June 2010


Mark J. Perry has the details and video from a news reporter.

W. MICHAEL COX AND RICHARD ALM are writing up a series for Investor’s Business Daily on post-recession outlook for the six drivers that propelled the U.S. economy from 1982 to 2007. This installment is on globalization.

So far, the new capitalists have been viewed as competitors, putting pressure on U.S. companies and workers to become more efficient. But going forward the arrival of these new economic powers holds the promise of 3 billion new consumers.

Simple math provides a rough idea of the opportunities for U.S. companies. Our country’s 309 million people make up a small share of the world’s population of 6.5 billion — so 21 of 22 potential customers are beyond our borders. . . .

So far, the new capitalists have been viewed as competitors, putting pressure on U.S. companies and workers to become more efficient. But going forward the arrival of these new economic powers holds the promise of 3 billion new consumers.

Simple math provides a rough idea of the opportunities for U.S. companies. Our country’s 309 million people make up a small share of the world’s population of 6.5 billion — so 21 of 22 potential customers are beyond our borders.

The world is waiting, folks.  Let’s get going.

Also, By JOHN RATZENBERGER reminds us that there is plenty of work to do for blue-collar, skilled workers.

Richard W. Rahn:

If you are confused about whom to believe, just think for a minute. If increasing government spending really could lead to increased prosperity, why limit government spending at all? From your own observations, do governments spend your money as wisely as you do? And do government workers on average work harder, and are they more productive than workers you observe in the private sector? Finally, where does government get all of that extra money to spend? If it’s from taxes, does that not mean taxpayers will have less incentive to work, save and invest? If it is from borrowing more money, does that not mean everyone will have to pay more taxes in the future and hence will be worse off? And, if the government just prints the additional money, won’t it be worth less, and won’t workers and savers be worse off?

Daniel Shuchman:

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored.

Plus, five questions for Kagan. And she’s being considered for the Supreme Court? Frightening.

Jacob Sullum on the four dissenters of constitutional rights, if those rights happen to involve owning a gun.

Here is how I read her comments. Few of her comments included the U.S. Constitution. She takes a case-by-case approach. That means pragmatism, and Sen. Schumer (D-NY) said the same (“both moderation and pragmatism”). She will pick sides and decide who deserves to win, not whether a law is constitutional. 

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s words:

“every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law”, “our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals”, “But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people”, “no one has a monopoly on truth and wisdom”, “I will make no pledges this week other than this one — that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons”, “I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues”,

Says the Congressional Budget Office.

“Some of us who don’t even own homes are paying to support others and their home ownership, and they ask ‘why?’ said Robert J. Shiller, a Yale University economics professor and co-creator of the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices.

The indices measure the US residential housing market by tracking changes in the value of residential real estate both nationally and in 20 metropolitan regions.

Shiller added that the mission of Fannie and Freddie should be severely cut back “so that they’re not helping middle-class homeowners, [but] they’re helping poor people get into the housing market.”

Doesn’t make sense, Bob.  You say the mission of F & F should not be to help this group over here but it should help another group over here. Why repeat the same mistake with a different income level?  Besides, the mission of F & F will creep upward and outward because politicians will use them to buy votes and implement their social goals.

Next Page »