This is the famous Chinese man standing up to tanks headed to kill people at Tienanmen Square in 1989. The shot most people saw was the following – but the expanded view shows just what this one man was willing to face down
Sometimes the gobbledy gook that is government produces a real zinger. This one comes from the UK, but I’m sure that the same thinking applies in the idiotic (i.e. Democrat) wing of the US government too:
This too is an oddity, since the Treasury’s own long-standing research shows not only how investment can revive activity, but also how government investment actually produces a positive return, which could be used to pay down debt or boost other spending programmes.
The first of these is the Treasury Public Model, which shows a rising ‘multiplier effect’ from government spending, Annex, page 102. It shows that for every £1bn spent by government there is a much larger economic impact: £1.1bn in the first year, rising to £1.4bn in both the second and third years. This is a bigger stimulative impact than cuts to either direct or indirect taxation.
OK – so do you have that? Government spending creates a bigger economy. Government, which can create nothing without destroying something first, which might print money and buy somethings and thus produce an artificial “stimulus” in some economic numbers, is able to grow the economy.
Let’s take this to the logical conclusion. If your economy is $10 trillion then why not spend another $10 trillion and get an economy that is $11 trillion? Isn’t that what the above is saying? How about really growing your economy and spend $20 trillion – would that give you an economy of $12 trillion the next year? Would anyone with any logical thought believe this would be a logical outcome?
And yet, the British Treasury publishes this kind of stupidity and apparently believes it. There are two ways that the government can “get money”. It can tax everybody (or tax the hated “rich”, or Big Oil, or Big Tobacco, or whatever evil is the flavor of the day) to get its $10 bucks. It then applies its massive overhead (administrators and diversity managers and quality control managers and Congresscritters and Congressional aides and flacks and PR people and ….) and then spends $10 bucks in order to grow the economy. If you actually took in the 10 bucks out of the economy in the first place and then gave it to your favored union, did you grow anything? Adding in the overhead you actually destroyed value in the total economy, not added to it.
Of course, since its Government they can just print the $10 bucks. In this case, you might be able to get a widget maker to make some more products and buy some supplies and pay some wages to his workers. And in your measurement of economic activity it might show up as an increase. But now you have to pay back the $10. Plus interest. So in the end, did you grow the economy at all? I supposed you might think so as long as you ignore your debts – or if you never plan to pay them back anyway.
However, its just as silly as spending twice your GDP in order to “grow” your economy by 20% or some other ridiculous number. You end up with debt, inflation, and eventual collapse of your civilization.
Just where America is headed. And Britain, and Greece, and…..
And you should either tell your children to start buying gold and silver, or tell them to go live in China.
What will China and Australia share? An internet firewall that will block things the “government” doesn’t want the citizens to see:
“AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.”
“The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.”
“The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.”
This conforms to the usual way rights are lost in a “slippery slope” effect. (Here is an article on how gun rights were lost in the United Kingdom that outlines the general model for losing rights: (link).) In particular, when technology changes the way a traditional right can be exercised, as with the Internet now or with the introduction of revolvers in the United Kingdom, it’s thrown into doubt as the new possibilities are examined in the light of the worst and most inflammatory possible abuses – mass shootings with deadly multi-shot revolvers, child porn, whatever. Unless you have a zealous and belligerent lobby objecting to even “reasonable” infringements of the right in the light of new technology and making it taboo to support abridgments of the rights, the tendency is for those who enjoy the right to prove they are reasonable people (not “gun nuts”, not addicted to child pornography and so on) by agreeing to reasonable restrictions. These grow and grow and grow, and once you have conceded that there is no fundamental, absolute principle at stake on your side, it is very hard to resist them.
Harvey over at IMAO has his finger on the pulse of the latest Hollywood idea:
United Artists has announced that they are currently filming a sequel to the war movie classic Red Dawn, which will be released in 2009, on the 25th anniversary of the original.
The new movie will be based on several true stories, none of which are connected in real life. In “Red Dawn 2: Beaten By Toys”, a brigade of Chinese Communists will – under the guise of carrying an Olympic torch – rampage through America, conquering city after city with no resistance using only objects which have been banned in American school systems. For example:
* A real WWII grenade with no explosive charge or detonator.
* A butter knife.
* Overly sugared Kool-Aid mix.
* A beeper.
* A Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
* A squirt gun.
* Jolt Gum.
* Non-alcoholic jello shots.
* A drawing of a gun.
* A Sharpie marker.
* A ham sandwich.
* An emergency roadside kit.
* A pointed finger combined with the word “bam”.
UA publicist Dennis Rice is enthusiastic about the upcoming release. “First, we’re thrilled that we can bring the sort of ‘ripped from the headlines’ relevance that America expects from its movies. Second, it’s a well-deserved fart in the face to the greatest nation on earth, and it’s sort of our way of thanking America for letting us make a living by biting the hand that feeds us.”
The Norwegian government claims it has directed criticism against China after Chinese authorities put down protests in Tibet over the weekend, but says it doubts a boycott of the Olympics would have any positive effect.
Johansen stressed, however, that there are some “positive” things happening in China in the area of human rights. He therefore has little faith that attempts to isolate China or boycott the upcoming Olympics would do much good.
Speaking for the Italian government, Italian Foreign Undersecretary Gianni Vernetti told Chinese Ambassador Sun Yuxi that China should avoid using force against demonstrators and should uphold human rights including freedom of expression.
Speaking on Italian radio, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema rejected calls to boycott the Olympics.
He said the Beijing Games were ”an unrepeatable opportunity” to put pressure on China to allow dissidents to voice their grievances.
The speaker of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Poettering, suggested that European Union leaders should boycott the Olympic opening ceremony.
*Ed – oooh – won’t that strike fear into the hearts of the leaders of a country that has no problem with driving tanks over its own citizens. An opening ceremony boycott!
France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the European Union should consider boycotting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics if violence continues in Tibet.
He insisted that France had no plans to boycott the entire Olympic Games, saying that would not be “just.”
Halt! Or I will say Halt! again.