FIXES
Donald Trump won the 2016 election and continues to win with his base by following the advice given to him by Steve Bannon, which was to “Flood the zone with s**t.” It was, and still is, a simple plan: If you spew out a constant stream of stuff, whether it is true or not, you can overload the media and people with so much misinformation that they lose their belief in truth. It’s the same tactic Putin uses in Russia. The idea is not to sell an ideology, but to muddy the waters.
On the other side, we have Democrats who are so busy squabbling over whose ideas are best that they are, without knowing it, also following Steve Bannon‘s advice.
All of which means we have an entire nation of people who no longer trust what they can see or believe truth exists.
I am running as a write-in Independent, because when it comes to solutions being offered by others, I don’t like any of them very much.
My campaign is not based on who or what I support. It is based on what I believe are better solutions to the problems we are facing. It begins by accepting facts, and it continues by using facts. And because neither side, nor any third-party, seems particularly interested in facts, I am running myself.
The healthcare problem, or crisis, is one example. Anyone who follows a lot of news is likely to believe there is no solution that will not destroy the entire free production and exchange world and will not cost us a million billion trillion gazillion dollars. That’s not true. It’s not even close. We can solve our healthcare crisis by using facts, because the solution is as simple as having the government create a better health insurance company.
My campaign is not based on who or what I support. It is based on what I believe are better solutions to the problems we are facing. It begins by accepting facts, and it continues by using facts. And because neither side, nor any third-party, seems particularly interested in facts, I am running myself.
The healthcare problem, or crisis, is one example. Anyone who follows a lot of news is likely to believe there is no solution that will not destroy the entire free production and exchange world and will not cost us a million billion trillion gazillion dollars. That’s not true. It’s not even close. We can solve our healthcare crisis by using facts, because the solution is as simple as having the government create a better health insurance company.
The solution to global warming will lead to the greatest economic boom in history
Climate change is real. And because it has the potential to destroy the global economy and possibly mankind, it really doesn't matter if it is being caused partly or totally by mankind. What does matter is that we do what we can to control it, especially when the best solution to global warming is good for incomes, profits, wealth, and economic growth.
Climate change is real. And because it has the potential to destroy the global economy and possibly mankind, it really doesn't matter if it is being caused partly or totally by mankind. What does matter is that we do what we can to control it, especially when the best solution to global warming is good for incomes, profits, wealth, and economic growth.
We have a lot of oil we can still drill for. We have a lot of coal we can still mine. And we have a lot of disagreements about whether or not the world is warming because of mankind’s actions or because of some natural cycle.
We also have a worldwide glut of oil, and we know some of the largest solar energy collectors in the world are being built in the desert by Middle Eastern oil producing countries.
We are going to need oil and coal for years. But we are already in the midst of a huge economic change. A change driven by lower cost renewable energy.
As an economist, I look at profits as the driving force in a free production and exchange economy. And if you look at profits and costs, it is clear that renewable energy is not just for tree huggers anymore.
Renewable energy is the next great economic leap forward.
It is going to be the next huge generator of higher incomes, profits, and economic growth, whether fossil fuel companies like it or not.
Which means it is time to change the global warming debate, which is a negative argument that is dividing people, and focus on the fact that renewable energy is good for business, good for incomes, good for profits, and good for economic growth.
What about global warming? It doesn't matter if you think it is real or not, or if you think it is a man-made problem or not. We can debate that issue forever.
What is real, and not debatable, is that renewable energy is already cheaper than energy from fossil fuels, and it is only going to get cheaper. So we are going to be making the switch to renewable energy because of money. Money and profits.
And because one big side effect will be a massive decrease in what are called greenhouse gases, it doesn't matter which side of the global warming debate you are on. Profits and individual choice are going to decrease carbon emissions whether or not they cause global warming. It's what happened when electricity ended the use of whale oil lamps and the internal combustion engine ended the use of horses as a main source of transportation.
Nantucket whalers did not like electricity, because it put them out of business. A lot of horse breeders did not like the internal combustion engine, because it put them out of business. But there was nothing they could do. It was money and incomes and profits. And the side effects were good. Whale oil lamps were fire hazards, did not give off much light, and polluted indoor air. Horses were slow, could not haul very large loads, and polluted the streets.
That is where we are today. If we want higher incomes, higher profits, more jobs, more economic growth, we are going to get it if we do not let the fossil fuel industry (today’s whalers and horse breeders) prevent the change or delay it to protect their own short term profits at the expense of American workers, American business, and worldwide economic growth.
An important side effect is that by decreasing the world’s dependence on oil, the geopolitical system of the entire world is almost certain to change for the better.
The bottom line is the bottom line, meaning the switch to renewable energy is about profits.
Government should be doing all it can to speed up the change, because just as incomes, profits, and tax revenues increased as a result of the government's investment in the World War II GI Bill and the interstate freeway system, the government’s investment in lower cost renewable energy will lead to a new golden age for America.
Government should be doing all it can to speed up the change, because just as incomes, profits, and tax revenues increased as a result of the government's investment in the World War II GI Bill and the interstate freeway system, the government’s investment in lower cost renewable energy will lead to a new golden age for America.
All of which is why I want to stop wasting billions of dollars on oil subsidies that are a drag on incomes, profits, and economic growth, and start investing in the economy, and why I want to support academic research for the future that will allow the profit motive to lead us forward.
The side effect, of course, is a reduction in the emissions legitimate science says is the major cause of global warming.
The role of government in a free production and exchange economy
My view of government was affected by Abraham Lincoln, who said the role of government is to do for the people what the people need done, but cannot do well enough or at all by themselves. That means providing national defense and the protection of property rights, which, according to real economists on both the left and the right, includes understanding and dealing with both positive and negative externalities.
My view of government was affected by Abraham Lincoln, who said the role of government is to do for the people what the people need done, but cannot do well enough or at all by themselves. That means providing national defense and the protection of property rights, which, according to real economists on both the left and the right, includes understanding and dealing with both positive and negative externalities.
It also means providing what economists call public goods, or an economic infrastructure. Of course, public goods fit under Lincoln’s definition of something the people cannot provide well enough on their own.
I know some people do not like the idea of government at all, but the truth is, nothing exists that is not a combination of inputs from nature, private individuals and businesses, and government. Pretending that is not the case leads not to a strong and vibrant economy, but to a failure to achieve what is achievable.
I know some people do not like the idea of government at all, but the truth is, nothing exists that is not a combination of inputs from nature, private individuals and businesses, and government. Pretending that is not the case leads not to a strong and vibrant economy, but to a failure to achieve what is achievable.
Good regulations are good for the economy
I believe in regulations that help increase profits, incomes, wealth, and economic growth, not in regulations intended to hurt or punish people or businesses.
I believe in regulations that help increase profits, incomes, wealth, and economic growth, not in regulations intended to hurt or punish people or businesses.
I believe it is necessary to protect the overall economy from being hurt and diminished by companies that are so large they can use their monopoly power in ways that diminish economic growth and reduce incomes and profits for the vast majority of people and businesses.
Billionaires should pay taxes, too
As an economist, I can say taxes are necessary, because, contrary to what some believe, there are things we need government to do if we want high incomes, profits, and economic growth.
As an economist, I can say taxes are necessary, because, contrary to what some believe, there are things we need government to do if we want high incomes, profits, and economic growth.
The very rich earned their wealth with the help of workers and government (or inherited it), they did not do it all by themselves, which is one reason I believe billionaires should pay taxes; another is that billionaires paying taxes is better for the economy, because the driving force behind a successful free production and exchange economy is consumer spending, which is hurt when taxes are shifted from billionaires to the middle class and the poor.
In other words, I am not in favor of tax cuts for the very rich that take from the middle class and the poor, partly because there is absolutely no evidence trickle-down tax cuts do anything positive for the economy or for those who have to wait their turn to benefit, and mostly because someone who is elected to office has a responsibility to serve all the people, not just the top one percent.
Justice Scalia wrote the decision on gun rights
The Second Amendment is a very clear conditional statement: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Does that sound like a liberal reading of the Constitution?
It is not. It is exact same reading conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia used when he wrote his opinion of the seminal 2008 decision (the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER) that overturned the District’s ban on handgun possession and trigger-lock requirement in the home. In his statement, Scalia replaced the protection of a free state idea (which dismisses the second amendment) with a self-defense idea in order to conclude that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Justice Scalia wrote: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
As such, I support the second amendment as described by Scalia's written opinions, which means I support the right to keep and bear arms because of self defense, I support "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” and I agree with his "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill."
So here is what I would like to see. From now on, when there is a discussion or debate regarding gun rights, I would like everyone who is at the table (or in Congress) to have a copy of the second amendment in front of them.
Then, after everyone reads the one sentence amendment, the discussion can begin with the fact that the second amendment says very clearly that it is not unconstitutional to "infringe" on the right to keep and carry arms; it is not even unconstitutional to confiscate all guns.
And because neither the people who would like better regulations regarding the buying, keeping, and use of guns, nor those who want no restrictions at all, want to confiscate all guns, it might then be possible to have a rational discussion regarding what is best for the country.
From now on, if the NRA or anyone else claims government has no right to regulate gun rights, they should be told they have a choice. If they do not want to discuss the issue in good faith, meaning in terms of what is best for America, they can leave the debate and accept the fact that the Second Amendment says it is not unconstitutional to confiscate all guns, or they can be part of a rational discussion.
The bottom line is simple: I do not believe that when a city installs stop lights and stop signs, it is the first step towards confiscating all cars.
A rising tide lifts all boats
National Health Insurance will increase coverage and cut premiums in half, which will add to people's spendable income and reduce business costs, which will increase profits, increase exports, decrease imports, increase economic growth, and add to tax revenues.
National Health Insurance will increase coverage and cut premiums in half, which will add to people's spendable income and reduce business costs, which will increase profits, increase exports, decrease imports, increase economic growth, and add to tax revenues.
The switch to cheaper energy will add to people's spendable income, reduce business costs, increase profits, increase exports, decrease imports, increase economic growth, and add to tax revenues.
Having government do what we need government to do will add to people's spendable income, reduce business costs, increase profits, increase exports, decrease imports, increase economic growth, and add to tax revenues.
Regulating monopolies and monopoly prices will add to people's spendable income, reduce business costs, increase profits, increase exports, decrease imports, increase economic growth, and add to tax revenues.
A better tax system will add to people's spendable income, reduce business costs, increase profits, increase exports, decrease imports, increase economic growth, and add to tax revenues.
Enforcing the second amendment as written will add to people's spendable income, reduce business costs, increase profits, increase exports, decrease imports, increase economic growth, and add to tax revenues.
All of which means I am running a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats campaign.
We just have to make sure everyone is in a boat.