CBS: New California declares “independence” from rest of state

Screen Shot 2018 01 16 at 16 56 12

This is #CalExit

From CBS News

With the reading of their own version of a Declaration of Independence, founders of the state of New California took the first steps to what they hope will eventually lead to statehood. CBS Sacramento reports they don’t want to leave the United States, just California.

“Well, it’s been ungovernable for a long time. High taxes, education, you name it, and we’re rated around 48th or 50th from a business climate and standpoint in California,” said founder Robert Paul Preston.

The state of New California would incorporate most of the state’s rural counties, leaving the urban coastal counties to the current state of California.

“There’s something wrong when you have a rural county such as this one, and you go down to Orange County which is mostly urban, and it has the same set of problems, and it happens because of how the state is being governed and taxed,” Preston said.

allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen” data-src=”https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/embed/video/?v=4#vVdtb9s2EP4rgj4UG2BZ77JsoCjSvDRe2zSrm6RbNRiUeLJZS6IgUXacwP99R0q24yxZh6FIPtgMX56757k7Hn2vLxkFro%2FuddpURDBe6KPQ6el5efsZ0jHVR7o9ncApORksS%2FuEXb0dX8cfrtKbyV15%2B2HNTt6f6T1dzJs8LgjLcPtciLIeRWZkJnFdwKp2%2BzhgtUD0pJ%2FwPDLnTRyZLDKryHQsO4xMy45MO4hMEsYBdT0w%2FGEKhjcY%2BEYI1DJ8ANcjbuAnDu7aWYvMwLNu3cBCW%2BA7FDyP2mmYgOPETmynNHYHA4fgAHcgIwPdMRKSsZRXBSOG7YWu7TpGh9L%2FXs4kGV6ypCA5IJnjt5MLnKqrREo0z2r5FTOBUuGyb8m%2Fnl4yqdNviX8357fT6bubTxJmXUoEeaanN9VWGqUMKwk1alEByVkx63dCteLkQBlR7j5Wx7bd0HGHvu8PvWFkfrz8Or04vZkeH30Yn336fDE%2BmipCljdFx3603s%2FdJtQ3PengdEkqRgoxLee8gAOK9gOC7wYLcT1dZO7sT%2BeA4KPzL05XmX2SkCBxBuJZRu6n8LxZh%2F7X92v%2FaUYdwItTau3uOFUiLw9YDDBn9zzi%2BPzL7%2BH50fjuDPY81KGt5%2Fc5KVgKtRgVKNZGrrVFWg5DN3D7QGeQJnW%2FABGZvKCA%2B2lkviGNmL9Geq8IS8vXS8uyX9UZVvPre%2FV1WUHKbjf3MSqx2LRzZyyDSyLmm06I%2F6eBPbWHTtjPS%2B8R6p5J6uWbXUS6EBjLeZ8sSE7YnLZk7iKzRRiNRNXAKCVZDZt%2BUufyBtmC9RFsj4y6%2Fwdk9gPkWkClQrgD3shgurODUDrewS3C%2Fpguzi8WH8fjxT6U7uyfKUj5qsg4oT87%2BewpeiR1f1xMXDxfSVfiajC2uRXfvE2friR5%2BsXLCI3uamjFUnZYQwfCX7P4mq%2FZd5InZM9AHXpB6Qdb6dHhuonrpGIx0GNeCCiU%2BksGK3k36CrlHmyq9Db%2FejqrAwvlTCtSJHNWw8HC6S2yP5jxQixiCdvNKstlWUGN3a5osqzXPhIEE9KsfsYbvB6qWuOpFukXsNKOdy010jUKSUYq0BhuKgE%2FigS0tOK5JuagveMZzmgTISPwUNf2ybBarQ41VZbryEw7owZPH3fxzqDx0KAhDRpo0Jgpg4Z8fkBkyl6eNVh%2F%2Bk8BlAwalT2DQZAQQhIjSAbE8MAlRhwElhGGNnFT3xoCpXonJIWFfFrwJqNKk6v%2BpK%2FNQGhE8%2B1aaAr6jfYFl9J%2F11rq3HqL1SOxWPWM7hhNIUHkWOH3NLzfFcCKVwt1nGs5WYDagopomHBMrLUMZiTrb30vEZDPQVJ%2BLvL1gQuy8rCH8MuMrPURVhumXyLtyWRm9Wkhk5lus5lU%2BEjM4AibDq%2Fk6%2FOb7lqUJDRGZUmITzYbHGNIbcfAThSmEBLLii39r0dHL9Tz7Zve5ZL2y5xRmXfxOmMF%2FPpgv3riBkHoWx54BgytxPACKzVCFcfE8gdBGqdBEui7I5dNfKIuEF1WuWHZhh1otj3yvZHv7Ld96epFarnPrr1Kkf5QJ9RPBWsbqG1%2BbcHa6yhpL4JpN4vrFEs32S5TqBf4fNVlYZ%2FAUnqI45LMthukGFMmIJeFgN%2FnTN4b3%2FSmlpLImQkk7a8AOddOdWfRs5IXNVtiykC8fSgr%2FdKBRSF0YyN2IG1jhFlvGZYztO3Qs8OBP9weaEPTojc1VB06wWcJzsSLCVqUoK7rYrZkLGd473k7ISa8qRIlRVzLNN062cF2AVfC5HxWkXLOkvewriXL7zw%2Ba4qWX0%2F%2Bd4waz3i1loIVtMFGJId48ZQNtu7LiqcsYRid7Swp1hN2J2WfybBVMj4zeFfxplQ7mkIioJICMOBNLnO8lCjZA9%2Bkt7gbChkfXKWyRFRxXb38bShz44dm5Uh9PmGofsKSzGHp2qGZwwiNfgYsq8%2Bh4rtuphrwJUeBMcJdXkGO%2FRPb6d8%3D” data-width=”640″ data-height=”360″>

Ten reasons economists object to the minimum wage

NewImage

From economics professor Dr. Mark J. Perry: 

What are the specific objections of economists to the minimum wage and why do they generally favor market wages instead? Here are ten reasons in favor of market wages over a government-mandated minimum wage:

  1. Proposed minimum wages are almost always arbitrary and never based on sound economic analysis. Why $10.10 an hour and not $9.10? Why $15 an hour and not $16 an hour?
  1. A uniform federal minimum wage may be sub-optimal for many states, and uniform state minimum wages may be sub-optimal for many cities. A one-size-fits-all approach to the minimum wage is really a “one-size-fits-none.”
  1. Minimum wage laws require costly taxpayer-funded monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, whereas market wages don’t.
  1. Minimum wage laws discriminate against unskilled workers in favor of skilled workers, and the greatest amount of discrimination takes place against minority groups, like blacks.
  1. Adjustments to total compensation following minimum wage laws will disadvantage workers in the form of reduced hours, reduced fringe benefits, and reduced on-the-job training.
  1. Many unskilled workers will be unable to find work and will be denied valuable on-the-job training and the opportunity to acquire experience and skills.
  1. Minimum wage laws prevent mutually advantageous, voluntary labor agreements between employers and employees from taking place.
  1. To the extent that higher minimum wages result in lower firm profits and higher retail prices, that’s a form of legal plunder by workers from employers and consumers that is objectionable.
  1. Market-determined wages are efficient, whereas government-mandated wages create distortions in the labor markets that prevent labor markets from clearing.
  1. Like all government price controls, minimum wage laws are distortionary. If you trust government officials and politicians to legislate and enforce a minimum wage for unskilled workers, you should logically trust those same bureaucrats to set all prices, wages and interest rates in the economy. Realistically, if you agree that those economy-wide price controls would be undesirable, then you should also agree that the minimum wage law is also undesirable.

Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker

NewImage

To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here). And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.

In contrast, it took about the same number of natural gas workers (398,235) last year to produce more than one-third of U.S. electric power, or 37 times more electricity than solar’s minuscule share of 0.90 percent. And with only 160,000 coal workers (less than half the number of workers in either solar or gas), that sector produced nearly one-third (almost as much as gas) of U.S. electricity last year.

The graphic above helps to quantify the significant differences in electric power output per employee for coal, natural gas and solar workers. In 2016, the coal sector generated an average of 7,745 megawatt hours of electric power per worker, more than twice the 3,812 megawatt hours of electricity generated per natural gas worker, and 79 times more electric power per worker than the solar industry, which produced only 98 megawatt hours of electricity per worker. Therefore, to produce the same amount of electric power as just one coal worker would require two natural gas workers and an amazingly-high 79 solar workers.

Via AEI

More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013

NewImage NewImage

Even if you’re not convinced that increased gun ownership reduces violent crime and gun homicides, you should be totally convinced of this indisputable fact: Gun violence has been decreasing significantly over time, not increasing as you’ll frequently hear from anti-gun politicians and progressives. The gun-related homicide rate of 3.6 deaths per 100,000 population in each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2013 makes those recent years the safest in at least 20 years, and possibly the safest in modern US history, since “older data [before 1993] suggest that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously,” according to Ehrenfreund.

Via MJP

Why socialism always fails

NewImage

Excerpts of Mark J. Perry’s 1995 essay “Why Socialism Failed

1. Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

2. The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

3. By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats [and those waiting in long lines today in Venezuela struggling, and often failing, to buy food].

4. The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

NewImageVia Carpe Diem

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

NewImage8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Banned: Best friends

NewImage

Coming to a US school near you: banning best friends. Uh-huh. 

Schools should ban best friends, writes psychologist Barbara Greenberg inU.S. News. Besties are “exclusionary.”

Restricting exclusive friendships is an“emerging trend” in European schoolsthat’s starting to catch on in the U.S., she writes.

While some think “kids should toughen up” and “learn to deal with the natural shifts in friendships,” Greenberg thinksemotional distress could be avoided if friends are “good” but not “best.”

Parents shouldn’t push their child’s school to enact a best-friend ban, she writes. They should encourage their kids to cultivate a small group of close friends rather than putting all their social and emotional eggs in one basket.

Via Joanne Jacobs