Category Archives: Socialism

Corn is Not the Answer

April 30, 2008 – 9:25 am

The government got it wrong again. Ethanol produced from corn, or any other substance, is not the answer to the world fuel shortage and the high prices the shortage generates. An MSNBC article and a Fox News column fill in the details. Using corn for fuel is not expected to alleviate the fuel shortage, but it has and is expected to continue to cause a world food shortage. Some even say that we should start hoarding nonperishable foods.

This is a prime example of what can happen when the government interferes in the market. Without the government ethanol mandates and subsidies the diversion of corn from food to fuel would not have proceeded at the current pace and we wouldn’t be facing a food crisis.

On the other side of the coin the federal and state governments are shutting off cheaper sources of fuel and other energy. They are restricting the exploration and development of new oil supplies and are restricting the building of new nuclear power plants. They won’t allow us to tap the massive supply of oil in the lower Gulf of Mexico because some Florida beach might get a few dark spots. All the presidential candidates have said they won’t allow the extraction of the huge oil reserves from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it might upset a few animals.

What good is a pristine stretch of beach in Florida if you can’t afford to drive there to enjoy it? How much food can you grow on a white sand beach? The Florida tourism economy is likely to be hurt as much by high fuel prices as spoiled beaches. Do you think the ANWR animals might choose to learn to live with a few oil wells and pipelines rather than be slaughtered for food?

We should be reducing government interference in energy, food and other markets instead of calling for more controls. National and world markets are too complex for a few officials to be able to manage them effectively. Consider the orange juice market. The Juice Authority sets the price of a gallon of OJ at X dollars. The JA then has to (1) issue a specification for the quality of OJ to prevent its producers from watering it down, (2) establish an inspection agency to see that the specification is met, (3) set prices for the oranges and other supplies that are needed to produce the OJ, (4) set prices for the seed, fertilizer and equipment needed by the orange growers, (5) set prices for the supplies needed by the orange growers’ suppliers, and on and on down the chain.

So, setting the price of OJ means that the price of steel must also be set, because it is needed to build the equipment used by the orange growers. The price of fuel must be set, because it is used in large quantities by the orange growers and the truckers that haul the oranges to the OJ producer’s plant. If all these and other prices aren’t set correctly the OJ production process will break down and no more OJ will be produced — unless Congress also gives the JA the additional power to force the OJ producer and all the suppliers to continue the process at a loss. Then we have socialism in all its faded glory. And this is what Barack Obama wants to give us if he becomes President.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Economics, Government Regulation | Comments (0) |

Martinez Wants Welfare for Aerospace Industry

April 8, 2008 – 7:37 am

An e-mail from Senator Mel Martinez contained these statements:

Senator Martinez called for more assistance to the aerospace industry in response to NASA’s estimate of job losses at Kennedy Space Center. “The aerospace industry is critical for our state and our country,” said Senator Martinez. “There is no simple fix to this problem, but we know where to focus our efforts. We need to accelerate the Orion and Ares programs, we need to foster a competitive environment for commercial space operations, and we need to assist the individuals and businesses affected by the transition. The aerospace industry is critical for our state and our country. This is more than a huge economic threat to our region; there is the real potential for a larger loss of human capital for our country at a time when we can’t afford to lose those who’ve dedicated their lives to specializing in engineering and science.”

Notice that he called for more assistance, implying that the aerospace industry is already being subsidized by the government. I know that a large segment of the aerospace industry derives most, if not all, its revenue from the government through defense and space programs, but I was not aware of direct subsidies.

If a supposedly conservative senator believes that engineers and scientists are in need of welfare he must have little confidence in them or our country. I say let the aerospace industry survive or fail on its own. If it fails the scientists and engineers can find or start another industry. Such resources should flow toward current needs, not be artificially sustained in an industry for which there is weakening or no demand.

If we continue down this slippery slope of propping up every troubled industry and individual who has made bad decisions, the last vestiges of our free market will vanish and we will be left with a socialized government and economy. This is a stated goal of Senator Obama but I wouldn’t expect it from a Republican senator.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Economics, Nanny State, Welfare | Comments (0) |

No Doubt Left, Hillary is a Socialist

May 29, 2007 – 10:59 am

The Associated Press reports that Hillary Clinton promotes shared responsibility:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

If there was any doubt left in anyone’s mind that Hillary is a socialist these comments should remove that doubt. “Shared responsibility?” “We’re all in it together?” What does that mean? Does she propose that the government assign part of my time to helping someone else meet their goals? No, I think she means that the government should assign all our time.

Hillary clearly believes that the government can take care of people better than people can take care of themselves. She demeans everyone by criticizing the concept of an “on your own” society. Hillary holds people in general in very low esteem yet it is people that will have to staff this government of hers that she expects to lead us all to prosperity.

Actually, most people are quite adept at looking out for themselves. This is one reason that socialism doesn’t work and capitalism does. In a socialistic society the competent people in charge are looking out for themselves and the incompetent people in charge are botching up the process. In a capitalistic, free-market society only the competent people are in charge (for the most part).

There is one thing we can count on from Hillary’s vision of government: It will definitely narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. It will rid the country of the rich and make all of us poorer.

There might be a little golden nugget in Hillary’s comments though. If she believes in “special privileges for none,” does that mean she opposes Affirmative Action?

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Politics, Race for President | Comments (2) |

Martinez Advocates Socialized Housing

March 14, 2007 – 10:14 am

Senator Mel Martinez clearly believes that the federal government should be in the housing business. On March 8 he released this announcement:

U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) today joined Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) in introducing the reauthorization of HOPE VI – a program that works to eliminate dilapidated and dangerous public housing, replacing it with new mixed income communities.

The senators should have taken a clue from their own announcement: “dilapidated and dangerous public housing.” Do you suppose they gave any thought to why public housing is dilapidated and dangerous? Let me offer a little help. There are two principal reasons. First, it’s run by government bureaucrats — the same kind of bureaucrats that operate the VA hospitals and try to keep illegal drugs and immigrants out of the country. Second, it’s inhabited mostly by deadbeats. That’s the reason they needed housing assistance in the first place. Putting a deadbeat in a new house is not going to mend his or her ways.

If the senators did take a clue, it seems to be that if we mix in a few non-deadbeats the deadbeats won’t be so obvious to the general public. They seem to want to hide the deadbeats among more responsible residents. But where are they going to find responsible residents who want to live on the same street with a bunch of deadbeats? Do they plan to bribe them? Perhaps they intend to integrate the deadbeats into existing neighborhoods. It’s not clear from the announcement.

“This reauthorization builds on the current program and makes it better,” said Martinez. “This isn’t just about funding the creation of public housing, it’s about community involvement. This bill requires a greater community commitment so that we’re not just rebuilding housing; we’re revitalizing neighborhoods and making them sustainable communities.”

Alright Mel! You go guy! Actually Mel, you’re beginning to look a little bufoonish. Do you really believe that a few assertions from you are going to make this happen? Have you ever seen a public housing area that didn’t turn into a ghetto within a few years? It will take more than pipe dreams to make this work.

With 14 HOPE VI grants, Florida ranks 2nd in the number of grants awarded in the nation and 10th in the amount of award dollars. Through grant awards and leveraged dollars, HOPE VI has generated over $736 million for the state of Florida.

Oh, I can see clearly now. This is about pork. You’re bringing home the bacon. The program doesn’t have to have any real chance of working as intended. It doesn’t matter if it’s unconstitutional. It has worked for you when it is approved and funded.

Before becoming a senator Martinez was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. That is, he has previous experience at creating ghettos. I don’t know why we even have a Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nothing in the constitution permits the federal government to provide housing to private citizens. Don’t bother pointing out the ‘provide for the general welfare’ thing. The emphasis there is on ‘general’; it doesn’t say ‘provide for the welfare of specific individuals’.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Congress, Politics | Comments (0) |

Open Letter to Alaa Halasa

February 26, 2007 – 11:19 am

Dear Alaa Halasa,

Thank you for your comments on my recent post, Chavez, Castro Throwing Microsoft Out. I decided to reply this way to give your comments (and my reply) more visibility. Here is your first comment:

(Linux) it is a great success for us in the open source community. Dear Mr. Castro I always respect you, you are a great person, and I am proud with your eager for freedom to all of the Cubans even in the software. I hope all the development countries follow Chavez and Castro.

I applaud your effort to learn the English language. You’re doing a lot better with English than I am with your first language. You might, though, want to spend a little time researching the meaning of ‘freedom’ and comparing Castro’s brand of freedom with that of, say, Lech Walesa. You can start here.

The article that I read, and linked to in my post, said that Castro planned to convert Cuba’s computers to open-source software and phase out dependence on the Windows operating system. Perhaps I misread his intentions but I just assumed that ‘phasing out dependence’ means that Linux would eventually replace Windows on Cuba’s computers. But if Castro is “eager for freedom to all of the Cubans even in the software” then ‘phasing out dependence’ must mean that Castro just wants to give computer users in Cuba an alternative to Windows. Knowing how totalitarian regimes work, I’ll go with my first impression.

I don’t share your admiration for Castro but I don’t condemn you for respecting him. You won’t be thrown in jail in the USA for praising Castro. Does a blogger in Cuba feel free to praise George Bush? You won’t be thrown in jail in the USA for criticizing Bush. Does a blogger in Cuba feel free to criticize Castro?

In the USA, freedom means that individuals, and even government employees, are free to choose the computer operating system they want to use. In Cuba, freedom means that Castro chooses the operating system. Real freedom is about individual choice not government restriction.

Here is your second comment:

Dear Blogger, the linux operating system is more powerful more stable. You can use it as a user and as a developer and as a technical, you can dive at what level you want. I respect your opinion but I wish you can see Linux in more specific eyes apart from marketing issues that make people blinds.

I didn’t denigrate the Linux operating system itself; I just questioned the motives of some of its developers. In fact, I said that I was glad that it exists. Options and choices are what the free market is about.

Your last statement seems to imply that users of commercial operating systems are just blinded by their marketing, that these users didn’t make an informed choice based on their particular needs. I have to strongly disagree with you on this. People have good reasons for choosing Windows or the Mac OS over Linux. Those that choose Linux also have good reasons. I don’t question your decision to use Linux, nor do I have a problem with you advocating Linux based on its merits.

Before retirement I worked for a small company (400 employees nationwide, 30 at my location) that provided engineering and analytical services to the US Department of Defense. We used both Windows and Linux. The employees made the choice; it was not mandated by management. Some chose Linux because it better suited the highly technical nature of their jobs. Some chose Windows because it better suited the management or clerical nature of their jobs. Some chose one or the other because they were more comfortable with it and didn’t want to take the time to learn a new OS. Some chose to use both. At the time, I considered it good news to learn that a competitor mandates the universal use of one particular OS.

Alaa, I believe that a free market works to the advantage of the people and that a managed market works to the advantage of the managers. And I believe that choice is the essence of a free market.

Sincerely,
Carson Sasser

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Open-Source Software | Comments (3) |

Chavez, Castro Throwing Microsoft Out

February 17, 2007 – 12:19 pm

The Associated Press reports that “Cuba’s communist government is trying to shake off the yoke of at least one capitalist empire — Microsoft Corporation — by joining with socialist Venezuela in converting its computers to open-source software.” They want to phase out their dependence on the Windows operating system and phase in the use of Linux instead.

Open-source roughly means that the software application is ostensibly free of cost and that the user has access to and the right to modify the source code in order to customize the behavior of the software. Linux is an open-source computer operating system originally developed by a Finnish programmer, Linus Torvalds, but extended and improved over the years since by many volunteer programmers. Its use and operation is similar to the Unix operating system but was designed specifically for personal computers. Although Linux can be downloaded and installed at no cost, most users purchase a packaged version from a vendor to avoid the trials and tribulations of trying to install it themselves. The vendors charge for the packaging and the installation software, not the Linux software itself (how convenient).

Using the collective efforts of many unpaid programmers to produce software which is then made available to anyone that wants it is said by some to be a socialistic endeavor. Technically it is but dissenters need to understand that open-source software is developed by private individuals doing what they choose to do with their time — not by a government bureaucracy. Perhaps the ‘collective efforts’ thing is why socialist regimes seem to be attracted to open-source software.

I do believe, though, that some of the open-source contributors are a bit misguided. One of the reasons often given for their efforts was to produce an alternative to Microsoft’s monopolistic Windows operating system and Office applications. That sounds good but Microsoft has never enjoyed a monopoly. Apple offered an OS before Microsoft did and it is still available as an alternative. There was OS2 and several other less well known alternatives. There have always been alternatives to Microsoft’s Office applications. Remember Word Perfect and Lotus123? The reason Microsoft overwhelmed its competition is that they offered products that best suited users in terms of cost, capability and ease of use.

It is good that Linux is out there but I think its development was motivated more by the egos of the contributors than a real desire to do something for the people. There is also the fact that many of the contributors eventually profited handsomely from their efforts.

Besides the packaging and installation charges by the Linux vendors, some experts believe that the operation and management costs are greater for open-source than for commercial software. They believe that commercial software comes with better technical support than does open-source.

It might be good for us that the communist dictatorships to the south of us want to rid their countries of commercial software.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Open-Source Software | Comments (4) |