Monday, April 11, 2016

The Fallacy of the Minimum Wage and CT Governor Dan Malloy


After reviewing a 2014 news conference concerning an increase in the minimum wage, I am completely convinced that Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy does not have the least bit understanding of economics.
"Today I am proud to announce one more piece of legislation that I will be submitting which is to increase the state minimum wage to $10.10 over the next three years"
That some people can think government is able to make our lives better by setting a minimum wage baffles me.  Forget the fact that everything government does is inefficient by nature, or that for government to help one person it must hurt another.

Let us just logically take a look at the idea of minimum wage.  Advocates of the minimum wage range from wanting a federally mandated $15/hour minimum wage to over $20/hour but regardless of the number requested I always have the same question; why stop there?  If you think the government could set a minimum and make everyone's life better, why only $20/hour?  Why not $50/hour? or $100/hour? or maybe the government can pass a law that mandates a $1000/hour minimum wage, so that way we can all be rich, live in mansions, and drive Lamborghini.

Obviously this is absurd, as there are not many businesses that will be able to pay the increased wages, and would be forced to either drastically raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Well this concept applies to any increase in the required wage.  There are many small businesses that are struggling to stay open and pay their employees at the current required wage, and if it were to increase by just a dollar or two, the business would not be able to pay the extra hundreds or thousands a month and be forced to raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Now that employee that you were trying to make have a better life, has no job.

As shown by the next clip, Governor Malloy at least somewhat understands this concept but shows further ignorance of economics by brushing the increased prices away as no big deal, and makes the absurd statement that most businesses that pay the minimum wage are forced to stay in an area and can't leave regardless of the increased labor cost.
Reporter:  "Governor, no business has ever passed an exorbitant tax or an increase, its passed onto the consumer [sic].  Don't you feel that you just increased the cost of living in the state?"
Governor Malloy: "Well I think to some extent that may be reflected in costs but if you look at the nature of the businesses that are largely paying the minimum wage, they are businesses that can't leave the state.  They're here, they're providing services and products to the people of the state of Connecticut."
This is such an absurd conclusion that I don't know where to begin to dispute it.  When mentioning businesses that can't leave, I am assuming Malloy is referring to minimum wage jobs like restaurants that are very location focused, that have built their business through satisfying the local population, and can't just get up and relocate.  While it is true that these businesses can't just get up and relocate to another state, there is nothing that prevents them from just shutting down.  If they can't afford to pay their employees, or lose customers due to the increased prices that are a result of the increased salary paid to their employees, then the businesses will just close down.  The first businesses to close will be the single small family owned restaurants as they do not have the resources that big chain restaurants have, to deal with costly government regulation.  A restaurant like McDonalds has the resources to invest in automated order taking machines as a substitute for the newly increased cost of having an actual human employee.  But even a restaurant like McDonalds isn't REQUIRED to stay in a city and lose money.  If government regulations become so taxing that even a big chain store can't make a profit, then they will eventually just close or leave as well.

The next thing Governor Malloy says is really ridiculous, in my opinion.  He essentially says that people want to pay their workers more but I guess are just not smart enough to pay their workers what they feel they deserve and that is why we need government to force them to pay their workers more through minimum wage laws:
 "...I think when you ask people of the state of Connecticut whether they believe that the people who wait on them, who care for them, who take care of their children, should receive a $10.10 salary , I think you are going to find overwhelmingly that the people of Connecticut do agree."
So, according to the Governor's logic, there are people in Connecticut who are paying someone the minimum wage to watch their children, who feel that the babysitter deserves more than the minimum wage, but just aren't paying the babysitter more because there isn't a law requiring them to do so?  Why wouldn't they just pay the babysitter more themselves?

This same concept applies to the other group that Dan Malloy mentioned, waiters.  If Connecticut residents truly feel that the people who wait on them at restaurants deserve more pay, there is nothing from stopping those people from leaving a bigger tip.  It is obvious that Governor Malloy, with his push for an increase in the minimum wage, is just appealing to the low income, low information voter that doesn't understand the impact of government wage laws.

To conclude, more laws and bigger government are not the solution to the countries economic problems, but in actuality the cause of them.  Instead of asking for a government mandated "livable wage", we should be asking why the current non-livable wage of $10/hour, would be an extremely great wage just fifty years ago.  $10 in 1966 would be the equivalent of about $74 today.  This devaluing of the dollar is caused by inflation, or more money being "printed" into circulation resulting in increased prices.  This crippling power that the Federal Government, working in conjunction with The Federal Reserve has, needs to be the main topic of any discussion involving government involvement in wages and prices.  Other than that there is not much Dan Malloy or any Connecticut politician can do to help the economy other than to get out of the way and let the free market operate.

Related analyses:

  • Is United States Senator Chris Murphy The Answer To The European Terrorist Problem? - March 25, 2016 (link)
  • Are We In A Depression? President Obama Says No; CT Governor Dan Malloy Says Yes. - March 16, 2016 (link)
  • Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition - March 9, 2016 (link)
  • CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016 - February 28, 2016 (link)

Friday, April 1, 2016

A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Seeing as how the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is referenced multiple times throughout the various Connecticut climate change documents, I felt the need to take the time out and read the original treaty, from 1992, myself.  Having read several United Nations documents in the past, I pretty much knew what I was in for; there is a global problem that cannot be fixed by any one nation therefore all nations need to come together, come up with a comprehensive global plan, go back home, and implement it.  Instead of offering a comprehensive analysis as I have done with other United Nations documents, I will just present a few quotes from the document with my brief opinion.

The first part of the UNFCCC that should be noted is their definition of climate change.
“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods." [emphasis added]
By defining "climate change" as something that may or may not be caused by human activity they are able to avoid the debate over whether climate change is caused by humans when putting forth ideas in fighting climate change.  It may seem ridiculous to take action on a problem that you are unsure is even a problem but that is exactly what the UNFCCC proposes:
"The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost." [emphasis added]
Therefore, even when the science is not clear on an issue, it is recommended that governments take action anyway.  A similar view would eventually go on to be used in the Connecticut climate change documents.  In part 1 of a series titled "The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy" the inconclusiveness of man made climate change is discussed and can be found being presented in state documents.  Quite similarly, in Part 2 of the same series, the inaccuracy of the data being used by the state to propagate climate change policy is also revealed and discussed.

There are other sections of the UNFCCC that have come to pass in the state such as the idea to create "inventories of anthropogenic emissions".  Developing an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions would eventually become the first step taken by Connecticut as recommended in the 2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan.

Another principle of the UNFCCC that would go on to be adopted by the state of Connecticut is the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission (GHG) to a level that equals the GHG emission of the previous decades.  From the UNFCCC document:
"These policies and measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the Convention, recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol would contribute to such modification" 
Quite similarly, the state, in 2014, announced that "Connecticut has met its initial GHG emission reduction goal of returning to 1990 levels by 2010".

Important to mention is that the UNFCCC recommends referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for "objective scientific and technical advice".  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has come under heavy scrutiny in the past, as there have been many documented errors with information put out by the organization.  The IPCC is cited several times throughout the Connecticut climate change papers .

Also important to mention is that the UNFCCC was presented at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the same Earth Summit that brought us United Nations Agenda 21, a much larger and detailed global plan designed to fight climate change.  Agenda 21 is relevant because, being 300 plus pages, it gives a more detailed explanation of how the articles of the UNFCCC, a much smaller document, will be carried out.  The entire Agenda 21 plan revolves around the concept of sustainable development and Article 3, Principle 4 of the UNFCCC says "The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development."  (To get a better understanding of sustainable development and Agenda 21, it is highly recommended to any interested reader to read "A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action")  Both Agenda 21 and the UNFCCC were agreed to by the President of the United States at the time, George Bush.

Finally, the UNFCCC reveals the United Nations goal of creating a "supportive and open international economic system".  This new global economic system that is being set up by the United Nations and related organizations deserves its own in depth analysis but the work of Patrick Wood, specifically his book "Technocracy Rising" has done the best work that I have come across explaining and documenting this system.

The UNFCCC is just one small piece of an enormous puzzle that we are trying to put together here at  Read the related work and stay tuned for more.

Related Analyses:
  • A Critical Summary of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women - August 22, 2014 (link)
  • Children's Edition of United Nations Agenda 21: Blatant Anti-Human Propaganda - February 02, 2014 (link)
  • Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights" - December 28, 2013 (link)
  • A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)

Friday, March 25, 2016

Is United States Senator Chris Murphy The Answer To The European Terrorist Problem?

On March 23, 2016 United States Senator Chris Murphy held a briefing to discuss, among other things, fighting terrorism and the recent terror attacks in Belgium.  Senator Murphy says that "Europe needs...some people like me". 

Related Links:

  • Are We In A Depression? President Obama Says No; CT Governor Dan Malloy Says Yes. - March 16, 2016 (link)
  • Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition - March 9, 2016 (link)
  • CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016 - February 28, 2016 (link)

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Are We In A Depression? President Obama Says No; CT Governor Dan Malloy Says Yes.

Excerpt from video: "If you haven't watched my latest videos, it is discussed how Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy has been propagating a new message for 2016.  The Governor is now saying that we are in an economic downturn that resembles the Great Depression, where wages and home values will not continuously rise.  I'm making this video because I was just watching President Obama speaking at South by Southwest a few days ago, originally recorded March 12, 2016, and I hear him imply that the economy is doing good and saying that he SAVED us from the Great Depression.  Now, Malloy and Obama seem to be pretty close, as Malloy was "honored" with a seat next to the first lady during the Presidents 2016 State of the Union speech, so I would think that the Governor and the President would have a much more similar opinion on such a fundamental issue.  I don't know but either way Dan Malloy is saying we are in the depression, while Obama is saying that he saved us from the depression, here are the clips"
Related Links:

  • Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition - March 9, 2016 (link)
  • CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016 - February 28, 2016 (link)
  • Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition

As discussed in my most recent video, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is delivering a new message to the people of Connecticut about how there will be no recovery from the recession and we should not expect to have as much as previous generations.  Malloy says that he, along with "economists across the world" had predicted a normal recovery from the recession, but have now come to find that this is not, and will not be the case, as the Great Recession is looking more like the Great Depression.
"It's clear that the Great Recession had a long lasting impact on the American economy.  We had all hoped, economists across the country, across the world, had predicted that although it might be a little bit slower, it would be, in essence, a normal recovery from the Great Recession.  That's not true. The Great Recession is more like the Great Depression in its long term impact on the economy." - Dan Malloy on WNPR, 02/18/16
While it is true that the Governor had been telling everyone for years that the economy was recovering and improving from the recession, it should be noted that there were some economists who predicted this lack of growth, and were saying exactly what Dan Malloy is now saying.  One particular economist is Peter Schiff, who most famously predicted the 2007-2008 crash.

For example, when Dan Malloy in 2012 was saying that "things are coming back" and in 2014 saying "the economy is improving", Peter Schiff was saying, in 2012, "we've been in a depression since the end of 2007", and in 2013 saying "wait until you see how bad it's going to get during the Obama recession".

In my opinion, Dan Malloy's solutions to the economic problems, such as increasing the minimum wage, will only make things worse.  In future videos I will be further critiquing Dan Malloy's views on the minimum wage, and overall economic policy.  To be sure to catch the latest uploads, subscribe to our channel on YouTube or click 'like' on The Goodman Chronicle Facebook page.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016

To open the legislative session for 2016 the governor of Connecticut Dan Malloy has a new message: get used to a lowering of your standard of living because the pre-recession prosperity of your parents days, where wages and home prices went up, is not coming back.
"Really what the overall message today is that Connecticut's and the nations economy was changed by the Great Recession.  We all thought that, you know, that we'd get back to what was an old normal.  Well quite frankly, we're in the new normal.  And I think government has to catch up to where the people are and understand that the people have already made that adjustment.  They're not counting on an economy that their parents and their grandparents counted on where wages and home values went up steadily every single year." - Governor Malloy, opening day round-table discussion
"We live in changing times, you don't have to take my word for it, you hear it from your constituents everyday.  A visceral feeling that our country and our state are not going back to how things were before the great recession.  Families are budgeting differently. Their expectations are changing. They know that they can't rely on the same economy their parents and grandparents did, where wages and home values steadily increased." - Governor Malloy's Opening Day Address to the General Assembly 
What the governor does not tell you is that many policy makers view the economic downturn and the lowering of our standard of living as a good thing because it means we use less energy, thus saving the planet from greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

As an example, in 2014 the state announced that it had met its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and credited "the economic downturn" as one of the major factors involved with helping to reach that goal.  Director of Policy for the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, Jessie Stratton, was working for, and speaking on behalf of the Environment Northeast Organization back in 2010 when she also credited the economic downturn for "reduced electricity consumption."

To better understand this concept of a reduction in energy consumption being a good thing we have to go back to at least 2001 when the state had announced its goal of reducing green house gas emission in the state by up to 85%.  This means a reduction in energy use, which means a reduction in the use of products that require energy to be made, which means a reduction in pretty much everything.  As an example of the vast level of green house gas reduction looking to be imposed by the state, a 2008 state document said that "Connecticut will need to decrease GHG emissions by more than one million metric tons per year for over 40 years"  which they say is "equivalent to the emissions from electricity used by over 137,000 homes each year or the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year."

This idea that single family homes and private motor vehicles are bad for the environment is being used by the state and federal government to implement a program of "Smart Growth".  Smart Growth occurs when government attempts to reduce private motor vehicle and single family home ownership by using taxes, laws, and regulations to focus high-density development around a transit line.  An example of this is occurring in the capital city of Hartford where over a thousand apartment units have been or are being constructed in the downtown area along the newly built CTFastrak bus line.  These construction projects have received millions of tax-payer dollars in loans, grants, and other forms of financial assistance.

Policy makers like to tout the benefits of living in an apartment, next to a bus line, and not needing to own a car or maintain property, but they leave out the many benefits of home and car ownership.  For example, your options as to where you would like to live, work, grocery shop, or seek entertainment are vastly increased when you have a personal motor vehicle.  Without a personal motor vehicle your options on where to live, work, shop, and play are limited to what is on your bus or train route.  There are a number of benefits of personal home ownership as well, not the least of which being privacy, and not having to be around people that you do not want to be around.  When our buying options are limited in such a way by these state-sponsored energy-reduction Smart Growth policies designed to restrict private motor vehicle ownership and single-family home ownership this directly results in a lowering of our standard of living.

This policy of Smart Growth was not created at the state level though, it is a top down policy that extends up through the federal government all the way up to the international government level with the United Nations.  Evidence of this can be found in the various Connecticut climate change papers where various organizations affiliated with the United Nations, like the IPCC, are cited, but most specifically in the 2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan where the topic of greenhouse gas emission is discussed, it is stated: "The ultimate goal mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  This is relevant because the United Nations is more explicit in their desire to lower the standard of living of industrialized nations like the United States, all in the name of fighting "climate change".  In the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, an action plan presented at the same 1992 Earth summit in Rio that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was presented, it states that "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries."  This sentiment is even more explicitly expressed , and quite coincidentally in almost the same terms that Governor Dan Malloy is using, in the children's edition of Agenda 21.  Rachel Kyte, the Vice President of the World Bank Group at the time of the publishing of the childrens edition of Agenda 21 is quoted as saying that children should not expect as much as their parents.  The actual quote is this:
"You can't bring up a new generation of people telling them they can have everything we have and more."
An interested person researching climate change and the United Nations will continue to come across this concept of a lowering in the standard of living of industrialized nations being a necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  At we attempt to document how this agenda is directly affecting residents of Connecticut.

To conclude, we need to look at this recent revelation by Governor Malloy in its proper context.  The state government, along with the federal government, have been adopting policies in order to get the people to use less energy and reduce consumption.  This is why the economic changes brought with the recession are being embraced.  When we have less money, we consume less.  As we progress further in this agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emission we can expect further economic, as well as social and cultural changes, all in an apparent effort to fight "climate change".  Only an informed and vigilant citizenry can get in the way of these changes from taking place.

Monday, January 25, 2016

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection

(Click here for an .mp3 audio presentation of the following analysis.)

In this part of the series of 'The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy' we are going to take a look at many of the groups behind CT climate change policy, and their curious connection to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which will be referred to as RBF from this point on.  We are going to start by following the timeline of the implementation of Connecticut climate change policy.

The first action taken by the state in regards to "global warming" was in 1990 with the passing of Public Act 90-219 "An Act Concerning Global Warming", but we will start this analysis in the year 2000 as that is when the state's focus on climate change and global warming began in earnest and significant action began to be taken.

In the year 2000 an alliance of New England Governors met with Premiers from Eastern Canada to adopt "Resolution 25-9 concerning global warming and its environmental impacts."  These New England Governors were brought together through a forum named CONEG, or the Coalition of North Eastern Governors. According to their website, "CONEG works with the governors and their staff and policy advisors to examine current and emerging regional issues, develop effective solutions, and undertake cooperative actions that benefit the individual state and the region."  CONEG polices are identified, formulated, and carried out by their staff at the CONEG Policy Research Center Inc.  Various official documents from the RBF show that they were funding CONEG Policy Research Center Inc. from its inception in the mid-1970's through the 1980's.  Therefore the RBF has had an influential connection to Connecticut climate change policy from its inception.

In 2001, this coalition of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers came together once again to create a Climate Change Action Plan for the region.  This plan called for each state to create their own climate change plans, programs, and policies.  As a result, the governor of Connecticut at the time, John Rowland, in 2002, created a Steering Committee "to coordinate Connecticut’s actions on climate change."

The same year that Governor Rowland created the Steering Committee, the Commitee met at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

At this meeting it was stated that one of the first steps that Connecticut needs to do to address climate change is to have an inventory of "greenhouse gas" in the state.  It was announced that Connecticut had approached the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop this greenhouse gas inventory for the state, and in 2003 NESCAUM released their report titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000".

NESCAUM is an organization cited throughout the state documents in relation to climate change.  The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given multiple grants to NESCAUM, funding various studies put out by the organization.

In the 2003 report on Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, written by agents of NESCAUM, the origins of the concern over "greenhouse gases" is detailed, and they cite the starting point when "[i]n 1992, the United States joined more than 160 other countries in signing and ratifying the [United Nations] Framework Convention on Climate Change. [UNFCCC]"

As detailed in the report Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticutthe UNFCCC was a specific aspiration of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as they admittedly "organized and funded some of the earliest meetings of advocates addressing climate change."  One of those early advocate organizations that has played, and continues to play, a leading role in the climate change debate is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has been a highly influential organization propagating the belief that man-made global warming is a real and serious threat.  The IPCC is known as an "internationally accepted authority on climate change."  IPCC reports are cited  throughout the many Connecticut official documents relating to climate change policy.  The IPCC was co-funded into existence by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.