Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Economist Thomas Sowell explains why wealth redistribution doesn’t work

Thomas Sowell, an economist for the people
Thomas Sowell, an economist for the people

A whole slew of people are linking to this article by famous economist Thomas Sowell.

Excerpt:

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler’s Holocaust in the 1940s. [Professor Sowell is referring to the forced collectivization of the Ukraine.  If you want to inform yourself of the horrors thereof, I recommend  Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, Oxford UP, 1986.]

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

[…]Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills, and productive experience that economists call “human capital.” When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro’s confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty-stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

Stuart Schneiderman had this to say about the piece:

If the productive members of society are no longer working for themselves and their progeny they are going to be less productive. They have less incentive to produce when more of what they produce, or more of the profit, is going to be taxed or confiscated.

Besides, when you confiscate wealth people will resist and will spend more of their time and energy trying to keep what they have earned. This time and energy could be used for more productive activities.

Since wealth exists in assets whose value is determined in a market, a regime that confiscates assets will force the wealthy to liquidate their assets, thus lowering the value of everyone’s assets and making it far more difficult to attract investment capital.

I was happy to receive the 4th edition of Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” textbook from one of our readers in New York city. (Thanks Tom!) If you are a Christian who is interested in economics, I really recommend that you pick up “Intellectuals and Society“, which is a great introduction to his thought.

I once was courting a young homeschooled lady who was skeptical of university degrees. She read one Thomas Sowell book, then read 5 more – all within a 6 week period. She then went on to do a B.A. in economics. If you are a Christian looking to branch out into economics, Thomas Sowell is your man. You can’t read just one of his books. It’s absolutely impossible.

Recent polls by the mainstream skew sample towards Democrat voters

Here’s an excellent analysis from Da Tech Guy.

Excerpt:

For the last two weeks we have been treated to the narrative that Barack Obama is surging at the polls, Mitt Romney is in trouble and unless there is a massive change in direction it is all over.

Simply put this is a lie.

Of all the polls you have seen, there is one poll that has gotten no attention, it is a poll that has been taken monthly, it is a poll that Doug Ross spotted and promoted on his site. It is the Rasmussen Poll of party identification.

They have party identification results online dating back to 2004.

Here are the recent numbers:

Voter identification by party
Voter identification by party

It’s a 3-4 point advantage for Republicans.

Da Tech Guy continues:

At no time during the year do the Democrats have a registration advantage vs republicans, the gap closes in July & re-separates in August. The low point for the GOP was July for 34.9 and the high August at 37.6 For democrats the high was 34.0 in June & July the low was 32.4 in Feb

What does this mean for November? It means a lot.

The Democrats won 2 election in this period 2006 & 2008 with a 6.9 advantage in 2006 & a 7.6 advantage in 2008.

There is no example of the Democrats winning since 2004 with an advantage less that 6.9.

The GOP won two elections in this period 2004 with a -1.6 disadvantage & 2010 with a 1.3 advantage. This means the GOP has proven it can win with not only a small lead but with an actual disadvantage. Additionally with an advantage of only 1.3 they pulled off the biggest house swing in my lifetime.

Can these number change? Well the biggest 1 month swing I’ve seen is 4.2 Oct-Nov in 2010 the biggest 3 month swing was Dec 2007-Feb 2008 6.9 in favor of Democrats at the rise of Obama.

Tell me with the economy in the tank, and the new trouble in the Middle East, what is the prospect of a swing of that size to the Democrats happening again right now? Moreover even if that record registration swing repeated itself right now this would give democrats an advantage of only 2.6 points.

I’ve covered a lot of national polls on this site over the last year and all those polls ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX have one thing in common.

Not a single one of those polls had a sample with a GOP advantage.

And here’s what the mainstream media have been doing with their polls:

Mainstream media oversampling Democrat voters
Mainstream media oversampling Democrat voters

Only the Rasmussen Reports poll is accurately sampling voters based on party identification.

That’s why Obama looks like he’s winning. He’s not.

Read the full analysis here.

UPDATE: CBS/NYT Poll Weights Registered Voters Dems 35%, Republicans 22%.

 

Democrats resort to busing in people to fill up DNC convention

Romney vs. Obama: campaign fundraising
Romney vs. Obama: campaign fundraising

Fox News reports.

Excerpt:

College students from across North Carolina will arrive in Charlotte by the busload. Same with members of predominantly black churches in neighboring South Carolina.

Their goal: help fill a 74,000-seat outdoor stadium to capacity when President Obama accepts the Democratic nomination Thursday night.

[…]Democrats have been fretting for months over whether the president can draw a capacity crowd at Bank of America Stadium. Polls show voter enthusiasm is down, as are Obama’s crowds for his battleground state campaign rallies.

[…]Thursday’s event is certain to draw comparisons to 2008, when Obama accepted the Democratic nomination before a capacity crowd at an 84,000-seat stadium in Denver. There was little concern back then over whether Obama would fill the stadium, in part because he was easily attracting tens of thousands of people to his campaign rallies across the country.

This time around, Obama’s crowds are far smaller. He drew his biggest audience at his campaign kick-off rally in May, a 14,000-person crowd at Ohio State University. About 13,000 people attended Obama’s rally at the University of Colorado in Boulder Sunday.

Not surprising, given that Obama kicked-off his re-election campaign in a half-empty stadium. The only people who are going to vote for this guy are the people who are dependent on federal government welfare and spending.

And look, Obama is losing badly in the fundraising, too: (links removed)

Mitt Romney has extended his lead over President Obama in this election cycle’s race for campaign cash.

The Republican had almost $186 million in cash on hand at the end of July, compared to $124 million for Obama — figures that include donations made to the campaigns, party committees and joint fundraising efforts.

[…]In 2008, Obama shattered all previous fundraising records by bringing in an excess of $750 million — far more than John McCain.

But Romney has dashed any hopes Obama might have harbored for continued dominance in 2012. The past two months have been particularly fruitful for the Republican challenger, as Romney’s team produced a haul of more than $200 million in June and July.

Over the same time period, Obama’s campaign mustered a comparatively modest $147 million.

And the gap between the candidates may be widening. The Romney campaign has said its fundraising totals have increased in recent days after the addition of Rep. Paul Ryan to the ticket.

Republicans have an even bigger money advantage when spending by super PACs and other outside groups is included.

According to the latest data from the Center for Responsive Politics, outside conservative groups have spent $221.5 million this cycle, while liberal groups have spent $55.6 million.

Romney wasn’t my first, second, or third choice for the Republican nomination, but he sure knows how to raise money. We’ll see whether he is able to hold his own in debates with Obama. I think that given the choice between four years of disastrous economic failures and four years of flip-flops, America will take the flip-flops.

UPDATE: Looks like the busing in wasn’t enough: Obama is moving his speech from the 74,000 capacity venue to a 20,000 capacity venue. Well, that’s one way to get a packed house.