Obama 2.0

I decided to blog my feelings on the election while my emotions are fresh.  You can skip to the last paragraph if you are glad President Obama was re-elected.

First, I'm deeply disappointed that we won't get to see what Mitt Romney could have done.  Mr. Turn Around won't get his chance.

Second, I'm going to have a hard time forgiving President Obama's campaign for the way they slandered Mitt Romney.  I know it is all in the name of politics, but I never forgave George Bush Sr. for using the same politics against Ronald Reagan in the primary.  As a consequence, I never trusted George Bush Sr. since I felt he would say and do anything to get power.  That's how I feel about President Obama.

Third, since I brought up the trust issue, Obama has to earn my trust.  Accumulating over $5 trillion in additional debt his first term destroyed my trust.  He can earn my trust by doing what Bill Clinton did his second term: end with a budget surplus.  Clinton started his second term with about $5 trillion in debt and ended with about $5.6 trillion.  If President Obama can keep our current $16 trillion dollar debt from surpassing $17 trillion by 2016, then he will have earned my trust.  President Obama can invade whatever country he wants, send drones wherever he wants, give free health care and food stamps to the whole world; as long as he doesn't borrow a nickle to do it.

Fourth, I decided to throw in a positive emotional response.  In 2008, I was proud that our country elected a black man to be our president.  It was a historic event.  I'm happy for the blacks in this country who put a lot of hope in President Obama.  Tonight cemented the fact that in spite of a bad record and a much more qualified candidate, we can act post-racial.  I also hope that the President is a role model for millions of black youths, showing them how to be a successful black man: devoted husband and father, a professional, etc. (etc = only his good qualities).  (If you don't like me being civil, then you can read what Thomas Sowell wrote about Barack Obama becoming the first black president here).

C-SPAN and Reclaiming the Dream Rally

Occasionally I like to watch C-SPAN, since I can watch raw coverage of events and create my own opinion instead of being told what to think by the news networks.

While watching a congressional hearing on the BP Oil Spill, I managed to chase away my own family due to boredom.  I enjoyed the coverage alone.  Even without special effects and high adrenaline action scenes, it still kept my attention.

I was surprised to watch the other night and find coverage of Al Sharpton's "Reclaim the Dream" rally.  I wonder if they also covered Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally the same day.  I was shocked during Barbara Williams-Skinner's prayer to hear her say

"Like Dr. King, we believe that the bank of justice is not bankrupt," she said. "We thank you God for raising up President Barack Obama as a small down payment on that dream." 

See 3:34 in the video below.

Obama, the Prince of Peace?

Yesterday I watched an interesting video by Andrew Klavan on "Is Barack Obama Jesus Christ?". At first I thought it would sacrilegious, but I ended up entertained.

Here's my version of the points he made of how Obama and Jesus are the same.

Associating with undesirables

• Jesus associated with "publicans and sinners", or basically "undesirable" people.
  
• Obama associated with "undesirable" people as well: Reverend Right and Bill Aires.
  

Free Healthcare

• Jesus promoted free health care by healing the sick.
  
• Obama is also for free health care, he just wants to raise taxes to pay for it.
  

A Debt that can't be repaid

• We all are in debt to Jesus, as he paid for our sins and there is no way for us to repay him.
  
• Obama is creating such a huge debt that there is no we can pay for it.
  

Predictions of the Prince of Peace

Andrew Klavan missed one, since the news only came out today about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

• Before Jesus was even born, there were prophecies of him coming as the prince of peace.
  
• Before Obama even did anything, he was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
  

Absolute vs. Comparative Advantage

Pres. Obama "opted" today to impose a tariff on tires imported from China [1]. It's funny that today I listened to the chapter in Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics" on why tariffs are a bad economic decision.

I also listened to the chapter explaining absolute economic advantage and relative economic advantage. An absolute advantage would be the case where a country can build products cheaper than another country. Dr. Sowell gave an interesting example to explain a relative advantage. Hang in there while I try to explain this (the result is surprising).

In his example, he considers two products: chairs and televisions. The countries are America and Canada. America has the absolute advantage since one American can produce 500 chairs per month while one Canadian can only produce 450. Also, an American can produce 200 television sets per month while a Canadian can only produce 100 (If you're Canadian, switch the numbers if it makes you feel better).

If there are 500 hundred American workers and 500 hundred Canadian workers, we could have 300 of each make chairs while 200 make televisions. I'll spare you the math, but the result is 190,000 chairs and 90,000 televisions.

If instead, all 500 Americans make televisions and all 500 Canadians make chairs, you end up with 225,000 chairs and 100,000 televisions. This is an increase in both numbers! The reason is "that Canada has a comparative advantage making chairs. That is, Canada loses fewer television sets by shifting resources to the production of chairs than the United States would lose by such a shift." This seemed counter-intuitive to me.

Back to tariffs. History shows that countries that reduce trade barriers prosper more (gain more jobs) than countries that impose tariffs. If this is true, why do Politicians support tariffs?

The answer is comparative advantage. For a politician that wants to get reelected, the workers (from our example, American chair makers) have the comparative advantage when voting, since they will be angry about losing their job and more likely to "vote the bum out". The rest of the voters will probably be split about the decision. The problem here is that the comparative advantage for voting is BAD for the whole economy, since this influences the politician to impose tariffs to save jobs. But what if China has a comparative advantage at making tires? Wouldn't it be better to have Americans making something that they are more productive at than making tires?

Many economists believe that the protectionist policies imposed in the 1930's are what lead us into a depression. If so, why do our politicians keep making stupid financial decisions? It's simple, they follow the economics of the vote, instead of the economics of prosperity.

What does the average citizen do about it? They attend Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings, talk to neighbors, forward emails, write on blogs, etc. Hopefully this will get the attention of politicians and result in a realignment the two economies.

Vote for prosperity!