Posts
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Listen to Germany, Not to America
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:01:27 -0400
Re: Debate Grows As Europe Fears Return Of a Crisis
Dear Sirs:
High borrowing costs for the "struggling Southern European countries" is NOT the root cause of the crisis. The root cause of the crisis is spending, more specifically spending that is funded by too much debt. Borrowing costs merely reflect creditor uncertainty that debts will be repaid in money of the same purchasing power as lent. So, if too much spending is the problem, how can increased spending, as recommended by the Americans, possibly be the answer? Fortunately there is a country that understands basic economics--Germany. Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schauble, recommends further spending cuts and changes in labor markets as the path to recovery. He is right. No nation can live beyond its means forever, and no nation can spend its way to prosperity. Europe needs increased savings, not spending, to rebuild its capital base that was squandered by government policies to create bubble economies based on money manipulation and fiscal interventions. These measures have failed spectacularly. If Wolfgang Schauble ever needs a job, I propose that he apply for Timothy Geithner's.
Patrick Barron
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
My follow-up letter to the NY Times re: Editorializing as Reporting
Dear Sirs:
On further reflection, why don't you make just two word substitutions in the first sentence I reference below to read:
"...their work shows that the top contributors in the United States have earned a bigger and bigger share of overall income..."
Changing just one word in the second sentence that I reference has an even bigger impact to read:
"But both also express bewilderment over the current conversation about whether the wealthy, who have contributed most of America's income gains over the last 30 years, should be paying higher taxes."
Yes, bewilderment indeed! Americans increasingly benefit from the disproportionate contributions of the few.
Patrick Barron
On further reflection, why don't you make just two word substitutions in the first sentence I reference below to read:
"...their work shows that the top contributors in the United States have earned a bigger and bigger share of overall income..."
Changing just one word in the second sentence that I reference has an even bigger impact to read:
"But both also express bewilderment over the current conversation about whether the wealthy, who have contributed most of America's income gains over the last 30 years, should be paying higher taxes."
Yes, bewilderment indeed! Americans increasingly benefit from the disproportionate contributions of the few.
Patrick Barron
My letter to the NY Times re: stop portraying editorializing as reporting
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Stop portraying editorializing as reporting
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:56:19 -0400
Re: French Duo See (Well) Past Tax Rise for Richest
Dear Sirs:
I advise your readers to subsitute the word "earn" for "take" in reading your article about two French economists who, for some unknown reason, want to meddle in American tax policy. (Don't the French have enough problems of their own to keep these two busy?) Read this sentence, for example, subsituting "earned" for your reporter's word "taken":
"...their work shows that the top earners in the United States have taken a bigger and bigger share of overall income..."
Why doesn't your reporter continue to use the word "earn"? I believe I know the reason--there is no social agenda in reporting that people "earn" more and decide to keep what they "earn"; whereas, there is plenty of social warfare in reporting that people who earn more decide to "take" more. "Take" from whom? Didn't they earn it? If so, they are merely keeping what they earn, are they not?
Your reporter continues her social agenda in this sentence:
"But both also express bewilderment over the current conversation about whether the wealthy, who have taken most of America's income gains over the last 30 years, should be paying higher taxes."
So, the wealthy have "taken", have they? Again, "taken" from whom? Where are the police? Are they not supposed to stop these wealthy from going down to the poor part of town and robbing people? Oh, that's not exactly what your reporter or these two French class warriors mean, huh? Well, then stop presenting editorializing as news.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Stop portraying editorializing as reporting
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:56:19 -0400
Re: French Duo See (Well) Past Tax Rise for Richest
Dear Sirs:
I advise your readers to subsitute the word "earn" for "take" in reading your article about two French economists who, for some unknown reason, want to meddle in American tax policy. (Don't the French have enough problems of their own to keep these two busy?) Read this sentence, for example, subsituting "earned" for your reporter's word "taken":
"...their work shows that the top earners in the United States have taken a bigger and bigger share of overall income..."
Why doesn't your reporter continue to use the word "earn"? I believe I know the reason--there is no social agenda in reporting that people "earn" more and decide to keep what they "earn"; whereas, there is plenty of social warfare in reporting that people who earn more decide to "take" more. "Take" from whom? Didn't they earn it? If so, they are merely keeping what they earn, are they not?
Your reporter continues her social agenda in this sentence:
"But both also express bewilderment over the current conversation about whether the wealthy, who have taken most of America's income gains over the last 30 years, should be paying higher taxes."
So, the wealthy have "taken", have they? Again, "taken" from whom? Where are the police? Are they not supposed to stop these wealthy from going down to the poor part of town and robbing people? Oh, that's not exactly what your reporter or these two French class warriors mean, huh? Well, then stop presenting editorializing as news.
Patrick Barron
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
My letter to National Review Magazine re: The Dark Side of Gambling
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: The Dark Side of Gambling
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:41:53 -0400
Dear Sirs:
Kevin D. Williamson is doing your readers a great favor by showing the dark side of gambling. My grandfather was a professional gambler. He was a pit boss, a middle manager, for decades in various casinos in Las Vegas. When I reached adulthood and was stationed at the local Air Force base for a time, he told me the truth about gambling. I won't go into all the sordid details here. His most memorable story was one he saw played out over and over again. A hard-working couple takes a much needed vacation to Las Vegas after struggling many years to make a go of their mom and pop business. The worst thing happens...they win a small amount of money. Returning to their daily grind, they decide that it is easier to make money gambling in Las Vegas than working seventy hour weeks in their business. So they return to Las Vegas...and lose everything. There is a reason that there are so many pawn shops in Las Vegas.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: The Dark Side of Gambling
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:41:53 -0400
Dear Sirs:
Kevin D. Williamson is doing your readers a great favor by showing the dark side of gambling. My grandfather was a professional gambler. He was a pit boss, a middle manager, for decades in various casinos in Las Vegas. When I reached adulthood and was stationed at the local Air Force base for a time, he told me the truth about gambling. I won't go into all the sordid details here. His most memorable story was one he saw played out over and over again. A hard-working couple takes a much needed vacation to Las Vegas after struggling many years to make a go of their mom and pop business. The worst thing happens...they win a small amount of money. Returning to their daily grind, they decide that it is easier to make money gambling in Las Vegas than working seventy hour weeks in their business. So they return to Las Vegas...and lose everything. There is a reason that there are so many pawn shops in Las Vegas.
Patrick Barron
Saturday, April 14, 2012
My letter to the NY Times re: How to Deter North Korea's Nukes
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: How to Deter North Korea's Nukes
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:12:56 -0400
Re: Few Options as North Korea Nears Launching
Dear Sirs:
The West's response to North Korea's nuclear weapons program has focused entirely on the failed policy of what can only be called appeasement; i.e., attempts to bribe North Korea with food and fuel. We common citizens marvel at the seemingly bottomless faith that our politicians have in such futile programs. Why not try something that always works--peace through strength. Rather than negotiate with North Korea--which cannot possibly accomplish anything, given the nature of the hard-line communist regime--build an effective missile shield to protect our two main allies: South Korea and Japan. Furthermore, the nuclear deterrence dynamic is made unnecessarily questionable by the fact that neither South Korea nor Japan have their own deterrent but rely upon a third party--the U.S. There will always be some level of doubt whether the U.S. will respond to a nuclear attack or credible threatened nuclear attack on either or both countries. The U.S. nuclear shield may have been necessary when neither country had the resources to defend themselves, but that no longer is the case. If South Korea and Japan had a credible nuclear deterrence under their own control, there would be no question of instant retaliation of a North Korean attack, just as there is no question of an instant retaliation by the U.S. following an attack upon our soil. The U.S. has weapons that work and the means to deliver them. We should sell both to our long time allies, instantly checkmating any nuclear program by North Korea. North Korea may not give up its nuclear program, but the region would be a safer place. An additional benefit would accrue to the U.S. budget as we could bring our troops home. South Korea and Japan are our allies; let's start treating them as such and not as dependents.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: How to Deter North Korea's Nukes
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:12:56 -0400
Re: Few Options as North Korea Nears Launching
Dear Sirs:
The West's response to North Korea's nuclear weapons program has focused entirely on the failed policy of what can only be called appeasement; i.e., attempts to bribe North Korea with food and fuel. We common citizens marvel at the seemingly bottomless faith that our politicians have in such futile programs. Why not try something that always works--peace through strength. Rather than negotiate with North Korea--which cannot possibly accomplish anything, given the nature of the hard-line communist regime--build an effective missile shield to protect our two main allies: South Korea and Japan. Furthermore, the nuclear deterrence dynamic is made unnecessarily questionable by the fact that neither South Korea nor Japan have their own deterrent but rely upon a third party--the U.S. There will always be some level of doubt whether the U.S. will respond to a nuclear attack or credible threatened nuclear attack on either or both countries. The U.S. nuclear shield may have been necessary when neither country had the resources to defend themselves, but that no longer is the case. If South Korea and Japan had a credible nuclear deterrence under their own control, there would be no question of instant retaliation of a North Korean attack, just as there is no question of an instant retaliation by the U.S. following an attack upon our soil. The U.S. has weapons that work and the means to deliver them. We should sell both to our long time allies, instantly checkmating any nuclear program by North Korea. North Korea may not give up its nuclear program, but the region would be a safer place. An additional benefit would accrue to the U.S. budget as we could bring our troops home. South Korea and Japan are our allies; let's start treating them as such and not as dependents.
Patrick Barron
Friday, April 13, 2012
My letter to the NY Times re: Reserving the Market for the Politically Connected
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Reserving the Market for the Politically Connected
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:25:05 -0400
Re: The High Cost of Gambling on Oil
Dear Sirs:
It is clear that former U.S. Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II knows little about how markets work, nor does he care. According to Mr. Kennedy, the state has the right to allow who may and who may not participate in markets. I refer to his call to ban what he calls "pure" speculators from the oil market, claiming that such a ban would "drive down the price of oil by as much as 40% and the price of gasoline by as much as $1 a gallon." Of course, this is nonsense, and nowhere in his article does Mr. Kennedy attempt to justify his claim by reference to economic theory. Mr. Kennedy admits that he "...started buying and selling oil more than 30 years ago for my nonprofit organization...". Can it be that recently he has been outmaneuvered by more astute speculators and simply wishes to eliminate competition?
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Reserving the Market for the Politically Connected
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:25:05 -0400
Re: The High Cost of Gambling on Oil
Dear Sirs:
It is clear that former U.S. Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II knows little about how markets work, nor does he care. According to Mr. Kennedy, the state has the right to allow who may and who may not participate in markets. I refer to his call to ban what he calls "pure" speculators from the oil market, claiming that such a ban would "drive down the price of oil by as much as 40% and the price of gasoline by as much as $1 a gallon." Of course, this is nonsense, and nowhere in his article does Mr. Kennedy attempt to justify his claim by reference to economic theory. Mr. Kennedy admits that he "...started buying and selling oil more than 30 years ago for my nonprofit organization...". Can it be that recently he has been outmaneuvered by more astute speculators and simply wishes to eliminate competition?
Patrick Barron
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
My letter to the NY Times re: Raising the Minimum Wage
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Why Not a Really, Really BIG Minimum Wage?
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:47:07 -0400
Re: Raising the Floor on Pay
Dear Sirs:
I am surprised at the modesty shown by all those clamoring for an increase in the minimum wage. If raising the minimum wage would improve the standard of living of all those currently employed at low wages and pay for itself by stimulating demand, then why not ask for a really, really BIG increase? Statisticians say that it is difficult for a family of four to live decently on less than $50,000 per year, so a minimum wage of $25 per hour seems appropriate. But, wait! Why be so modest? Lets raise it to $50 per hour and put everyone in the country on Easy Street! This is America; we can do anything! Surely the laws of economics do not apply to US!
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Why Not a Really, Really BIG Minimum Wage?
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:47:07 -0400
Re: Raising the Floor on Pay
Dear Sirs:
I am surprised at the modesty shown by all those clamoring for an increase in the minimum wage. If raising the minimum wage would improve the standard of living of all those currently employed at low wages and pay for itself by stimulating demand, then why not ask for a really, really BIG increase? Statisticians say that it is difficult for a family of four to live decently on less than $50,000 per year, so a minimum wage of $25 per hour seems appropriate. But, wait! Why be so modest? Lets raise it to $50 per hour and put everyone in the country on Easy Street! This is America; we can do anything! Surely the laws of economics do not apply to US!
Patrick Barron
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
My letter to the Financial Times (London) re: A Non-growth Agenda for the Eurozone
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters.editor@ft.com
Subject: A Non-growth agenda for the eurozone
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:47:00 -0400
Dear Sirs:
I was disappointed in your lead editorial today in which you call for more monetary easing by the European Central Bank and more infrastructure spending as a means to overcome the eurozone crisis and especially high unemployment. These policies will have the opposite effect. Your call for "demand management" is based upon the fallacious Keynesian concept that attempts to refute Say's Law. Keynes himself "borrowed" (without attribution, which was typical of him) his discredited "inadequate demand" theory from Thomas Malthus, whom early nineteenth century economists considered to be an economic quack. Printing more fiat money merely robs the purchasing power of those already holding euros, and using these new funds to stimulate spending and drive down interest rates will cause savings to fall. What the eurozone economies need is to replenish its capital stock, which was squandered in an orgy of government wasteful spending. The only way to do this is by increasing savings. Just as any household must postpone spending when it runs out of money, even for things that it considers very important, governments must postpone spending plans, too. Europe needs to cut spending, reduce regulations, cut taxes, and return to sound money. This is the formula that always works, and it will work again.
Patrick Barron
To: letters.editor@ft.com
Subject: A Non-growth agenda for the eurozone
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:47:00 -0400
Dear Sirs:
I was disappointed in your lead editorial today in which you call for more monetary easing by the European Central Bank and more infrastructure spending as a means to overcome the eurozone crisis and especially high unemployment. These policies will have the opposite effect. Your call for "demand management" is based upon the fallacious Keynesian concept that attempts to refute Say's Law. Keynes himself "borrowed" (without attribution, which was typical of him) his discredited "inadequate demand" theory from Thomas Malthus, whom early nineteenth century economists considered to be an economic quack. Printing more fiat money merely robs the purchasing power of those already holding euros, and using these new funds to stimulate spending and drive down interest rates will cause savings to fall. What the eurozone economies need is to replenish its capital stock, which was squandered in an orgy of government wasteful spending. The only way to do this is by increasing savings. Just as any household must postpone spending when it runs out of money, even for things that it considers very important, governments must postpone spending plans, too. Europe needs to cut spending, reduce regulations, cut taxes, and return to sound money. This is the formula that always works, and it will work again.
Patrick Barron
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
My letter to the NY Times re: Lenient Regulation of Banks Is NOT the Problem
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Lenient Regulation of Banks Is NOT the Problem
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:20:48 -0400
Re: Small Banks Shift Charters To Avoid U.S. As Regulator
Dear Sirs:
No army of regulators equipped with the newest computer tools will stop what is perceived as poor lending practices by banks, because the problem resides elsewhere. The so-called subprime lending crisis in America was caused by multiple interventions by government, most notably by an expansion of base money by the Fed. These extra reserves were employed, as was the Fed's goal, into expanding fiat money credit. But, because fiat money credit expansion was not built upon prior acts of saving, no real assets were released to complete the myriad projects begun by misled entrepreneurs and their banks. Now regulators of every stripe, not just federal regulators, are combing bank records for examples of poor lending practices, as if for some unknown reason banks were suddenly afflicted with a mass delusion that they could make more money lending to people who could not pay them back. To this end the federal government has sent its agents into banks to harass management and tie up bank resources seeking that which does not exist. But, as this article shows, that will not stop the regulators from trying. This politically oriented search for enemies is part of the government's propaganda campaign to distract the public from its own corrupt and incompetent interventions.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Lenient Regulation of Banks Is NOT the Problem
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:20:48 -0400
Re: Small Banks Shift Charters To Avoid U.S. As Regulator
Dear Sirs:
No army of regulators equipped with the newest computer tools will stop what is perceived as poor lending practices by banks, because the problem resides elsewhere. The so-called subprime lending crisis in America was caused by multiple interventions by government, most notably by an expansion of base money by the Fed. These extra reserves were employed, as was the Fed's goal, into expanding fiat money credit. But, because fiat money credit expansion was not built upon prior acts of saving, no real assets were released to complete the myriad projects begun by misled entrepreneurs and their banks. Now regulators of every stripe, not just federal regulators, are combing bank records for examples of poor lending practices, as if for some unknown reason banks were suddenly afflicted with a mass delusion that they could make more money lending to people who could not pay them back. To this end the federal government has sent its agents into banks to harass management and tie up bank resources seeking that which does not exist. But, as this article shows, that will not stop the regulators from trying. This politically oriented search for enemies is part of the government's propaganda campaign to distract the public from its own corrupt and incompetent interventions.
Patrick Barron
My letter to the NY Times: Strip Search Violates Fourth Amendment
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Strip Search Is Violation of Fourth Amendment
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:14:38 -0400
Re: Justices Approve Strip-Search Use for Any Arrest
Dear Sirs:
What part of "The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." do the Supreme Court justices not understand? Of course law enforcement officers will WANT to search anyone at any time for any purpose, for by the very nature of their job they hold a cynical view of their fellow men. That is why our Founding Fathers protected us against such outrages. This ruling MUST be nullified at the state level and include prohibiting strip searches at airports by federal officials unless, as the Fourth Amendment requires, a warrant has been issued based "...upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...".
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: Strip Search Is Violation of Fourth Amendment
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:14:38 -0400
Re: Justices Approve Strip-Search Use for Any Arrest
Dear Sirs:
What part of "The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." do the Supreme Court justices not understand? Of course law enforcement officers will WANT to search anyone at any time for any purpose, for by the very nature of their job they hold a cynical view of their fellow men. That is why our Founding Fathers protected us against such outrages. This ruling MUST be nullified at the state level and include prohibiting strip searches at airports by federal officials unless, as the Fourth Amendment requires, a warrant has been issued based "...upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...".
Patrick Barron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)