<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The window to my world &#187; Economics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.buwahaha.com/tag/ecomonics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.buwahaha.com</link>
	<description>Just another blog with the thoughts of someone you really don&#039;t know</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:09:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Cash For Clunkers</title>
		<link>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Wayne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cash for clunkers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.buwahaha.com/?p=261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My thoughts on the "Cash For Clunkers program.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you haven&#8217;t heard about this program then you shouldn&#8217;t be voting. The basis of the program is you can get up to $4500 by trading in your old vehicle towards a new vehicle which gets better gas mileage. One of those nice, happy, lets hug each other programs the government loves spending your money on.</p>
<p>Never forget this, it is our money helping someone purchase a new vehicle. So far about about one billion dollars and continuing to grow. The first question we should ask is does the government have the power to do such a thing? I fail to see where this falls under any of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution, not that ever stops Congress. Next we should ask is this the best use of our money? Lets see, the government is talking about the missile defense program by over one billion dollars but has the money to help Joe Blow purchase a new vehicle?Â  Misplaced priorities in my opinion.</p>
<p>President Obama talks about wanting to provide relief to the people that need it. Increasing the debt of the government via unconstitutional programs that really aren&#8217;t needed isn&#8217;t going to help.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad Science and Economics Coming Your Way</title>
		<link>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/06/bad-science-and-economics-coming-your-way/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/06/bad-science-and-economics-coming-your-way/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Wayne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Renewable Energy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.buwahaha.com/?p=242</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Cap and Trade bill is working its way through Congress bringing with it fault science and bad economics]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Cap and Trade bill has passed through the House by using typical pork barrel politics to get enough members of the house to go along with the bill so that it will pass. Doubt me? Take a look at the parts added to the bill to get House members from the farm states to go along. Your cost of food is going to go up more as farmers will be enticed by the higher amount paid to help fight global warming.</p>
<p>Which brings us to the next matter. The science of global warming is flakier then then the jelly doughnut Al Gore is eating. Anyone can do the Chicken Little act and scream &#8220;Global Warming!&#8221; &#8220;Global Warming!&#8221; but the rational mind should look at the evidence and make decisions based on this. Congress lacking a rational mind means we get Chicken Little laws. Nevermind that temperatures have actually been dropping during the last decade but that the tie between CO2 and global warming doesn&#8217;t have the evidence to support. On the other hand the evidence supports a link between solor activity and global warming but as Congress hasn&#8217;t figured out how to tax solar activity, yet, they go down the route where your wallet is located.</p>
<p>The final part of the bill I want to address for now are the statements on how it will create more jobs. Sure it will create jobs in those sectors where the government is tossing money, but how will this effect jobs in other areas? Gabriel Calzada an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain has <a title="Gabriel Calzada report on renewable energy" href="http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf" target="_blank">published a report</a> telling us what to expect. Spain bought into the green jobs via renewable energy. The results? The highest rate of unemployment at 18.1% that is double the European Union average. On top of this these renewable energy projects are costing the government even more money, not saving money. The only way these projects can survive is with government subsidies, over a million dollars a year in some cases. So far the evidence tends to say that going with renewable energy comes at the cost of higher taxes to support the projects and higher unemployment rates.</p>
<p>If this bill becomes law hold on to your wallet and pray you don&#8217;t lose your job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/06/bad-science-and-economics-coming-your-way/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Political Math on the Obama Stimulus Plan</title>
		<link>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/06/political-math-on-the-obama-stimulus-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/06/political-math-on-the-obama-stimulus-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Wayne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Plan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.buwahaha.com/?p=195</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To date the President's projects on the stimulus plan on falling far short on his projections.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting post over at <a href="http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/the-obama-stimulus-predictions-vs-reality/" target="_blank">Political Math</a> on how President Obama&#8217;s stimulus plan projections are fairing to the real world results. I suggest reading the entire article but the author sums it up this way:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Their predictions were not just kinda wrong. They were horrifically, disasterously wrong. If President Obama is going to use statistics and charts to push nearly $800 billion in spending, I think we should be able to expect his numbers to at least kinda match the reality that comes out of his policies.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>I wonder how the President and his people will spin this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.buwahaha.com/2009/06/political-math-on-the-obama-stimulus-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

