Greed's Saving Graces

When in a provocative mood I have proclaimed to liberals that greed is a virtue. When I make such a statement, you can see their face turn red with anger and almost see the steam come out of their ears. How can one say such a thing? How can greed be a virtue? Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. Greed is a desire for excessive wealth. Greed is the inappropriate desire for excessive wealth. Greed is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more wealth than what one needs or deserves. Greedy people commit immoral acts to take advantage of others. Greedy people raise the price of gas in the summer. Greedy people price gouge. The payday lender is greedy. Big corporations are greedy. The ticket scalper is greedy.

Maybe “greed” is an unnecessarily provocative word. But “self-interest” or the “profit-motive” is a virtue. I accept that we need morality to moderate “greed”, but even without morality in a free market, greed is moderated. I would contend that the profit motive or self-interest or “greed” feeds, clothes, houses, and heals more people than generosity and sharing and caring could ever do. While we should condemn unfair practices, failure to honor contracts, deception, and cheating, the desire to obtain excessive wealth is a not to be condemned. If all of the greedy sold all of their worldly processions and gave the money to the poor, we would have a lot more poor and the poor would starve.

In this article George Will examines greed and argues that when markets are allowed to operate, greed generates its own punishment.

George Will: Greed's Saving Graces

Townhall.com - [excerpt] Greed, we are agreed, is bad. It also is strange. It has long been included among the Seven Deadly Sins, which suggests that it is a universal and perennial facet of the human fabric. But the quantity of it, at least in America, responds to political cycles.

Top Stories

Bobbie Patray, the stary-eyed high priestess of the Christian Right

In today’s issue of the Nashville Scene, columnist Jeff Woods reported on a bill that just passed the state legislature, which would allow parents to have access to their child’s medical records. Predictably, he thought it was a terrible development. (link)

What got my attention was this passage from his article: “As Bobbie Patray, the glassy eyed high priestess of the state's Christian Right, watched with approval from the front row.”

I know Bobbie Patray. I do not know her well but have been to several meetings and functions with her and have a speaking acquaintance. I think Ms Patray is an attractive women. I don't know what makes her a "high priestist" instead of just a lobbyist. I have never noticed her to be “glassy eyed.” I am not even sure what Woods means by that. Anyway, should that not be hyphenated as “glassy-eyed?”

Bobbie Patray is the Tennessee lobbyist for Eagle Forum. I generally agree with the positions taken by Eagle Forum. I especially find myself in agreement on economic and constitutional issue. I generally support Eagle Forum on their social agenda. I oppose gay marriage and abortion but admit that I don’t have a lot of passion around those issues. Some of Eagle Forum’s moral positions make me a little uncomfortable however. They sometime come across as a little too narrow-minded and moralistic for my taste. I am afraid they would want to stamp out strip clubs, ban smut, and close bars.

.

I very much parted ways with Eagle Forum over the issue of selling wine in grocery stores. I am 100% in favor and think our liquor, wine, and beer laws are an embarrassment and often make Tennessee look like a state of backwoods hicks the way we are often portrayed. Basically however, I just want the convenience of being able to buy a bottle of wine when I grocery shop. I do not appreciate the religious right and liquor industry from not allowing that to happen.
.

Anyhow, I thought it was unnecessary to refer to Ms Patray as “glassy eyed.” I remember how the libs were outraged that Limbaugh talked about Hillary’s fat ankles. I also think it was out of line. It was not Hillary’s ankles that turned me off but her ideas. I generally think it is in poor taste to start attacking your opponent’s physical attributes in political discourse. In this case it simply leaves me baffled to understand what it is about Ms Patray’s eyes that make them “glassy.” They look normal to me, but maybe I missed something. Jeff, could you explain that?

I wanted to find a picture of Jeff Woods so I could see if he was perhaps “bug-eyed” or maybe “doe-eyed” or maybe “four-eyed” or maybe he is also "glassy-eyed." I could not find a picture, and it is just as well; I would not want to sink to his juvenile level to retaliate.

Top Stories

More Pelosi 'toons.

Top Stories

The Nancy Pelosi Cartoons

Top Stories

The Obama Card

Top Stories

Cap and Trade: The Maxman-Markey Pay to Play

The Heritage Foundation, Wednesday, May 20, 2009

When Congress passed its last major energy legislation in 2005, a minor provision was added late in the legislative process that created a $1-per-gallon tax credit for “renewable diesel” fuel created through “thermal depolymerization.” The measure was included to benefit a single firm that produced boiler fuel from turkey waste, but in 2007 the Internal Revenue Service ruled that the tax credit also applied to other livestock waste. This led corporate giants ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods to form a joint venture that turned chicken, cow, and pig fat into diesel fuel.
But just as ethanol mandates drove up the price of food, diverting Tyson’s animal fat into the energy market drove up the costs of manufacturing soap. So the soap lobby fought back and earlier this year Congress cut the thermal depolymerization tax credit in half. This made the Conoco/Tyson venture unprofitable, which they have since discontinued.

What does this have to do with the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation currently being debated in Congress? Everything. In order to win enough votes to pass cap and trade, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has given the corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (which includes both private and government-controlled firms like General Electric, Duke energy, Chrysler, and General Motors) a front-row seat in writing the legislation. The motives of these major corporations are simple: if they cooperate with big government in drafting the legislation, they can cut deals to protect their bottom line. If they don’t play ball, then big government will just tilt the regulatory scheme in their competitors favor.

As the New York Times reports, this is exactly what is happening in the House now:

Cap and trade, by contrast, is almost perfectly designed for the buying and
selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits
to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is
precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
which has used such concessions to patch together a Democratic majority to pass
a far-reaching bill to regulate carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade
plan.

The Center for Public Integrity released a study today showing that lobbying on the Waxman-Markey bill has been dominated by just 10 major lobbying firms. And yesterday the United States Climate Action Partnership released a statement in support of Waxman-Markey explaining:

As USCAP has indicated, there are several key linked issues that must fit
together to ensure a climate protection program is environmentally effective,
economically sustainable and fair. In some instances, that does not occur in
this legislation. … Individual USCAP members will continue to work with Congress
to address these matters in a satisfactory manner.

Oh, we’re sure they will.

Comment: Unless all credits are sold, cap and trade is an ineffective sham and is nothing but a bazaar for buying and selling of political favors where congress picks winners and losers. I think we need to address global warming, but the proposed cap and trade bill will not achieve its objectives and will institutionalize the worse of government corruption.

Top Stories

Stop Spending Our Future - The Crisis

Our economy is in crisis, and our government says that bold action is required. So we're diving in head first to get things back on track. But... what are we diving into exactly? Take a closer look...




It is hard for me to fathom the reckless disregard with which the US is going into debt and hard to fathom the size of the debt. Our nation has never been this deep in debt. In real constant dollars adjusted for inflation, the debt is much greater than any time in our history. Expressed as a percent of GNP, the debt is just a little shy of the debt of World War II. The difference, of course, is that when the war ended there was large pent up demand. In World War II a large segment of the population was serving in the Armed Forces and not available to be consumers and the US was under rationing and many products, includig cars, were simply not produced. All it took for people to start spending money was the end of the war. We could grow ourselves out of our debt. That is not now the case.


Another factor is that in World War II much of the debt was owned by Americans; now much of the debt is owned by foreign governments. If is highly unlikely that we will experience sufficient growth to grow ourselves out of this hole we are daily digging deeper. We will have to borrow more and more to pay the interest on our debt. I see no way we can ever pay it. The debt will have to me monetized. In essence we will print money. I fear that massive run away inflation is in our future.


I think I know a little about economics but I am not a professional economist; but to me, it seems we are rolling the dice and the odds are not in our favor. If I am wrong to be so concerned, I am open to being enlightened. Please feel free to leave a comment that explains why I am wrong to be so gloomy about our future. Actually, I hope I am wrong.

Top Stories

Barack Obama's Risky Deficit Spending

What? me worry?

Barack Obama's Risky Deficit Spending

.

By Robert Samuelson, Real Clear Markets, May 18, 2009

.

[excerpt] Just how much government debt does a president have to endorse before he's labeled

"irresponsible"?

.

[excerpt] From 2010 to 2019, Obama projects annual deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that's atop the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009. By 2019, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to gross domestic product (GDP, or the economy) would reach 70 percent, up from 41 percent in 2008. That would be the highest since 1950 (80 percent). The Congressional Budget Office, using less optimistic economic forecasts, raises these estimates. The 2010-19 deficits would total $9.3 trillion; the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 would be 82 percent.

.

But wait: Even these totals may be understated. [Full article]

.

Comment: Please read this article. We should be worried, very worried.

Top Stories

President Obama slashes Budget $17 billion dollars

President Obama has taken a fine-tooth comb and a magnifying glass to the Federal Budget and has examined the proposed budget item by item and has cut a whopping $17 billion dollars.

This from CNN Money:

"There is a lot of money being spent inefficiently, ineffectively, and -- in some cases -- in ways that are actually pretty stunning," Obama said.

The $17 billion in savings amounts to roughly 0.5% of the more than $3.5 trillion in spending approved for next year, or 1.2% of the projected $1.4 trillion deficit next year if the president's overall budget is adopted.

Obama said it nevertheless is real money -- even by Washington standards.

"To put this in perspective, this is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to protect the National Parks," he
said. (link)

Seventeen Billion dollars is a lot of money. Why am I not impressed?

To put this in perspective, let us assume I have a household budget of $60,000. My anticipated income is only $36,000. I take a hard look at where I can cut and I discover $300 of wasteful spending. Maybe I find I can give up my twice a week trip to Starbucks for my Grande latte.

Impressed? But wait, I don’t actually reduce spending by $300. I find that that $300 can be better spend elsewhere, so I reallocate the $300 and use my credit cards to fund the missing $24000. Impressed?

Top Stories

Classical Music Rocks!

On my recent vacation to London, one day near the end of our vacation when we had seen all of the sites we wanted to see, we just aimlessly wandered the streets near our hotel. We were in the Covent Garden area, which is a lively area that includes a lot of restaurants and shops and we came upon the Covent Garden Piazza. This is a site which was a flower, fruit and vegetable market from the 1500s until 1974. Since about 1980 it has been a retail center. The area has lots of old historical building and the main feature of the area is an arcade. We watched street performers and wandered the shops in the area including a large flea market.

In the arcade, there was a basement level courtyard surrounded by shops. Musicians were playing in the courtyard and we entered it and got some wine from the wine bar that adjoins the courtyard and set and listened to the music. It was a somewhat cool day drizzling rain on and off, but in the arcade in the sunken courtyard, it was not unpleasant.

The music was great! A six-piece chamber orchestra consisting of four violins, a viola, and a bass were playing classical music. I don’t thank I have ever enjoyed classical music so much. The orchestra played for about 30 to 45 minutes, then a young man came out and sang opera accompanied by music on a CD player. He belted out songs for about 20 to 30 minutes and was remarkable. After the opera, the band played again and they rotated sets and we set through about three sets each. We splurged and drank the good wine. Louella had Madeira and I had a good port. In the cool air of the courtyard the wine was warming. We ordered a cheeze plate and ate various cheezes and read newspapers. During breaks between sets we had pleasant conversation with a couple who sat at our table for a while. We stayed in the courtyard listening to music and drinking wine for most of the day.

My favorite kind of music is country music. I especially like the music that is now called “Americana” and I love hard core honky tonk and classic country. I can appreciate all most all kinds of music however. I usually end up going to hear the Nashville Symphony a couple times a year play in our new beautiful Schermerhorn Symphony Hall and will go listen to other classical music at other venues from time to time. The Blair School of Music offers a lot of free music and I occasionally attend concerts there. Belmont University has a series of chamber orchestra performances in the Belmont Mansion every year and I usually attend a couple of those performances.

While I enjoy classical music it is a different kind of enjoyment than going to the bars of lower Broadway and listening to Country. When one goes to listen to classical music, no one talks and everyone must be very quite. Don’t cough! At a classical performance, one can not spontaneously applaud to show you appreciate the music. It is not correct to applaud at the end of a movement, but only at the conclusion of the piece. I always have to wait to see if it is the correct time to applaud. Classical music is for serious listening. It is much like going to church. It can be enjoyable but it is not a time to let your hair down and enjoy yourself. It has to be approached with quite reverence.

I can understand people wanting to engage in serious listening and not being distracted. Serious music listening is different than partying. I don’t know why, however, classical music has to be for serious listening only. If classical music could loosen up a little and let people enjoy themselves while enjoying the music the genre might win more fans.

I don’t think classical music will ever go away but I doubt it will ever be popular music. Classical music is never played on a commercial radio station. If you go to a classical concert and observe the audience it is overwhelming an older audience. Also, I have noticed that even a sold-out performance has about a quarter of the seats empty. A lot of people buy season tickets but don’t attend. I suspect that many of the wealthy support the symphony more out of a sense of obligations to be good citizens and to support the arts rather than because they really love the music. Classical music is also heavily subsidized by corporate contributions.

Classical music does not have to be so serious. It can be fun! At this performance at Covent Garden, the band played some songs I recognized such as Revel’s Bolero and The William Tell Overture. They played a lot of other songs that were recognizable tunes but I did not know the name of them. It was like the Top 40 of Classical Music. The musicians actually looked like they were having fun! Instead of sitting stiffly in tux’s they were dressed is regular street clothes. They played with expression and body movement and enthusiasm. They got down. They entertained! Between songs the leader cut-up and hammed for applause and he hawked the bands CD’s. I wish we had chamber orchestras playing for regular folks in sitting where you could enjoy a beer or glass of wine in Nashville. Classical music can be fun and approachable. It doesn’t have to always be so serious.

Top Stories