It has been more of the same during the past week as the international media has fallen all over themselves to be the first one in line to praise China’s communist-run economy. The World Bank came out this week and said that it now expects China’s economy to grow by 8.4 percent this year. That is stronger than the previous growth estimate of 7.2 percent that was released by the World Bank back in June. Given the information that we have covered with you in recent weeks, we are certainly not surprised that China’s GDP is booming these days and that the growth has apparently taken on even more momentum during the past few months. After all, China’s Government announced plans to throw $585 billion at the nation’s economy via a stimulus bill. You have to remember that China’s economy is still relatively small compared to that of the United States. According to official statistics released by both of the nations, China’s 2008 GDP was $4.32 trillion. U.S. GDP last year was reported to be $14.441 trillion. That means the U.S. economy is still some 3.34 times larger than China’s.
Therefore, a stimulus package similar to what China’s Government announced would equal something like $1.954 trillion in America. When the rampant growth of loans by China’s banks is added into the equation (reportedly totaled $1.27 trillion during the first nine months of the year), you get a situation where liquidity is being thrown at China’s economy like gasoline pouring on a fire from an industrial-sized hose. Since America’s economy is still about 3.34 times larger than China’s, the $1.27 trillion in loans between January and September of this year would equal about $4.242 trillion if the same proportion of loans were made by banks domestically in America. So, let’s put those figures together. The stimulus package would equal $1.954 trillion to the U.S. economy and the surge in loans would equal $4.242 trillion. That creates an astounding total of $6.196 trillion - or nearly half of U.S. GDP. Just imagine what kind of economic growth would be taking place in America by now if such reckless Government spending and bank loans had been taking place in the U.S. this year. You would think that all of that liquidity would be triggering higher inflation in China. However, the Chinese Government, in true “1984” style is actually claiming that not only is inflation not a problem - but that deflation has been taking place in its consumer prices this year.
We know a lot of analysts and investors that spend their days whining about the U.S. Government and the way that the economy is overly managed and economic statistics are nothing but smoke and mirrors. However, many of those America-bashers are the first to praise China and usually like to predict that the communist nation will soon take over the world and push America to the sidelines forever. It never ceases to amaze us how naïve some people can be when it comes to believing all of the hype that is constantly pumped out of the great PR machine that is controlled by China’s Government. While we do not believe the following scenarios will be the case in the real world, we would like to offer up some numbers for you to chew on. Perhaps you could use this stuff to counter the next person that tries to convince you that China is on the verge of overtaking America.
Let’s use the GDP data that we mentioned earlier (U.S. at $14.441 trillion and China at $4.320 trillion). If the U.S. economy grows by an average of three percent a year during the next decade, U.S. GDP would be $19.408 trillion by 2018. A lot of the pro-China crowd likes to say that China’s economy will grow by eight percent a year forever. At that rate, China’s GDP would be $9.327 trillion by 2018. Now, that is a long way in the future and a lot of things could happen between now and then. We can just hear the skeptics saying that estimates of three percent annual growth in the U.S. during the coming decade is a fantasy. As far as we are concerned though, the talk of eight percent per year growth in China - stretching on forever - is the real fantasy. For the sake of argument though, let’s say that the three percent number for the U.S. and the eight percent growth figure for China both turn out to be correct. Even under that scenario, the U.S. economy would still be more than twice the size of China’s ten years from now. If you were to extend those growth rates all the way out to 20 years from now, U.S. GDP would be at $26.082 trillion and China’s would be at $20.135 trillion. Now, you could play that numbers game all you want and eventually China’s economy would come up to par with America’s GDP somewhere about 25 to 26 years in the future.
That is so far from now that we dare say it is impossible to believe that the scenario would take place. China’s growth has been driven by exports. The global recession has put a damper on that growth this year. Instead, the Chinese Government has been forced to rely on stimulus spending and rampant loan growth to keep the economy growing (and thus its restless population from getting out of hand). Now that the U.S. economy has officially emerged from recession, many China analysts are predicting that exports from that nation to America and other markets will rebound and thus put even more upside pressure on China’s growth next year. Perhaps that will be the case. However, we do not believe things will return to the old ways from before the financial crisis took hold of the global economy. Many U.S. corporations have begun to see the light and are moving their operations back to America. Just as importantly, U.S. companies have forsaken China and are moving their facilities to Mexico. Many of those companies have been reacting to growing consumer backlash to “Made in China” products - many of which have come to be seen as not only of shoddy quality but also costing precious U.S. jobs.
As for the operations that are being moved to Mexico from China, it all comes down to costs. According to a recent study, Mexico is now the lowest cost supplier in the world - with manufacturing costs (as of the end of 2008) at about 68% of comparable costs in the U.S.. China used to be at the top of that low cost list but it has slipped to the third spot with manufacturing costs near 86% of those in America. (India is reportedly near 73% and Brazil is near 91%). It takes a lot of time (and fuel) to ship manufactured goods from China to America. If Chinese costs finished last year at close to 86% of those produced in the U.S., and the quality of many of those goods are seen as below average, it is no wonder that some corporations are shifting away from China as a base of their production operations. If China was not still “fixing the game” by keeping its currency locked in against the U.S. dollar, those costs would be even higher. After several periods of upward adjustment against the U.S. dollar, the Chinese yuan has remained largely unchanged since July 2008. It would not take much in the way of dollar weakness against the yuan to completely wipe out the remaining competitive cost advantages of producers exporting to America. This is a little known story, but we expect it to become big news during the next few years.
China needs to switch from an export-driven economy to one that is driven by domestic consumer demand. There is a massive gulf between that world and the one that we are living in today. According to recent data, consumer spending in China has fallen from about 45% of that nation’s GDP to about 35%. Wall Street and the media can worship the recent economic growth in China all they want but the reality is that about 88% of China’s GDP this year will come from investment in real estate, infrastructure and production facilities. All of that is only helping to make some bad situations even worse - by increasing overcapacity and fueling a real estate bubble that is rapidly running out of control. It is also helping to fuel a new bubble in Chinese stock prices. More of those bubbles in next week’s Hotline.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Written off by the Media, Republicans Win Big!
Remember the Republican Party? The party that the media and political pundits wrote off? They said the Republican Party was dead... that conservatism was dead.
First, the most stunning news of the night. Republican challenger Chris Christi ousted incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine in the New Jersey governor's race. Obama flew in for multiple events in the state. VP Joe Biden also made an appearance. When it was all said and done, Christi emerged with 48% of the vote to Corzine's 44%.
As FOXNews.com points out, in the exit polling, conservatives went strongly for Christie 82% to 15%. Republicans stood by their candidate 91% to 6%. The long cherished "independent" vote went for Christie 60% to 30%. In other words, those same people who were frustrated with the way the country was going and turned to Obama, are the ones who realized the state of New Jersey and the country in general is getting worse. They threw out Corzine and embraced a candidate who wants to build up private sector jobs (not government jobs) and who wants to lower taxes. Less government and more freedom... that is a winning message!
In Virginia, Republican Robert McDonnell soundly defeated his Democrat opponent, Creigh Deeds, 58% to 41%. Voters in Virginia went for Obama in 2008 by a narrow margin. One year later, they turned to the Republican by a landslide.
Make no mistake. The story of Tuesday night was the gubernatorial wins in New Jersey (especially) and Virginia. Those two both mark a slap in the face to Obama and the Democrats who are bent on "transforming" America into a socialist nation. However, there was another race Tuesday night which caught the attention of conservatives.
In the special election for New York's 23rd congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens topped Conservative Doug Hoffman 49% to 45%. Conservatives such as myself are clearly disappointed with the result, but it is not all gloom and doom. Whenever a race gets thrown into chaos, anything can happen. Just look at what happened to Tom DeLay's district in Texas when the Republican candidate had to be "written in." The district went for the Democrat. One election later, it was back to being represented by a Republican.
The race does show that Republican voters have a set standard as to what they think a "Republican" candidate should represent. Scozzafava was not that candidate. In addition, the national party should still receive the same message regardless of whether Hoffman won or lost. He pulled enough votes combined with the Republican to have won. The message is that Republicans want and need conservatives as their candidates. When a solid conservative message is presented, Republicans win. Just look at New Jersey and Virginia. Great job!
First, the most stunning news of the night. Republican challenger Chris Christi ousted incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine in the New Jersey governor's race. Obama flew in for multiple events in the state. VP Joe Biden also made an appearance. When it was all said and done, Christi emerged with 48% of the vote to Corzine's 44%.
As FOXNews.com points out, in the exit polling, conservatives went strongly for Christie 82% to 15%. Republicans stood by their candidate 91% to 6%. The long cherished "independent" vote went for Christie 60% to 30%. In other words, those same people who were frustrated with the way the country was going and turned to Obama, are the ones who realized the state of New Jersey and the country in general is getting worse. They threw out Corzine and embraced a candidate who wants to build up private sector jobs (not government jobs) and who wants to lower taxes. Less government and more freedom... that is a winning message!
In Virginia, Republican Robert McDonnell soundly defeated his Democrat opponent, Creigh Deeds, 58% to 41%. Voters in Virginia went for Obama in 2008 by a narrow margin. One year later, they turned to the Republican by a landslide.
Make no mistake. The story of Tuesday night was the gubernatorial wins in New Jersey (especially) and Virginia. Those two both mark a slap in the face to Obama and the Democrats who are bent on "transforming" America into a socialist nation. However, there was another race Tuesday night which caught the attention of conservatives.
In the special election for New York's 23rd congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens topped Conservative Doug Hoffman 49% to 45%. Conservatives such as myself are clearly disappointed with the result, but it is not all gloom and doom. Whenever a race gets thrown into chaos, anything can happen. Just look at what happened to Tom DeLay's district in Texas when the Republican candidate had to be "written in." The district went for the Democrat. One election later, it was back to being represented by a Republican.
The race does show that Republican voters have a set standard as to what they think a "Republican" candidate should represent. Scozzafava was not that candidate. In addition, the national party should still receive the same message regardless of whether Hoffman won or lost. He pulled enough votes combined with the Republican to have won. The message is that Republicans want and need conservatives as their candidates. When a solid conservative message is presented, Republicans win. Just look at New Jersey and Virginia. Great job!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Optimism
Optimism. It is a sentiment that has been missing from the ranks of the Republican Party since before the 2006 midterm elections and one which is primed for a comeback.
Notwithstanding the negative commentary about the state of the Party, I am optimistic about the outcome for the Republican Party in both the 2010 Congressional elections and the 2012 presidential campaign.
First, I am optimistic based on a personal experience. Recently, I attended a fundraiser for Gov. Pawlenty's Freedom First PAC in Washington, D.C. The event brought out Republicans of all ages and backgrounds to a venue located just a stone's throw away from the Capitol. The over-capacity crowd, ranging from McCain campaign veterans to high school students who are interested in getting involved in politics for the first time, was full of energy, enthusiasm and determination. The conversations centered not just on Governor Pawlenty and his future, but also the good chances of Republicans in this week's governors races, as well as optimism about 2010 and 2012 and conviction that the Republican ideals of small government and personal responsibility will bring the Party back to power. A downtrodden party does not have gatherings like this one. -- A party that is ready for a comeback does.
Second, I am optimistic because history and the Democrats' most recent job performance are all working to the Republican advantage. The last two presidents to come in with their party controlling both houses of Congress were Jimmy Carter in 1977 and Bill Clinton in 1993. In 1978 Republicans made strong gains in both Houses of Congress and in 1981 Ronald Reagan moved into the White House. In 1994 the Republicans swept to a majority in both Houses led by Newt Gingrich and his Contract for America. The Democrats' performance in Congress and the White House should not give them any comfort that history will not be repeated in 2010. Without any tangible successes by Congressional Democrats in the last year, it is safe to say, and many Democrat strategists agree, that Democrats will lose seats in both Houses in 2010, and may lose control of said Houses if their performance and approval ratings do not improve dramatically.
Third, looking ahead to 2012, President Obama has followed the lead of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi by making a lot of speeches and announcing drastic changes in every area ranging from financial system overhaul to health care reform. But any actual achievement by the president is hard to pinpoint and a 25 point drop in approval ratings is the result of such dearth of successes. What in February looked like a signed, sealed and delivered reelection is now tenuous at best. The president has to succeed on two out of three fronts – the economy, Afghanistan/Iraq and health care in order to have a strong chance to stay in the White House, and if the first nine months are an indicator, that will not happen.
While some point to a lack of a clear front runner for the Republican nomination for 2012 as a problem, I believe a wide field with candidates ranging from strongly conservative to moderate will energize all the various wings of our Party, and that energy from the whole Republican spectrum will be channeled into winning the general election based on a coalition similar to those enjoyed by Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
The last four years have not been easy for the Republican Party but it is important to remember that just because elections have been lost, that does not mean that the main principals of conservativism have been defeated. After all, the latest Gallup poll states that conservatives outnumber liberals in this country by 20%, and that is another reason for optimism as we look to 2010, 2012 and beyond.
Notwithstanding the negative commentary about the state of the Party, I am optimistic about the outcome for the Republican Party in both the 2010 Congressional elections and the 2012 presidential campaign.
First, I am optimistic based on a personal experience. Recently, I attended a fundraiser for Gov. Pawlenty's Freedom First PAC in Washington, D.C. The event brought out Republicans of all ages and backgrounds to a venue located just a stone's throw away from the Capitol. The over-capacity crowd, ranging from McCain campaign veterans to high school students who are interested in getting involved in politics for the first time, was full of energy, enthusiasm and determination. The conversations centered not just on Governor Pawlenty and his future, but also the good chances of Republicans in this week's governors races, as well as optimism about 2010 and 2012 and conviction that the Republican ideals of small government and personal responsibility will bring the Party back to power. A downtrodden party does not have gatherings like this one. -- A party that is ready for a comeback does.
Second, I am optimistic because history and the Democrats' most recent job performance are all working to the Republican advantage. The last two presidents to come in with their party controlling both houses of Congress were Jimmy Carter in 1977 and Bill Clinton in 1993. In 1978 Republicans made strong gains in both Houses of Congress and in 1981 Ronald Reagan moved into the White House. In 1994 the Republicans swept to a majority in both Houses led by Newt Gingrich and his Contract for America. The Democrats' performance in Congress and the White House should not give them any comfort that history will not be repeated in 2010. Without any tangible successes by Congressional Democrats in the last year, it is safe to say, and many Democrat strategists agree, that Democrats will lose seats in both Houses in 2010, and may lose control of said Houses if their performance and approval ratings do not improve dramatically.
Third, looking ahead to 2012, President Obama has followed the lead of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi by making a lot of speeches and announcing drastic changes in every area ranging from financial system overhaul to health care reform. But any actual achievement by the president is hard to pinpoint and a 25 point drop in approval ratings is the result of such dearth of successes. What in February looked like a signed, sealed and delivered reelection is now tenuous at best. The president has to succeed on two out of three fronts – the economy, Afghanistan/Iraq and health care in order to have a strong chance to stay in the White House, and if the first nine months are an indicator, that will not happen.
While some point to a lack of a clear front runner for the Republican nomination for 2012 as a problem, I believe a wide field with candidates ranging from strongly conservative to moderate will energize all the various wings of our Party, and that energy from the whole Republican spectrum will be channeled into winning the general election based on a coalition similar to those enjoyed by Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
The last four years have not been easy for the Republican Party but it is important to remember that just because elections have been lost, that does not mean that the main principals of conservativism have been defeated. After all, the latest Gallup poll states that conservatives outnumber liberals in this country by 20%, and that is another reason for optimism as we look to 2010, 2012 and beyond.
Hotline on Money and the Economy
The worst recession in 70 years is officially over. That is the message sent out yesterday when it was reported that the 3.5% growth rate for the third quarter had put an end to a particularly nasty period in the U.S. economy. Of course, the media bears were not going to take that bullish economic announcement lying down. They immediately came up with a long list of things that could go wrong with the U.S. economy in the next quarter or the next year, sending America plunging into a double-dip recession. I have been waiting for this double-dip talk to gain momentum. There is a group of people that do not want the U.S.A. to succeed. I don’t know whether they have their money tied up in one or more bear funds or whether they are not happy unless they believe the worst that can happen will happen. Either way, I feel sorry for them because the odds against them getting the bearish news they crave are very long and getting worse.
Take the U.S. dollar, for example. China has now developed a following around the world with their loud and constant prattling that the dollar – which resumed its downward movement yesterday - is going to carry America straight off a cliff. If the Communist Party bosses who control their central bank, their state banks and the thousands of State-owned corporations really believe that, why in the world do they quite deliberately force their own money, the yuan, into a nearly death grip on the dollar as they plunge downwards together in value? I’ll tell you why. It is because their exports to America – by far their largest market – have collapsed by as much as 40% since late in 2008. This has created big problems with their factories but when they briefly tried to lay off hourly workers they were met with worker resistance that quickly turned bloody. I’ll try to get back to that in a moment. But first I’d like to review with you a most interesting fact about new business investment at American factories.
This investment showed up clearly in the third quarter as companies bought new electronic controls to automate or at least semi-automate as much of their production as they could. This has helped them lower costs and improve profit margins and this is causing a major slowdown in the trend toward moving U.S. factories and jobs to China and other poor nations that has temporarily caused a jump in domestic unemployment but this will be dealt with on a short-term basis by Congress. There is one negative factor in the jobs market, and that is the bi-partisan drive to cut defense spending. As usual we have the fanatic anti-defense Republican from Texas, who spends his weekends according to reports, working with peace now Democrats. That is a nice-sounding phrase but when you combine it with the mad rush in China and Russia to add modern weapons of all types to their arsenals, this sounds to me like old-fashioned unilateral disarmament. This Texan and his friends in Congress are not interested in freeing up Federal money to pay for new spending on health care etc. He has voted, according to reports, against every defense spending bill that comes along. That allows him to say he is for a balanced budget and lower taxes. His many friends in the media are so happy to get his support in cutting defense spending that they keep quiet about his votes and allow him to work in near-total secrecy.
Meanwhile, both the president and vice president are boasting about their success in cutting out of the 2010 budget new spending for the F-22, the best warplane ever designed. (Russia had been flying bombers over Alaska, reminding us it used to belong to them. But when the first squadron of F-22s appeared over Alaska some months ago, the far-slower Russian jets took one look at them and high-tailed it back to Russia. They have reportedly not been seen since. The plane is too expensive, the president explained. He said he had promised to get rid of it and now he has done so. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, pushed for an all-modern armed forces, saying this was the best way to stay out of war. He was right. If Obama had not crushed defense spending plans, we probably could have topped 5.0% real growth in this latest GDP number. Incomes and employment would have gone up. Reagan took us out of a nasty recession caused when he allowed Paul Volcker to squeeze the air out of Jimmy Carter’s runaway inflation (it reached a nearly 20% annual rate late in Carter’s one-term presidency) and within one year Reagan lifted the U.S. GDP growth rate to almost 6%.
Congress was so thrilled by his success that they added many billions to his budget, giving his tax cuts an unfair reputation for failure when it came to balancing the budget. Incidentally, I see no signs at all of the kind of inflationary pressures Wall Street claims to see when they look under their beds each night. There is one aspect of the new GDP report that I think you and I should discuss. That is the frequently repeated claim that the norm for consumer spending is and must be 70% of GDP if we are to stay out of recession-mode. For years now I have loudly called this 70% figure a lie. If you go back into the archives and read newspapers from a decade or a dozen years ago you will see that they constantly refer to the norm for consumer spending as being 45%. And even that is a stretch. It required moving things like private school and college tuition into the consumer spending column and possibly medical care as well.
For some reason, perhaps that in the Greenspan era they wanted people to constantly and repeatedly borrow against the rising value of their home in order to live way above their income level, the idea was spread that everyone should borrow all that they could, in loans and credit cards. Companies were encouraged to outsource their orders and even their factories to Asia, pulling up by the roots plants they had just established in Mexico and Europe and moving them to China. Since China was rigging its money to 40% below fair value, this let them drive many U.S. firms to the wall under the guise of free trade. Well, now we have a lower dollar – not dangerously low, by the way, but part way back to the fair level that was in place before foreign central banks and U.S. speculators drove it way above fair value.
We have the investment in new machinery and new electronic controls that I spoke of earlier. And we have waves of common sense 25% pay cuts and benefit cuts that have in many cases let U.S. workers and factories able to compete head on with subsidized foreign plants and even cause hundreds, perhaps thousands of them to shut down and send the jobs back to America. GM and Ford are making massive investments in China and buying into so-called growth and that could leave them way up on the beach when the temporary Chinese tide goes out. If the U.S. wants jobs, the way to get them is not through inflationary government spending on alleged stimulus that resembles FDR’s make-work jobs. I question the current Wall Street belief that security lies in big companies. It is smaller firms that create almost all the jobs in America. Look to them for new growth. Especially as the Age of Asia fades and is replaced by a resurgent Europe and U.S.A. More next week.
Take the U.S. dollar, for example. China has now developed a following around the world with their loud and constant prattling that the dollar – which resumed its downward movement yesterday - is going to carry America straight off a cliff. If the Communist Party bosses who control their central bank, their state banks and the thousands of State-owned corporations really believe that, why in the world do they quite deliberately force their own money, the yuan, into a nearly death grip on the dollar as they plunge downwards together in value? I’ll tell you why. It is because their exports to America – by far their largest market – have collapsed by as much as 40% since late in 2008. This has created big problems with their factories but when they briefly tried to lay off hourly workers they were met with worker resistance that quickly turned bloody. I’ll try to get back to that in a moment. But first I’d like to review with you a most interesting fact about new business investment at American factories.
This investment showed up clearly in the third quarter as companies bought new electronic controls to automate or at least semi-automate as much of their production as they could. This has helped them lower costs and improve profit margins and this is causing a major slowdown in the trend toward moving U.S. factories and jobs to China and other poor nations that has temporarily caused a jump in domestic unemployment but this will be dealt with on a short-term basis by Congress. There is one negative factor in the jobs market, and that is the bi-partisan drive to cut defense spending. As usual we have the fanatic anti-defense Republican from Texas, who spends his weekends according to reports, working with peace now Democrats. That is a nice-sounding phrase but when you combine it with the mad rush in China and Russia to add modern weapons of all types to their arsenals, this sounds to me like old-fashioned unilateral disarmament. This Texan and his friends in Congress are not interested in freeing up Federal money to pay for new spending on health care etc. He has voted, according to reports, against every defense spending bill that comes along. That allows him to say he is for a balanced budget and lower taxes. His many friends in the media are so happy to get his support in cutting defense spending that they keep quiet about his votes and allow him to work in near-total secrecy.
Meanwhile, both the president and vice president are boasting about their success in cutting out of the 2010 budget new spending for the F-22, the best warplane ever designed. (Russia had been flying bombers over Alaska, reminding us it used to belong to them. But when the first squadron of F-22s appeared over Alaska some months ago, the far-slower Russian jets took one look at them and high-tailed it back to Russia. They have reportedly not been seen since. The plane is too expensive, the president explained. He said he had promised to get rid of it and now he has done so. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, pushed for an all-modern armed forces, saying this was the best way to stay out of war. He was right. If Obama had not crushed defense spending plans, we probably could have topped 5.0% real growth in this latest GDP number. Incomes and employment would have gone up. Reagan took us out of a nasty recession caused when he allowed Paul Volcker to squeeze the air out of Jimmy Carter’s runaway inflation (it reached a nearly 20% annual rate late in Carter’s one-term presidency) and within one year Reagan lifted the U.S. GDP growth rate to almost 6%.
Congress was so thrilled by his success that they added many billions to his budget, giving his tax cuts an unfair reputation for failure when it came to balancing the budget. Incidentally, I see no signs at all of the kind of inflationary pressures Wall Street claims to see when they look under their beds each night. There is one aspect of the new GDP report that I think you and I should discuss. That is the frequently repeated claim that the norm for consumer spending is and must be 70% of GDP if we are to stay out of recession-mode. For years now I have loudly called this 70% figure a lie. If you go back into the archives and read newspapers from a decade or a dozen years ago you will see that they constantly refer to the norm for consumer spending as being 45%. And even that is a stretch. It required moving things like private school and college tuition into the consumer spending column and possibly medical care as well.
For some reason, perhaps that in the Greenspan era they wanted people to constantly and repeatedly borrow against the rising value of their home in order to live way above their income level, the idea was spread that everyone should borrow all that they could, in loans and credit cards. Companies were encouraged to outsource their orders and even their factories to Asia, pulling up by the roots plants they had just established in Mexico and Europe and moving them to China. Since China was rigging its money to 40% below fair value, this let them drive many U.S. firms to the wall under the guise of free trade. Well, now we have a lower dollar – not dangerously low, by the way, but part way back to the fair level that was in place before foreign central banks and U.S. speculators drove it way above fair value.
We have the investment in new machinery and new electronic controls that I spoke of earlier. And we have waves of common sense 25% pay cuts and benefit cuts that have in many cases let U.S. workers and factories able to compete head on with subsidized foreign plants and even cause hundreds, perhaps thousands of them to shut down and send the jobs back to America. GM and Ford are making massive investments in China and buying into so-called growth and that could leave them way up on the beach when the temporary Chinese tide goes out. If the U.S. wants jobs, the way to get them is not through inflationary government spending on alleged stimulus that resembles FDR’s make-work jobs. I question the current Wall Street belief that security lies in big companies. It is smaller firms that create almost all the jobs in America. Look to them for new growth. Especially as the Age of Asia fades and is replaced by a resurgent Europe and U.S.A. More next week.
Monday, February 2, 2009
I Hope We Find God Again
I am a Catholic, & every single one of my ancestors was Catholic. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Catholic, and I don't think Jews like getting pushed around for being Jewish. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our ives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through email and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too.. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our ives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through email and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
