Visitors Seek a Taste of Revolution in Venezuela - New York Times

Hugo Chavez has quite a skill. By doing lots of good things, he hides the bad things he's doing or the good things he could be doing that he is ignoring.
It's interesting that these people talk about an "alternative" to globalism and the "imperialism" of the U.S. They make it sound like a new idea. Yet everything Chavez is doing has been done before. The article makes numerous references to Mao, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries that have preceded Venezuela in revolutons that supposedly better the people's lives. Yet Mao killed millions. Thousands flee Cuba every year. Nicaragua is still a destitute country. WHy is this alternative worth anything? We have shown that ist does not work over and over and over. The Soviet Union. Fully communist China. North Korea. Cuba. No socialist government that has fought against capitalismand globalization has won. Always, always, the forces of the market have broken down the barriers people put up. Why? Because the market works. The people in all of the countries are still poor. Is it because evil capitalists in America and Europe are sucking up all the wealth? No! It is because oppresive governments have blocked the wealth we have created from getting into their countries, or have used the wealth to enhance their power and prestige. Hugo Chavez is no revolutionary. His ideas are as old, and older, than Marx. And he will fail. He will lose his power someday. Communism, no matter how watered down, and no matter what mask it wears, will never work. In a few years, the poor who support Chavez will still be poor, while he revels in hi newfound power. Or, they will be a little richer, while Chavez glories in his power and begins invading his neighbors. We've seen these patterns before. One is that of Soviet Russia and every other communist regime. The other is that of Hitler. Hugo Chavez has two things going for him: good PR people and lots of oil money. Don't let his tricks fool you. He is an evil man who does not care the least for his people. He is off his rocker (accussing Bush of wanting to invade Venezuela?) and a threat to th countries around him. To all those dreamers who call Chavez and modern Venezuela a success, wake up. That's all it is, a dream.

French Protests Over Youth Labor Law Spread to 150 Cities and Towns - New York Times

Do they even teach economics in France? Does a single one of these students understand anything about how businesses run? "Anticapitalism and self-management"? What a joke!

Let's compare numbers.
U.S.: capitalist free-market country. Unemployment rate? About 5%.
France: Socialist masquerading as a capitalist country. Unemployment rate? About 10%.

Why? Job security. The French want job security. Of course. Eveyone wants that. Americans want that badly. But I think we see something else. We recognize that there is uncertainty in life. That businesses don't exist to employ people. That the market isn't a constant. We understand, for the most part, that businesses grow and shrink, that jobs come and go. The important thing is that they have the ability to. This way, we keep a low unemployment rate, yet have highly productive businesses.

The French think businesses exist to employ people. Sorry, but that is wrong. Busniesses exist to produce. They need the flexibilty to change as the market changes. If they can't do this, they will hire less people. Machines are much easier to replace and shut down if there are laws agianst firing people. Get rid of the bad laws, and more people will be hired. Maybe you'll have to switch companies every once-in-a-while. What's better, ten different jobs or no job at all?

What is probably most disturbing is that, according to the Wall Street Journal, an economics student organized these protests. What kind of econ major is he? What do they teach in French universities? Do they study socialism in their econ classes? Don't they understand how the market works? You make it more costly to hire workers and fewer workers will be hired. It seems very expensive to hire workers in France, so few are hired. Basic economics. And this fool, Razzye Hammadi, says that he is "totally opposed in principle" to tinkering with France's labor laws. They are broken!!! With unemployment double that of the country where "evil" market forces create a "precarious" situation for workers, I don't understand the reasoning. Once again, what's better, a "precarious" job which you only hold for a few months, or no job at all? Maybe someday someone can go to France and teach them what has made the U.S. the most powerful and richest nation ever to exist.

InvisibleHeart.com: Home and Main Menu Page

I found this one interesting, since the Settlers of Catan is pretty popular with my friends and I.

Cafe Hayek: The New Yorker and the Beatles

This article written by, I believe, an Economics professor, supports, with an economic argument, the stupidity of killing the Dubai port deal. It's a good read, with an excellent illustrative example.

Dubai Ports Deal

     I found a great article about the ports affair. Unfortunately, it’s a Wall Street Journal article and you can’t view it unless you subscribe. But I can quote it.
     The article, entitled “Port Deal: Not a Foreign Idea,” it begins by stating, “Amid the political firestorm surrounding Dubai Ports World, one fact is often lost -- foreign companies already manage most of the terminals at American ports, the result of a longtime dominance of global shipping lines that often run the facilities that handle their cargoes.” I have read quotes by representatives saying that the ports need to stay in American hands. It’s a nice sentiment, but here’s the problem: according to this article, “more than 60% of the container terminals at the nation's 10 busiest ports are at least partly managed by foreign operators, and in some cases, companies controlled by foreign governments.” Our ports are already in the hands of foreign companies. Those ports that were going to be controlled by Dubai weren’t under American control in the first place. They were under British control.
     That in itself is a little scary, considering the amount of shipping that comes through our ports. Thankfully, the article goes on to say, “security -- such as the inspection of containers -- is conducted by federal enforcement agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection no matter who operates the terminal.” Besides reassuring us that our ports can still remain relatively secure, this fact also negates the argument that Dubai’s ownership of the ports threatens our security. If this company does not control the security of the port, then no threat to our security exists.
     So what’s the problem? I see it as two-fold. First, Congress is simply uninformed or the people who might re-elect them this November are, putting pressure on Congress to make an unwise, but popular move. Second, sheer racism. People see that Dubai is an Arab company and don’t look any farther. It’s Arab, so it’s linked to terrorism and it’s a threat to the nation. They ignore the fact that it is an international company, accountable to customers all over the world. They ignore the fact that it is based in a nation that is a strong ally to the U.S. They don’t bother to look and see if the company has any real links to terrorism. They just assume there must be links because the company is Arab. It’s just like the old image in the south that all black men are eager to rape white women because one or two may have done so sometime in the past.
The racism is there and it is something we must root out and destroy. Racism tore this country apart in the past and it may again, if we let it spread. We cannot discriminate against a company just because it is Arab, just as we cannot discriminate against an individual because he is Arab. If I had heard any good solid arguments of exactly how Dubai could be a threat, I would support the fight against the port deal. I have hear absolutely no valid arguments, though; just outright racism.
Please, let’s fight this. America has come to far to sink to that level again.

     Of course, all of this is moot. Dubai announced today that it will hand the ports to an “American entity.” Racism wins, for the moment. But lets learn from this moment and not repeat the mistake. We lost an opportunity to show that we do not hate Arabs as a whole, just those who support terrorism.

WSJ.com - Minding the Gap

I'd like to add my humble analysis.

Heather Boushey has a dangerous viewpoint. She believes that if people are going into debt to "keep up with the Joneses," or buy that nice car or boat or 50-in plasma screen, then the rich should be taxed and the money be provided to these people who are too poor to afford these luxuries. This is more dangerous than allowing these people to go into debt in the first place. If you let them go into debt, then eventually they will go bankrupt and, hopefully, learn their lesson. If, however, you fund their uncontrolled consumerism, the economy gets propped up on an unstable foundation: one that depends on the rich providing money for the middle-class to spend uncontrollably. I hope she knows how stupid this is.

From the little I know, it seems that the most dangerous thing socially and economically that she talks about is this debt. If we don't get rid of it by giving them more money, what do we do to limit the danger to society? This isn't an easy question to answer. I don't think the government can do much, except try to encourage a more frugal way of life. But how can our government encourage something it definitely is not doing? I think we must turn to other social institutions: churches, neighborhoods, clubs. By instilling a social responsibility to not go into debt, then the crisis would resolve itself. But this is a notoriously hard, if not impossible task. Not sees things the way I do and there is no one social institution that reaches everyone.

Well, I guess government does. So this leads to a familiar charge: get the government to spend less. Referring to my earlier question, I have to say, it was kind of dumb. See, we are the government. It's not some strange seperate institution. We elect citizens to offices. Citizens fill the ranks of the bureaurocracy. Every politician, every lobbyist, is a member of this nation, of some local community. Many have children going to schools with other people's children. So, if the government begins encouraging less spending, and we spend less, then the government will be spending less.

The problem is still not easy. Members of government have been trying to cut spending for years with little effect. The problem is that no one is willing to cut what he is spending. The farmers want their subsidies. The retired want their social security. The poor want their welfare. The scientists want their funding. Where do we cut spending? That is not a question I can answer. It is only a question this nation as a whole can answer, since we all have different priorities. Only by writing our congressmen can we let them know.

I think an excellent ides would be for everyone to do two things. First, those who are in debt, stop spending money and get out of debt. Second, everyone think about what they feel we don't need to spend money on and write their congressmen. This way, Congress would have a better idea of what the people are willing to give up and they would have a great deal of support for their arguments.

Cafe Hayek

Government Ain't Us

in Reply

     My dad once told me, “Perhaps the best way to soften your mind and strengthen your faith, is to spend a dark evening with the stars.” Last weekend, at the end of a date, we began talking about the stars. We looked up at the sky, trying to find constellations. We ended up finding a good stargazing spot and from there we entered a long and enlightening conversation. Using the stars a beginning, we discussed family, the church, society as a whole, the end of the world, temples, the priesthood, etc. These glimpses of heaven are needed to remind us that we are, “less than the dust of the earth.” Among our cities, walking and driving along the asphalt and cement we laid, working and studying in the buildings we raised up, sitting in the comfort of the couches and chairs we designed and built, it is easy to forget the beauty, splendor, majesty, and the awesome magnificence of God’s creation. This creation we cannot match; we must be reminded of it.
     Perhaps one of the dangerous aspects of city life is this separation from God’s creation. We become so focused on what we, as humans have done, we forget the planet upon which we walk, the planet the dwarfs all we have accomplished.
     So, star-gazing is an excellent pastime, as well as night walks. These things are just a little more difficult when it gets below freezing at night. But I cannot wait until its warm enough that the seep and dissipation is forestalled long enough for an enjoyable night-walk (the unique warmth the last few days made that star-gazing date possible).
     

The Shadow

     Lying in the grass, I look up from my reading and watch the shadow of the building approach. Just inches away, the shadow represents the coming close of the day. With only a few hours left, this time of warmth and light, this momentary spring, will soon give way to a cold, dark winter night.
     Welcoming the time in the sun with flip-flops and t-shirts, a new optimism filled the campus during this warmth. Walking across campus, I cannot miss the many people taking advantage of it, studying, reading, and chatting outside. This afternoon, I studied in the sun, allowing its light and warmth to rejuvenate my spirit. I cannot help but enjoy this rare moment to lie in the grass and relax.
     Looking down at my biology book, I think of the glory of the sun, or rather one component of it – its light. I think of the beautiful processes by which this light enters plants, transforming into life giving sugars. Water, air, and sunlight, transforming into the wonderfully complex molecules from which all life derives its energy. I think of the path that energy follows until it enters us, driving our brains, allowing us to read, to write, to build, to fly, to know and understand this complex world, and finally, providing us with the heat that keeps us alive.
     The shadow draws closer now, almost touching the edge of the grass. I glance up to the cause of this shadow. The large glass building stands tall at the edge of the square. I squint at the bright sun, hovering just over the top edge of the building. My heart yearns for it to remain in that spot, providing the light and warmth that pulled me out of my dorm to study outside.
     It cannot last. Despite my deepest desires, the sun sinks lower and the shadow creeps closer. As this grey shadow begins to cover my body and the grass around me, a soft cool breeze picks up and the temperature drops noticeably. I do not yet need my sweater, but the time draws nearer.
     As I consider moving inside, I look around and realize some warmth, some hope remains. This long, cold shadow has yet to cover most of the campus. Many people still sit, enjoying the sun, not aware of the impending cold night. My gaze travels further, out of the square to the white peaks beyond the campus buildings. Long after the valley lies in shadow, the mountains will reach up into the path of the sun’s rays, continuing to receive light and warmth.
     Perhaps this is why holy places are always equated with high places, with mountains. The mountains receive the last light, the last glory from the sun. Though the light will remain for some time; though those tall, beautiful mountain peaks will be illuminated for hours longer, the night will come. The cold will set in. Even these mountains, thousands of feet above me, will fall under the shadow as the sun drops below the horizon. Even these, where light and glory remain the longest, a long, dark night will fall. And there at the peaks, the highest places in the world, the nights are the loneliest and coldest.
Without the heat and light from the sun, the warmth from the day will seep out of the ground, out of the cement and dirt and wood that make up this terrestrial sphere. It will seep out into an infinitely colder outer space, dissipating into virtually nothing.
     It becomes apparent that all that protects us from the irreversible seep and dissipation is the heat our bodies produce, a heat that cannot long battle the overwhelming chill of space. We use machines to produce heat, but machines use energy living things collected from the sun millennia ago; our clothes hold in our heat, but we produce it by consuming energy other beings collected from the sun. Ultimately, the source of all energy and heat is the sun. Without its return, our sphere, with all of its life, would become a cold, dead sphere, with all of its heat lost to cold space long before.
     But hope is not lost. Tomorrow, the sun will return. Tomorrow, that dissipated heat will be replaced. Tomorrow, those same peaks that were the last to lose the light and glory will be the first to receive them again. Upon this hope all life relies: that the morning will come, that the light and life of the world will return, spreading its glory over the face of all the earth.