Forbes Magazine: 'Rescuing Detroit: Can It Work This Time?'

Source:Forbes Magazine- Detroit Mayor Dave Bing.

"Auto chiefs, entrepreneurs and politicians discuss the future of the city. From Forbes and Joan Muller." 

From Forbes Magazine

If you look at Detroit from the outside as your just entering it, it looks like a great big American city with big beautiful buildings and architecture and a great lake by it, with a lot of business's around it. It doesn't look like a city thats lost half of its population the last ten years or so. 

Detroit up until around 2000, was a city of 1.5M people about the size of Philadelphia, the sixth or seventh largest city in America. Today it's still a big city but of around 750K people, they've lost half of their population and tax base the last ten years. And if you look at Detroit from the outside and didn't know that, you probably wouldn't of guessed that, but thats just and outside view of what was once a great big American city and one of the greatest cities in America if not the World. 

But why has Detroit lost so much ground, especially since Cleveland which is just about a couple hours south of Detroit has gained so much ground, but why has Detroit come so far down, since it used to be a city where people could live in it, get a good job in the city, raise their kids without having to worry about them being attacked or killed and think they could live well in Detroit forever, but thats no longer the case. 

The Detroit economy plummeted, but hopefully has started to come back. It's now perhaps the most dangerous big city in the country if not the most dangerous city in America. And has one of the worst public school systems in America if not the worst. The Great Recession of 2008 hit Detroit and its auto industry harder than any other big city and Michigan harder then any other state in the Union. And without the auto bailout, other than Ford Motor Company, there wouldn't be any auto industry in America right now. 

But the problems were already there for Detroit. You can have the most dedicated workforce in America but if you're not producing enough high-skilled workers, your not going to have the workers for the good jobs. They have to improve their public education system, by rewarding good educators, paying good educators more. Allowing competition in the public school system with public school choice, so students aren't trapped in bad schools. Reward good educators, retrain or eliminate bad ones. Reward good schools and reform or eliminate bad ones. And equalize the funding for the schools so schools in low-income areas can get the resources they need to do a good job. 

The auto industry coming back to Detroit is great and they need that but the auto industry needs to diversify like making cars that are more fuel efficient. (For example) And they need to build other things, just like the rest of the country. We need to rebuild our manufacturing industry, start building things in America again and then having good trade agreements so we can sell our products oversees that are Made in America. That also includes trade adjustment for people who lose their jobs because of trade, so they can get the skills that they need to get another good job in another field. And then we have to stop encouraging American companies to send jobs oversees. 

Last but never least, no one is never going to want to live in Detroit if they don't feel safe there. They need to have enough cops, breakup organized crime and gangs. Get those people out of those activities and re skill them to work in legal professions so they can be productive citizens. 

Detroit can come back just like the Tigers did a few years ago and become a competitive and great big city again. But there are certain things they have to do to accomplish that to make it happen.

CNN: Piers Morgan Tonight- Hugh Hefner Interview (2011)

Source:CNN- Hugh Hefner's favorite pinup: Hollywood Babydoll Marlyn Monroe.

"Hugh Hefner looks back on the iconic centerfold that started it all and ponders how he and Playboy will be remembered." 

From CNN 

Playboy founder and owner Hugh Hefner being interviewed by Piers Morgan on Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN. One of the few Piers interviews that I've watched where it felt worth my time to watch the interview.

Source:CNN- Playboy Hugh Hefner, on Piers Morgan Tonight.

If you’re a true believer in individual liberty and limited government, that people should be left free to live their own lives, then you don’t care about other people’s sex lives and how they live their own lives, as long as they take care of themselves, individual liberty is just that. Liberty for the individual to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Instead of judging people by their sex lives. Let's take politicians and other public officials as examples.

Judge people by how they conduct themselves as people and how they do their jobs. What they say and how their actions relate to what they say. Which is the major reason why when I hear Christian -Conservatives who are not Classical Conservatives (meaning Conservative Libertarians) speak in favor of individual freedom and limited government, but then try to pass laws limiting individual liberty. And giving government more authority to regulate how people live their own lives.

I’ll use Senator Jim DeMint who I admit is an easy target for Liberals such as myself and others, but last year he came out in favor of some law that would make adultery illegal. Similar to what they have in Saudi Arabia. No one in their right mind who knows anything about Saudi Arabia, would describe Saudi Arabia as a free society. Senator DeMint who’s no Conservative Libertarian, but who I would describe as a Christian or Religious-Conservative, I’ll give him credit for his honesty. You know where he stands on the issues, but I would fault him at least in one area.

Senator DeMint, speaks all the time on the Senate floor and in other places about limited government, individual liberty and that the Federal Government should live within the U.S. Constitution. Great, I’m in favor of all of that, but the problem with Senator DeMint is that he’s only speaking in favor of economic freedom for some and fiscal responsibility for some. Not personal freedom, which is important in a liberal democracy like America. 

Individual liberty is just that, it’s what Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman called maximize freedom: the freedom for individuals to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. That’s just doesn’t relate to economic freedom, but freedom in general as long as you’re not hurting anyone else with your freedom.

As far as Hugh Hefner, I think he’s the perfect example of what both personal freedom and economic freedom means in America. He started his own business and comes from a modest economic background. But took advantage of that to the hill and built his own very successful business and company which of course is Playboy. 

Hefner has lived his own life as he’s saw fit and has lived up to his personal responsibilities from the personal decisions that he’s had with his own personal freedom. And hasn’t hurt innocent individuals with his own lifestyle and personal freedom. Which is certainly an American Dream at least for Americans who believe in both individual freedom and personal responsibility. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Professor Milton Friedman: 'Liberty and Equality? (1978)'

Source:Brittle 13- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about liberty and equality, in 1978.

"Milton Friedman 1978.  From a lecture given at Stanford University. From Milton Friedman Speaks: Lecture 04, "The Role of Government in a Free Society:Free To Choose." 

From Brittle 13

As Classical Liberal economist Milton Friedman said, a society that aims for equality over liberty, will have neither. The reason being that if you keep taking from the wealthy to give to the poor, you take incentive that people need to make money. Because government will just jack it away from them. 

If society aims for liberty so people can live their own lives and essentially govern themselves and be as successful as their skills and production will allow, people who are better educated, more inventive, more creative, more strategic, more productive, will be more successful in life than people who aren’t. As they should be, because they put in the work to make that happen. Thats called capitalist economics, liberal capitalism, or liberal economics, even, where people can make as much money and be as successful as they can essentially can be. To have a strong economy, people have to have the incentive to be successful, or they won’t be.

But what we can have is an economy where we have equality of liberty where everyone has a shot to be as successful in life by getting a good education. And then putting those skills to work the best that they can. No economic system is perfect. Everyone comes with plus’ and minus’. The trick is to have an economic system that works the best. Where the plus’ outweighs the minus’s so much, that system is worth having. 

A progressive tax system is part of that, but not to the point that you tax wealth so much, that you take incentive away to create wealth in the first place. But a tax and educational system that encourages people to make money and for wealth to be created, instead of punishing those activities. And not having more incentive for people to be dependent on government for their financial survival.

There’s so such thing as true equality in any economic system. Where everyone is equal at least in a good way. In any economic system, where’s there’s a substantial amount of economic freedom, so people can make a good living, some people are going to make more money than others. Because we aren’t all equal economically, some people just bring more skills to the table than others. 

In a classical socialist economy where the state owns the economy, everyone might be equal economically, but they are all poor, unless they have a good government job. Take Cuba for example, but even they have moved to open up parts of their economy to privatization. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Paul Krugman: 'It's Not Fair That Some People Are Rich'

Source:Paul Krugman Blog- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, talking about wealth inequality.

"The anecdotes in Paul Krugman's book Conscience of a Liberal destroy many of the myths about the Canadian system. It is mystifying that people talk about how long people must wait for hip replacements in Canada, but 2/3 of the hip replacements in the United States are already provided by Medicare. The United States healthcare system will be much better funded, so our system will be much better. 

There is not a hiring market for CEOs. They are paid based on the recommendations of a committee that is appointed by the CEO. In the 40s and 50s, this lead to incomes that was 30 or 40 times higher than the average worker. Now it is more like 350 times higher. There was a lower threshold for outrage back then. They didn't like that people were getting laid off when the CEOs were paying themselves so much. 

But now the political climate has changed. Now, if times are good, then they get a huge cut of the profits. If times are bad, then they are let go and they get a multi-million dollar severance package. This type of thing pervades the economy. Just look at people's expectations for equality in the workplace. It just isn't there, and that is because the climate has changed. 

In most rich countries, income is fairly equal. In poor countries, there is a wide distribution in income. If you look at America, they are somewhere in between. They are moving away from the Scandinavian countries and looking more and more like Latin American countries like Brazil. In Brazil, traffic is terrible, but the rich don't care because they always travel by helicopter. 

The problem isn't just that the rich have siphoned off all of the wealth of the past few decades, it is that there is a disintegration of society." 

From the Paul Krugman Blog 

When it comes to deciding what type of economic system a country should have, there are some things that have to be decided first. 

What's the best economic system for your particular country and you can look at other countries for ideas as well. But that doesn't mean what works in another country will automatically work in your country. What works in Canada, or America or Sweden might not work in France, Brazil or Mexico. 

You need to figure out how much freedom and ability if any, you're willing to give your population to deicide what type of life they are going to have and how much quality of life they'll be able to achieve. And how much taxes they are going to pay if any, how much assistance from government will be provided if any, for people who at the time can't quite make it on their own. 

How much regulation if any you're going to have, the rules of the road that individuals and business's will have. Will you have a private sector or not or a combination of a private-public sector economy, that Europe has.

Personally I believe in the economic system that America had up until ten years ago where people were able to make as much money as their skills and production would allow legally. Where people paid taxes based on their income, the more you made the more you paid essentially. And where government regulated how individuals and business's interacted with each other to prevent and punish abuses. And where we made things in America instead of shipping jobs oversees. 

To now where we have a system where the more you make, the more taxes you can escape from paying and get the biggest benefits in tax cuts. And where we have now a free and unfettered market thats not regulated very well, take Wall Street for example: a big reason for the Great Recession of 2008 that we are still struggling from. 

But I'm also not in favor of a socialist state whether it's Marxist Socialism, where the State owns the means of production in society and there's very little if any economic freedom for the people and there isn't any private sector. Take North Korea more of a 4th World country than a 3rd World country and easily one of the poorest countries in the World. 

I'm also not in favor of a social democratic economy, where even though there is a private sector, but where it's highly taxed (by American standards) and highly regulated (again, by American standards) and where the Central Government essentially collects all of the revenue in the economy and passes out its benefits to the people it feels needs its the most to finance an expansive welfare state, where you can essentially make a good living collecting Unemployment Insurance. (Take Sweden, for example) But even Sweden is rethinking their welfare system.

The best economic system for America is and why we did have the strongest economy in the world not just the largest ten years ago, is where everyone has a shot at a good education and can go out in the private sector and make as much money as their skills and production will allow. And pay taxes based on how much you make, where the economy is well regulated but not over regulated. Where the people are expected to be able to take care of themselves but where there's a safety net for people who fall down to help them get up. 

Thats what we had from 1981-2001, except for a couple of recessions and it resulted in the best economy the world has ever seen. Which is why so many former socialist economies have moved in our direction instead of the former Soviet Union. 

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner- Milton Friedman: 'Other People's Money (1975)'

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman.

"Professor Friedman examines the dynamics of "doing good" with other people's money:Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

If you make money on your own, you have a job you get a pay check, or if you work for yourself, you support yourself with your own business, chances are if you're responsible, you're going to spend your own money in a responsible manner. Because if you don't, you're going to pay a price for that. (No pun intended) But for your own irresponsible spending. And have less money than you otherwise would've had on things you need to spend money on to survive, had you spent your money responsibly. 

So knowing that you're most likely to spend your money in a responsible way. When you're spending others people money, you should spend it in the responsible way that you would spend your own money. Not believing that you can take more chances with other people's money. Especially if you're spending someone's money and they give you more money and keep giving you money. 

You're not going to be as responsible generally speaking, because mistakes you make with other peoples money, unless consequences come with that spending, won't effect you the same way. As the persons whose credit card, or checkbook, or even cash that you're spending. So you're going to be more likely to make mistakes spending other people's money than your own. Because it doesn't come with the same consequences. 

The Federal Government is a perfect example of this and why it wastes so much money. 100B$ a year alone in some programs and departments alone. (According to GAO) Because the Federal Government doesn't make a dime on its own, all of its revenue comes from tax collection. Plus since it controls the U.S. Currency, it can print money like drunk sailors spend it. Giving it even more incentive to waste money and spend it irresponsibly. 

I bet you anything that if the Federal Government was a business (and I'm not suggesting it should be) that they would be a lot more efficient with the taxes it collects. I'm not making a case for not having a Federal Government, or making it weak. But what I am suggesting that it have solid rules on what it spends the money on that it collects. And that there's strong oversight from Congress and the GAO (the Government Accountability Office) on its spending and operations to cut back on the waste in it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

CSPAN: President Obama- 'Announces Afghanistan Troop Reduction'

Source:CSPAN- President Barack H. Obama, addressing the nation on his Afghanistan policy.

"Speaking from the White House, President Obama announced that 10,000 American forces would leave Afghanistan by the end of this year and another 20,000 would be withdrawn by the end of next year." 

From CSPAN

I supported the War in Afghanistan originally back in October 2001 shortly after 9/11, because Afghanistan was harboring some of the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11. As well as Afghanistan being a safe harbor for other terrorist activities. And we needed to get those people to prevent other Terrorists Attacks on America in the future. 

I didn't agree with how we funded the War in Afghanistan from the beginning and now. Borrowing over a trillion dollars and putting all of that money on the national debt card. The War in Afghanistan represents around 10% of our national debt alone. Military operations is something America is very good at. Nation building, not so much. 

Just look at our country for example: we need some nation building of our own, we need to rebuild our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, buildings, airports, our waters, our schools. As well as building things that we don't currently have to reduce traffic congestion (for example) by building more roads. 

If you look at what the original mission in Afghanistan was, get the terrorists, knock the Taliban out of power and install another government thats no longer a threat to us. Mission accomplished, we accomplished that nine years ago. 

The question now is where do we go from here. If the mission is to establish a new republic in Afghanistan with a functioning central government thats responsible without corruption, we are not going to accomplish that. 

If occupying a country which is what we are doing in Afghanistan and making the case that we need to be there until they have a responsible central government, then we could make that case to occupy several of Afghanistan's neighbors, like Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan is going to have to decide what kind of country they are going to have going forward, we can't do that for them and be there indefinitely. 

At some point and by the end of 2011 I believe, we are going to have to decide whether Afghanistan can have a responsible central government going forward or not and how likely that is. If the answer is no which I believe it is, then we need to pull out and declare mission accomplished and declare we did all we could and accomplished what we originally set out. 

If the answer is yes, then we have to have a clear plan that everyone can understand and have a coalition behind us to help up accomplish that plan.