Kivus

In order to properly discuss a number of important issues of the day (immigration, gasoline prices, net neutrality, etc..) a certain level of economic education is required. Now, I’m not talking about some of the stuff you’ll learn in your standard Econ 101 or Econ 102 class, all of the jargon, some of the more advanced supply curve stuff…I’m talking about the type of common sense economics you’d learn in a book like Thomas Sowell’s _Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy_. Though I’ve taken those economics classes in college, I’ve found that I’ve learned more from reading Dr. Sowell’s book than I did during the 2 semesters of economics education in school. I will try to use the knowledge I’ve accumulated over the years to try and explain a couple of fairly basic, yet commonly misunderstood items.

The first topic I’m going to discuss is a shortage. Probably the biggest misconception about shortages is that a shortages represents an actual physical lack of something (as in, there isn’t physically enough milk for everyone to have enough milk to drink), but this understanding is quite off from what a shortage really is. A shortage means that there is not enough of something for everyone to get what they want, at the current price. There is the key: “at the current price”. Too often people forget to remember that prices have a profound effect on our economy, especially with the distribution of goods. Let’s look back at the milk example again. Let’s say a gallon of milk costs 50 cents. Well, at 50 cents everyone in the neighborhood would probably go to the store and buy some, to the point where the store sells out. When the next person comes into the store, there will be no milk. This is a shortage. Of course, part of the issue is that at 50 cents, people might buy more milk than they’d buy if say, the price were $1.00, and probably more than if the price were $2.00, and progressively up to the point where the milk costs too much for people to buy anything. So if person X buys 3 gallons of milk at 50 cents, they might only buy 1 gallon at $2, and that last person who strolled into the store in the evening and found no milk when it was 50 cents, might find plenty of milk left at $2.00. To sum things up, prices help regulate how much of something someone buys.

The second topic I’m going to discuss is common a misconception about profit, namely, if you’re making a huge profit, you must be charging a lot more per item than it cost you to make said item. A simple example can show how it is possible to make a profit without charging much above cost. Let’s say, for the sake of example, that I develop a new drink, something that catches on as a replacement for both coffee and soda, so people can drink it at all times during the day. If everybody loves this drink and can’t get enough of it, I could conceivably charge as much as I wanted per bottle right? I mean, even if it costs me $1.00 to make a bottle, I could charge $10 because everybody wants it, right? That’s actually not the case (due to a principle known as “substitutes and complements” that’s a little off topic…), so I’ll charge $1.50 per bottle. So I’m only going to make 50 cents a bottle, how could I make any money? Well, if I end up selling 10 million bottles of the stuff, I’ll end up making 5 millon dollars in profit. The basic principle here is I want to increase the number of transactions that have small little profits, instead of having a smaller number of transactions that have a proportionally larger profit. As Dr. Sowell points out, this is the principle behind large grocery stores; they count on people buying a large number of items per visit as smaller profits that add up to a large overall profit. In summation, if people buy a lot of something, a company can make a large profit even if they hardly charge over the cost it takes to make that something.

Though I doubt I just explained those two principles as well as Dr. Sowell does in his book _Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy_, I hope that provided a little economics background that will help in understanding a few issues that I plan on tackling next. it’s unfortunate that our school system does not provide a strong foundation on the principles of market economics, but thanks to people like Dr. Sowell, there are still ways for people who to get the information they need.

With a few shows under their belt, the crew of the 1/2 Hour News Hour seem to working out which segments are simple one shots and which segments will be recurring. In this particular episode, we get 2 recurring segments: “The Evolving Male” and “Conspiracy Corner.” “The Evolving Male” has the same male character as last week, but this time discussing his relationship with his son instead of his relationship with his wife. It’s fairly predictable stuff, talk about how he doesn’t consider himself a “parent”, that he and his son are “equals” and though he doesn’t “toss a baseball” at his son, he does toss “life choices.” As you can imagine, the kid is uninterested and disrespectful. Meanwhile, this week’s “Conspiracy Corner” tackled the issue of the the levee breaks after Hurricane Katrina. The “conspiracy” is that the levees broke because of massive rainfall, that resulted in flooding. Though the host for this segment is a little over the top, his recounting of some the real conspiracy theories (how do we know the levees weren’t blown up under water?) was a pretty solid enumeration of some of the garbage that’s thrown out there surrounding the national disaster.

The one brand new segment that ran throughout the show dealt with being “carbon neutral” and using compact fluorescent light bulbs. This segment illustrated one of the issues not commonly brought up when discussing how much more “electrically efficient” CFLs are, namely, CFL lightbuls contain a fairly significant quantity of mercury. The segment showed how breaking one of these bulbs can result in such measures as calling in a ‘haz-mat” crew or having to have your own person be decontaminated. In addition to this segment, there were two commercials: (1) a “Hollywood Helping Humanity” commercial, congratulated Joey Buttafucco and Amy Fisher on getting back together and (2) an “ACLU” commercial that points how the ACLU forced Los Angels county to remove a cross from their county seal, as well as another “Guy White, Closet Conservative” cartoon, which was rather forgettable.

The news segments this week continued the strong run they’ve had over the past few weeks. They touched on how a judge would not allow an Al Qaeda terrorist to be held without formal criminal charges (”So he can now return to flight school”), on what constitutes “Spring Break in Gaza”, a few shots on Kevin Federline and Paris Hilton, and a nice little crack on Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis Miller finished of the show with his _The Buck Starts Here_ segment. Though not quite the verbal beat down he put on Harry Reid last week, Miller had solid run down of the religious zealotry of those who believe in man-made “global warming.” He broke down how people who oppose this religion are known as “deniers” and stated his wish that those on the far left were as serious about fighting the war on terror as they are at fighting against those that they feel are effecting the planet’s climate in some way. Overall, it was a solid way, to end a solid show.

I recently posted the 1992 Speech from Al Gore, where he describes the threat Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed to America and the World at large. I got a response from an Al Gore fan, that rehashed some of the arguments the Democrat Party uses to explain how they could say that Saddam was a threat in 2000, 2001 but still say the war was a mistake. Since it was pretty standard stuff, I won’t repost it here, I’ll simply repost my reply:

I’m going to focus my reply to Gore’s statements about how the war should be waged at this current juncture compared to his statements in 1992 instead of going into an in depth analysis of how his statements in ‘92, and those of other Clinton Administration officials in the period leading up to the Iraq part of the War on Terror ,provided strong justification for the policy of regime change when it comes to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I agree with you that there is a big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Sadam had 10 more years with which to foster his terrorist ties, to allow Al Qaeda to move freely throughout his borders and to work on potential weapons of mass destruction programs. There were 10 years, 8 of which had Al Gore in power, in which America stood idle as the terror threat amassed around the world and Saddam projected his capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction (whether full of false bravado or not). There is no possibility of Saddam Hussein harboring terrorists in Iraq, providing training grounds for them, or providing them with weapons of mass destruction, at this time and that is to some degree due to our actions against him.  As for your arguments of international allies and how a war would impact our moral authority in the world, unfortunately, we live in an era where America is the “last, best hope” of free people the world wide. Though I am not as Wilsonian as the current President Bush in my philosophy of spreading democracy, removing Saddam from power helped make America, and the world as a whole, a safer place, if only for the reason that it took a safe zone for terrorists to train and made it an area where they were forced to actively engage us (if you can use the term “engage” for people who’s primary methods of engagement are to set road side bombs, kidnap civilians and destroy holy sites.)  The whole twist that “we went there for WMDs and there were none so we should leave” or the “Bush said Saddam had ties to 9-11″ are straw man arguments that have no real impact on the fact that it is in America’s best interest to help the Iraqi people fight against the Al Qaeda terrorists who are trying to break down the Iraq’s fledgling democracy before it has a chance to succeed, while Iran stands on the sidelines and routes for a new area they can spread their brand of Islamo-Fascism.

For Gore to say he was against the Iraq War from the start might be factually accurate, however, it would be hugely misleading for someone  who was part of an administration that repeatedly stated the threat of Saddam Hussein to America and the greater world, especially given this video footage, to say he’s always been against military intervention in Iraq.  Ultimately, though people who are fans of Al Gore can find ways to explain how his statements in ‘92 do not contradict his statements currently, the American people as a whole will view his current view as largely hypocritical and an ad campaign that prominently featured excerpts from this footage would be hugely damning to Gore in the popular election.

After a strong showing last week, the 1/2 Hour News Hour did a pretty good job on their follow up effort. The overall solid show however, is overshadowed by Dennis Millers’ _The Buck Starts Here_ segment, a segment that absolutely annihilated the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Though I will describe the video, it’s truly something that you have to see for yourself:

Miller piles on Reid, from calling him a “dim bulb”, saying his speech “oozes like a stuck chalk gun”, and even throwing in a Dorian Gray reference for good measure. Up until this point, I’ve found Miller’s segments to be rather stale, but he clearly brought his “A” game this week, in explanation of how a “hack like [Reid]” could be in a position of leadership.

The news segments this week were on par with the high quality news segments from last week. Jokes included takes on: Paris Hilton heading back to jail, Hillary Clinton turning to faith in time of crisis (and Bill not being able to remember Faith’s last name), Castro looked trim and healthy…standing next to Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich being more popular than the “TB Airplane Guy”, and one particular joke that drew a mixed crowd reaction: “A recent study shows 71% of College Girls are sexually active…the rest…just lie there…”

Though not as good as Dennis Miller’s segment, the other “skit” segments were pretty strong. The best was a segment dealing with “The Evolving Male,” i.e. a man who was more in touch with his feminine side so he could better relate to his wife. The looks on the wife’s face as the husband explained his marriage style were priceless, and gave a good setup for when he busted out with “will you grow a pair!” The opening segment was also fairly solid, in it featured a producer / agent who were trying to convince the show’s hosts to do more “moderate” jokes. When the hosts refused, the agent leaned over, pulled off his mask and turned out to be Rush Limbaugh. Not an earth shattering segment by any means, but a solid way to start the show.

For the 2nd week in a row, the 1/2 Hour News Hour put on a solid performance with some really funny moments. Odds are, the Dennis Miller piece will get some media play and therefore there should be an audience spike next week to see what the show is all about. If the show keeps up on its current pace, I’d bet that the people tuning in next week will be watching the following week too.

After taking a few weeks to gain some more solid footing, the 1/2 Hour News Hour took a giant leap forward this week with a very, very solid show. The news segments were solid, the skits were better, the commercials were more concise, and most importantly, there was no glaring “weak” moment that brought the rest of the show down.

Looking first at some of the skits, the “Rush as President” bits are solid, mostly because of Rush’s larger than life presence. He carries the scenes even if the material isn’t exactly exciting. The second “skit” was the “Feature Story” that discussed Jimmy Carter’s “Ex-presidential” legacy. Basically, a presidential “historian” came on and explained all the great that happened as a result of Jimmy carter leaving office (Iran freeing the hostages, the US winning the Cold War, etc…) saying it wasn’t Ronald Reagan who accomplished these things, rather they were accomplished as part of the Jimmy Carter “Ex-Presidency.” The money line came when asked “So, if Jimmy Carter’s going to take credit for all the positive things that happened after he left office, shouldn’t he be held responsible for 9-11 too?” The response: “Come on, everyone knows that 9-11 happened during the Clinton Ex-Presidency.” The final skit that deserves mention was an interview with a representative from “Americans against Guns.” This man claimed that he had been the victim of shootings on multiple occasions (A old lady when he tried to take her purse, a home owner when he tried to steal things from the home owner’s home, and a bank guard when he tried to rob a bank.)  “People having guns make it unsafe for us common criminals!” I completely agree.

The new segments this week were particularly strong as well with jokes concerning: Miss USA being booed at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico city (her talent was building a 700 mile fence), the UN responding my Islamo-Fascism by sending a really strong letter, Mitt Romney being willing to donate his presidential salary but John Edwards keeping it and “feeling really guility”, Steve Jobs thinking Al Gore would make a good president since Steve “wrote Al’s Software” (there was an “Al-Pod” reference in the background), and a few jokes about Rosie O’Donnell quitting the view and Paris Hilton heading to prison. Overall, the new segments were very high quality.

The show once again finished up with Dennis Miller’s _The Buck Starts Here_, which was okay with some Gitmo reference and his referring to President Bush as a “waits for the DVD to come out” kind of guy.  Though Dennis has yet to really find his stride, it looks the rest of the show might have, or, at the very least, is on the right track to.

“The Left’s favorite Argument is there is no argument.” Thomas Sowell started a recent column with this statement, a statement that rings true in both the Left’s current strategy and what appears to be one of the Left’s current primary goals: the stifling of the free flow of ideas through the use of tools such as government and political correctness. Sowell’s column in particular discussed the usage of this tactic in regards to man-made Global Warming, one example of a situation where the Left tries to prevent debate by tossing out things like a “consensus” of scientists agree on it or saying that we can’t afford to debate the issues because of the critical window we’re in concerning the future of the planet. Futher discussion of Algore’s “reason” will occur later, in addition to a discussion of how the Left is trying to stifle free speech on talk radio via “political correctness” and a current example of their tactics in action, i.e. discussion on the latest immigration “compromise.”Kivus › Edit — WordPress

In a recent column on Real Clear Politics, Robert Tracinski broke down what might be the “most alarming” part of Algore’s new book _The Assault on Reason_, namely its “justification for government controls over political speech.” Tracinski breaks down how Gore appears to suggest the usage of “tools” like anti-trust laws and the FCC to prevent alternative media sources like FOX News and talk radio from being able to exert influence on the political debate. Using these “tools” they can try to fulfill their idea of having the “ability of the leftist elite to impose its conventional dogmas on the national debate, without the need to persuade or convince others.” Utlimately, Tracinski sums it in the concluding sentence of the piece:”To do this while billing himself as a defender of reason is an act of supreme insolence.”

A current example of the Left trying to stifle free discussion and debate has arisen around the latest attempts at a “comprehensive immigration bill.” The latest “comprehensive” bill (deemed by Rush Limbaugh as the “Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007″) has been met with criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. The acts by the bills “defenders” however are focussed primarily on those on the Right who oppose the bill (a group that includes William F. Buckley and George Will) labeling people who have legitimate issues with the bills as “nativists”, “protectionists” and, of course, “racists”. Instead of trying to opening debate why they feel the Immigration bill is not purely an amnesty for those who have entered the country illegal, the bill’s defenders lob ad hominem insults at people who question the bill’s authenticity, hoping that accusations of racism will be enough to keep those opposed to the bill from freely voicing their opinion.

The most recent article of NewsMax contains an article entitled _After Imus and Roise, Who’s Next?_ that discusses how “media watchdog groups” have set their sights on trying to give people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly the Imus treatment. What NewsMax points out, but most media outlets fail to mention, is that these so called “media watchdog groups” are actually the creation of former operatives of the Democrat party and that the people who fund these groups are the people who fund the most radical of the Left wing organizations. Basically, these groups listen to popular conservative media and try to use their “willing accomplices” (as Rush likes to call them) in the “Drive-By” media to try and stir up controversy about quotes taken out of context, hoping that their mere existence will cause people to be more careful with their discussion of issues. They’re simply another tool that the Left and Democrat Party use to try and prevent people from freely expressing their ideas.

The above examples are far from of a full enumeration of the way the Left is trying to stifle the free flow of ideas, but merely a small taste of the tactics they’re employing to try and make their way of thinking the only “acceptable” way of thinking. Thankfully there are forums like Talk Radio that allow some of the propaganda spouted from the Democrat Party to be countered, however, as time goes on, the Left’s efforts to quash those forums will only intensify and it will be up to people who truly value the freedom of speech to stand athwart their efforts and yell Stop!