person has more success or more material goods or is generally happier than another. Obviously the fact that one person is less successful than another is clear evidence that they are disadvantaged. The playing field must be leveled. This is not done by providing opportunities for the latter, but by removing "advantages" from the former.
Top priority is given to the well being of the planet, the environment, wildlife, "society", culture. You are not even on the list. One big stumbling block is the image of the United States of America. The country was founded on the idea that the state exists solely for the protection of the individual. That the state is accountable to the individual. That the individual trumps the mob. This is all counter to Progressive thinking. The fact that a country based on such beliefs became and remains the world's top super power is a problem. That's what the Progressive movement is currently trying to rectify. Statements that countries like China and India may overtake the United States in terms of world economic power are not dire predictions to Progressives, they are goals, and short-term goals at that.
The next time you start scratching your head when policies enacted in the name of fixing a problem obviously just make it worse, remember this post. The premise that we all have the same goals in mind, just different opinions on how to get there, is a false one. Worse yet, those working for central control will not advocate for it honestly or out loud. But their actions speak volumes.
As I explained to him, when you understand the game plan, it all makes perfect sense. I used to think the differences between free market capitalists and Progressives was simply a disagreement in how to reach a common goal; a better quality of life for everyone. I have come to learn that this is not the case. Progressives believe that the world would be a better place if the production and distribution of its resources were overseen by an elite group of our best and brightest (as determined by Progressives) rather than by the cumulative effect of individuals making decisions on their own. The world being a better place, in their minds, is not contingent on improving anyone's quality of life. It's all about fairness and sustainability. If everyone lives in squalor, that's okay, as long as it's fair and sustainable.
In fact, worrying about the happiness of any one individual, especially yourself, is not only frowned upon, it's heresy. One should derive satisfaction and fulfillment only from the knowledge that you have served the collective well. Praise is heaped on those who demonstrate the least concern for their own well being. After all, the self is irrelevant. Unfairness must be wiped out wherever it is found. Evidence of unfairness is when one person has more success or more material goods or is generally happier than another. Obviously the fact that one person is less successful than another is clear evidence that they are disadvantaged. The playing field must be leveled. This is not done by providing opportunities for the latter, but by removing "advantages" from the former.
Top priority is given to the well being of the planet, the environment, wildlife, "society", culture. You are not even on the list. One big stumbling block is the image of the United States of America. The country was founded on the idea that the state exists solely for the protection of the individual. That the state is accountable to the individual. That the individual trumps the mob. This is all counter to Progressive thinking. The fact that a country based on such beliefs became and remains the world's top super power is a problem. That's what the Progressive movement is currently trying to rectify. Statements that countries like China and India may overtake the United States in terms of world economic power are not dire predictions to Progressives, they are goals, and short-term goals at that.
The next time you start scratching your head when policies enacted in the name of fixing a problem obviously just make it worse, remember this post. The premise that we all have the same goals in mind, just different opinions on how to get there, is a false one. Worse yet, those working for central control will not advocate for it honestly or out loud. But their actions speak volumes.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Speculator Myth
Oil and gas prices are on the rise once again, and once again fingers are being pointed at those nasty speculators. What's a speculator? A gambler, really.
It's someone who buys contracts to buy oil or other commodities at a certain price within a certain period of time (i.e. oil futures contracts), in the hopes that they can resell them at a higher price. Two important things to keep in mind: The speculator has no intention of ever taking delivery and the contracts expire. If you can't get the price you're looking for by expiration time, you take delivery or take the loss. In the speculator's case, you take the loss. They have nowhere to put all that oil and they don't have the cash to actually buy all the oil they bought options on.
The refrain is that speculators "drive up the prices". How would one drive up prices? By paying increasingly higher prices for the contracts. Intentionally paying above market prices for anything is a good way to go broke fast. Speculators take advantage of short term fears, supply interruptions, knee jerk reactions, by trying to get in the market before prices rise, or at least well before they peak. Speculators also make bets that the price of oil will fall, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.
The role of the speculator in the marketplace is to provide liquidity. That is, if you want to buy or sell a contract, you don't have to wait until an end user wants to buy or a producer wants to sell. There's always a speculator ready to buy or sell at most any point in the trading day. Speculation is risky, by definition and can only affect prices over a very short term. Ultimately prices are determined by supply and demand.
So why is oil soaring when supply is plentiful? Because we import most of our oil from producers who aren't terribly interested in our financial well being. They decide how much to pull out of the ground and make available for sale on any given day. We curtail production in the U.S. and then complain that we're being gouged by the Saudi's, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, the Libyans and all the other folks we've handed control of the market over to. We don't want to drill for oil, use coal, nobody wants a windmill farm in their neighborhood, or solar panels, or a nuclear plant. We seem to subsidize only alternatives that have no chance of viability in the marketplace and penalize or criminalize energy sources that are proven to work. Nobody can make the case that ethanol laden gas is a better product than non-ethanol laden gas or that the ethanol program is a success, or that it even makes sense. Yet it continues. Enabling more drilling is shunned because it can "take years" to develop a field. We'll still need oil in "years" and we're not getting any closer to it by continuing to put it off.
If the price of oil and gas is causing you grief, Washington D.C. is your problem, not the speculators or even the Saudi's. Then again, as one reader helped point out, politicians and bureaucrats do what the polls tell them to do. So I guess we're the real culprits.
It's someone who buys contracts to buy oil or other commodities at a certain price within a certain period of time (i.e. oil futures contracts), in the hopes that they can resell them at a higher price. Two important things to keep in mind: The speculator has no intention of ever taking delivery and the contracts expire. If you can't get the price you're looking for by expiration time, you take delivery or take the loss. In the speculator's case, you take the loss. They have nowhere to put all that oil and they don't have the cash to actually buy all the oil they bought options on.
The refrain is that speculators "drive up the prices". How would one drive up prices? By paying increasingly higher prices for the contracts. Intentionally paying above market prices for anything is a good way to go broke fast. Speculators take advantage of short term fears, supply interruptions, knee jerk reactions, by trying to get in the market before prices rise, or at least well before they peak. Speculators also make bets that the price of oil will fall, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.
The role of the speculator in the marketplace is to provide liquidity. That is, if you want to buy or sell a contract, you don't have to wait until an end user wants to buy or a producer wants to sell. There's always a speculator ready to buy or sell at most any point in the trading day. Speculation is risky, by definition and can only affect prices over a very short term. Ultimately prices are determined by supply and demand.
So why is oil soaring when supply is plentiful? Because we import most of our oil from producers who aren't terribly interested in our financial well being. They decide how much to pull out of the ground and make available for sale on any given day. We curtail production in the U.S. and then complain that we're being gouged by the Saudi's, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, the Libyans and all the other folks we've handed control of the market over to. We don't want to drill for oil, use coal, nobody wants a windmill farm in their neighborhood, or solar panels, or a nuclear plant. We seem to subsidize only alternatives that have no chance of viability in the marketplace and penalize or criminalize energy sources that are proven to work. Nobody can make the case that ethanol laden gas is a better product than non-ethanol laden gas or that the ethanol program is a success, or that it even makes sense. Yet it continues. Enabling more drilling is shunned because it can "take years" to develop a field. We'll still need oil in "years" and we're not getting any closer to it by continuing to put it off.
If the price of oil and gas is causing you grief, Washington D.C. is your problem, not the speculators or even the Saudi's. Then again, as one reader helped point out, politicians and bureaucrats do what the polls tell them to do. So I guess we're the real culprits.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Can the private sector grow while government shrinks?
The Federal Government and the states are in a financial pickle, to be sure. That's not going to end any time soon. However, the conversation in Washington D.C. and in state capitals around the country these days is about how to cut and how much to cut. It's no longer about new government programs and increased spending. From the standpoint of the business community, the worst may be over.
Whoever wins the next election, it's not likely to be the candidate or party that promises continued deficits and bigger government. Politicians down to the local level are now seeking ways to encourage and incentivize small business. Many of them still don't really understand or trust the free market, but at least they're now giving it a look. That's a positive development.
The health care law is not likely to survive intact and may well be scrapped and replaced altogether. A Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget was a pipe dream just a short time ago. Now it is at least a real possibility.
Growing government sucks resources from the private sector, not the least of which are human resources. When government increases its payroll, a lot of talented, creative people wind up in less than productive jobs. When the unemployment checks run out and the government's not hiring, people find another way to make a living, whether it's considering employment they had previously shunned, trying something completely new and out of their comfort zone or starting their own business.
They also start paying closer attention to how government affects the marketplace. Not everyone comes to the same conclusions, but more people really paying attention means we have a better chance of getting it right over time.
There is new technology coming to market now and in the near future that can spawn a new run in productivity and economic activity. The new political reality may well inspire cash-heavy companies and even shoe-string entrepreneurs to get back in the game. Inspiring people to take a chance with their assets, talents, ideas, time and effort doesn't require waiting until conditions are ideal. There just has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. If the business community gets a sense that their efforts wont be wasted, real recovery will take hold.
We could be at the beginning of an odd situation. One in which the private sector is growing and thriving while the public sector continues to struggle with the financial mess they've made of their budgets. Will the public keep up the pressure for fiscal discipline in a healthy private sector environment? I don't know. The big government proponents will no doubt argue that their big spending caused the recovery, not the anticipation of its ending. Will that spin sell? I don't know. It has in the past, but there are a lot more people tuned in these days.
My sense is that, at least in the near term, tax hikes, increased regulation and more government are a no go. Americans have no more stomach for stimulus and bail outs and subsidies. I wont say the era of big government is over just yet, but it's looking tired and starting to get wobbly. I think we have better economic weather ahead. I hope we will take this opportunity to better educate the younger generations, not only in reading, writing and 'rithmatic, but also in the role of government, the art of civil discourse and debate, the meaning of freedom and the consequences that come with it and the mechanics of the free market.
Whoever wins the next election, it's not likely to be the candidate or party that promises continued deficits and bigger government. Politicians down to the local level are now seeking ways to encourage and incentivize small business. Many of them still don't really understand or trust the free market, but at least they're now giving it a look. That's a positive development.
The health care law is not likely to survive intact and may well be scrapped and replaced altogether. A Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget was a pipe dream just a short time ago. Now it is at least a real possibility.
Growing government sucks resources from the private sector, not the least of which are human resources. When government increases its payroll, a lot of talented, creative people wind up in less than productive jobs. When the unemployment checks run out and the government's not hiring, people find another way to make a living, whether it's considering employment they had previously shunned, trying something completely new and out of their comfort zone or starting their own business.
They also start paying closer attention to how government affects the marketplace. Not everyone comes to the same conclusions, but more people really paying attention means we have a better chance of getting it right over time.
There is new technology coming to market now and in the near future that can spawn a new run in productivity and economic activity. The new political reality may well inspire cash-heavy companies and even shoe-string entrepreneurs to get back in the game. Inspiring people to take a chance with their assets, talents, ideas, time and effort doesn't require waiting until conditions are ideal. There just has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. If the business community gets a sense that their efforts wont be wasted, real recovery will take hold.
We could be at the beginning of an odd situation. One in which the private sector is growing and thriving while the public sector continues to struggle with the financial mess they've made of their budgets. Will the public keep up the pressure for fiscal discipline in a healthy private sector environment? I don't know. The big government proponents will no doubt argue that their big spending caused the recovery, not the anticipation of its ending. Will that spin sell? I don't know. It has in the past, but there are a lot more people tuned in these days.
My sense is that, at least in the near term, tax hikes, increased regulation and more government are a no go. Americans have no more stomach for stimulus and bail outs and subsidies. I wont say the era of big government is over just yet, but it's looking tired and starting to get wobbly. I think we have better economic weather ahead. I hope we will take this opportunity to better educate the younger generations, not only in reading, writing and 'rithmatic, but also in the role of government, the art of civil discourse and debate, the meaning of freedom and the consequences that come with it and the mechanics of the free market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)