Guest Post
written by: Jonathan Tancer
edited by: Marc Tancer
written one week after Hurricane Sandy in the midst of power outages and gas lines in New Jersey
(I've only edited my brothers spelling and grammar, and added a couple points here or there, and wrote the last paragraph)
People, the reason why the gas lines are so long is because of the bogus law that prohibits "price gouging". I am a registered Republican and I disagree with Chris Christie for not reversing the "price gouging" law during this time.
Supply side:
There is not a shortage of gasoline*, there is a shortage of pumping stations. If more stations were open, the perceived "shortage" would be much less. By removing the price increase cap, more stations would be open. If gas station owners were able to charge more, they could afford to become more creative. For example, it might be economical and profitable to burn their own gas to run generators in order to pump gas if gas was allowed to go to $5 or $7 or how ever much the markets dictates per gallon. Also, receiving a shipment from further away might cost a gas station more money, but the station cannot by law increase their prices to consumers by more than 10%, so this might not be economical either. Perhaps most importantly, as a general matter of natural disasters, the best way to encourage individuals and companies in other states to come to provide goods or services is to allow the prices to increase! They in fact they might need to be paid much more in the wake of a natural disaster to compensate for the risk they are taking by going into or shipping something into a dangerous area. Imagine I owned a gasoline refinery. If I could sell my gas for the same price in PA is I could sell it for in Jersey, but New Jersey was half way under water, I wouldn't risk my workers, delivery trucks, or gasoline... I wouldn't send them to New Jersey. But if gas went to $7/gallon, maybe I would take the risk. I don't pretend to know because I don't own a refinery, but this is a decision best made by those who do!
Nj is full service, gas attendants have to be paid. A gas station may normally have just one or two attendants, but to keep the lines moving the owner may want to have more attendants, as many as one person per pump! Because stations are prohibited from increasing the price they can't afford to hire more workers to keep the line moving.**
Demand side:
By artificially keeping the price of gas down in a time of "shortage" the government is creating artificial demand.
People see long lines (caused by the supply factors discussed above) and that causes people to panic and run to the gas station on a daily basis, even if it is just to top off the tank. The lines become even longer, and people burn 60 miles of gas waiting in a 2 hour gas line, further wasting more of the scarce resource.
This confluence of a sort of crazed demand and stunted supply will always create long lines which could lead to worse problems.
As a matter of principle, if I as a hardworking American am willing to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline in order to not wait in line for it, why should the government say no?
There will be talk about how increased prices will hurt the poor. I have no doubt it would hurt the poor directly. I think it would hurt the poor the most; the poor consume much more gasoline (and other necessities... food for example) than the rich do as a percentage of their income or wealth. However, we need to look at the seen versus the unseen and how the alternative (anti-price gouging laws) might be worse for the poor, and for society. If a poor person has a minimum wage job and is living paycheck to paycheck, it is very likely that he cannot miss much work if he wants to stay afloat. I work, as many of you do, and I know that if I had to wait on a 5 or 6 hour line for gasoline, there is no doubt I would miss work. It is the poor who most need to continue working, and gas lines will force everyone to miss work. Every non-ultra-wealthy consumer would suffer from $6, or $10 gasoline, but would this temporary suffering which may last a couple of weeks be worse than missing work? I suppose that's subjective, but I say no, it would not be worse than missing work. Also, society cannot afford to allow those with certain high skilled jobs to miss work either. An ER doctor can afford $10/gallon gas, but he cannot afford to be waiting on a 5 hour line when there are all of these emergency patients who get hurt as a result of the natural disaster! Now, the people in between the minimum wage worker and the ER doc are the ones who actually produce and deliver food, energy, and other physical goods, and provide people with services, if they are forced to wait on gas lines instead of working, the economy would definitely suffer... as production is stunted.
*By definition, the difference in the amount of gasoline demanded and supplied at price created by a government price control is a shortage, so this was actually a gasoline shortage. But the subsequent point is very legitimate and important.
** Christie also should have stopped enforcing the full service law in New Jersey. That would have, at least to a small extent, helped reduce the lines.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Jill Stein's Green New Deal
As I promised several weeks ago, here is a commentary on the Green Party's nominee for President Jill Stein's "Green New Deal." It will be abbreviated so I can comment on as much of it as I can in one blog post.
First I want to comment that I think she's probably an honest person who actually wants what's best for America, as opposed to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. And at least she's a physician, not an attorney... so I can give her credit for that. While I believe her Green New Deal is based on her honest beliefs and not on corruption, it is, like most policies, a result of good intentions but will have numerous disastrous unintended consequences. Perhaps her two arrests have been kind of planned by her to get publicity, but maybe they weren't; maybe they resulted from her emotional responses to very important issues. So I'm about to say all of the following, which many of you won't like. I just wanted to let you know that I think she is coming from the right place, I'm just going after her proposals.
The Green New Deal:
I. Economic Bill of Rights
1. Her economic bill of rights makes no sense - as rights are things that individuals hold as human beings, against other people and against the state. She is talking about "positive rights" - or the state using force against some for a supposed benefit to others. And a "right to full employment" also demonstrates a dangerous misunderstanding of how labor and capital work. She also shows extreme political naivete by thinking that an employment program could be nationally funded but locally controlled. Just like education, the feds will regulate in politically arbitrary ways as long as they fund it.
2. "Right to living wage, ..." etc. This is also a positive right, which goes against what rights are. For the state to pretend to guarantee a living wage to each worker, it must violate others' property rights. To take from some productive effort to cover an artificially higher wage. Also, everyone has the right to free assembly and association. This means workers cannot be prevented by government from joining together, but employers still have the same rights than workers do. Employers should not be required to lay off those who are striking and holding up production. The less production there is in the economy, the less wealth is being created and standards of living will not increase as quickly, or may even go down.
3. A Medicare for all system exists in Canada. There are long lines for medical care in Canada, and the system is bankrupt. We need to reverse the economic effects of the HMO Act, and phase out Medicare. Our economy can't afford to be directing so much capital for such unhealthy results as the managed third party payment system coupled with the FDA/Big PHARMA complex has given us.
4. Again she believes something can be federally funded but locally controlled. It's laughable politically. We certainly do need a locally controlled education system, though. Student loan debt should NOT be forgiven. This would be a huge moral hazard which would perpetuate the problem. Just like how the financial sector had explicit and implicit government guarantees during the housing bubble which encouraged it to grow, the government guarantees of all of the student loans is in my estimation the second biggest reason that tuition has got so out of control (the biggest reason is inflation). However, in support of college students, future student loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. And perhaps past student loans should be retroactively made dischargeable (I haven't though through that in particular). Anything that can be done to liquidate bad college debt and encourage tuition to decrease should be considered. Except they shouldn't just be forgiven. After a student loan is discharged in legitimate bankruptcy, the borrower should have some sort of impaired credit for a time, but let the market (ratings agencies and private individuals in general) decide what people's credit should be.
5. Good intentions- get people into homes, hault foreclosures, all noble goals. But economically, these policies have the same effects of the policies which caused the housing bubble from 2001-2006 which led to the Great Depression that began in December 2007 and the financial crisis in 2008. We need to allow foreclosures, but certainly the feds should have an investigation of the robo-signing fraud, where judges didn't even examine documentation presented by banks, and just signed off on foreclosures.
6. Publicly owned utilities would lead to technological stagnation and long term physical deterioration of the utilities. This kind of centralization could also lead to the possibility that a natural disaster would knock out a monopoly, which would be slow to respond, instead of in a private profit seeking market, utilities would be up much faster. Also, since when did progressives believe in centralization? I thought they like decentralized power?
7. Allowing individuals or businesses to pay less in taxes is NOT a subsidy. [In an economic sense, I do see it as potentially distortionary, and having an effect as a subsidy.] This thinking suggests that the state owns 100% of one's productive effort, and allows the individual to keep some of it. If it allows the individual to keep more, it is a cost. That is the thinking that has led to our horrible tax system.
II. A Green Transition
This part of the Green New Deal is the perfect example of what Hayek called "The Pretense of Knowledge." Jill Stein believes that she knows what forms of energy are clean and economical. Only the market can decide what is economical. Of course, if there was no corporate tax and no income tax, the tax breaks which do benefit certain oil companies over other businesses wouldn't exist. This would help balance the playing field and allow for more competitiveness.
III. Real Financial Reform
Democratizing the central bank, putting it under Treasury, might be marginally better than what we have now in a philosophic sense- that as long as there is paper money ordained by the government, it should be issued by the government as opposed to by a government ordained private institution. However, practically speaking, it would probably be worse. It would no longer be a shell game between Congress and the Fed, and it will become even more obvious to markets that the central bank monetizes government debt. This would lead to a quick deterioration of markets.
How does she intend to break up banks which she decides are too big to fail. Of course the moral hazard of too big to fail is a big problem. But you need not break up the banks. You may need only allow them to fail or succeed on their own merits, and simply remove the guarantee to bail them out, and ensure markets that the government will not bail them out.
I agree with her on something! End bailouts for financial industry!
How does she want to regulate financial derivatives? Why does she want to regulate financial derivatives. It might sound good to people who know that derivatives proliferated during the bubble and had something to do with the crash. But let me tell you, derivatives didn't lead to the crash. Derivatives proliferated for the same reason that the housing bubble was growing - there was all of this excess liquidity and prices were going up and all of these people were borrowing money and feeling good. But the derivatives didn't cause the crisis. In fact, those who profited by being long credit default swaps deserved all of the money they earned - because their purchase of CDSs sent a signal to markets that there were people who did believe that defaults were going to be widespread and the whole system was unsustainable. I love the concept of derivatives. They smooth out markets and benefit both of those who enter into them.
The only part of Glass-Steagall that Bill Clinton repealed was the prohibition against a commercial bank and an investment bank being owned by the same entity. Perhaps repealing this prohibition made it physically easier to commit fraud by using some clients' money as it was not supposed to be used, but it did not make it legal. Talk about Glass-Steagall in relation to this current depression is a red herring.
A 90% tax on bailed out bankers would violate the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits Congress pass ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. This proposal is both an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder. The bailouts were wrong, but let's not do more wrong! Two wrongs don't make a right.
I might cover Part IV - A Functional Democracy tomorrow. I am very disappointed that their reference to their desire to cut military comes as only the last point in their entire platform; it is curt but specific, and agreeable. But it really doesn't give the important explanations as to why this is so important. But I can not continue this post tonight. I didn't go into detail as far as the economic machinations which are behind the numerous assertions I made above. However, I have described probably each and every idea in depth in the past. And if you do like what she has to say, then fine, vote for her. It certainly is a better vote than for Obama or Romney.
Peace
First I want to comment that I think she's probably an honest person who actually wants what's best for America, as opposed to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. And at least she's a physician, not an attorney... so I can give her credit for that. While I believe her Green New Deal is based on her honest beliefs and not on corruption, it is, like most policies, a result of good intentions but will have numerous disastrous unintended consequences. Perhaps her two arrests have been kind of planned by her to get publicity, but maybe they weren't; maybe they resulted from her emotional responses to very important issues. So I'm about to say all of the following, which many of you won't like. I just wanted to let you know that I think she is coming from the right place, I'm just going after her proposals.
The Green New Deal:
I. Economic Bill of Rights
1. Her economic bill of rights makes no sense - as rights are things that individuals hold as human beings, against other people and against the state. She is talking about "positive rights" - or the state using force against some for a supposed benefit to others. And a "right to full employment" also demonstrates a dangerous misunderstanding of how labor and capital work. She also shows extreme political naivete by thinking that an employment program could be nationally funded but locally controlled. Just like education, the feds will regulate in politically arbitrary ways as long as they fund it.
2. "Right to living wage, ..." etc. This is also a positive right, which goes against what rights are. For the state to pretend to guarantee a living wage to each worker, it must violate others' property rights. To take from some productive effort to cover an artificially higher wage. Also, everyone has the right to free assembly and association. This means workers cannot be prevented by government from joining together, but employers still have the same rights than workers do. Employers should not be required to lay off those who are striking and holding up production. The less production there is in the economy, the less wealth is being created and standards of living will not increase as quickly, or may even go down.
3. A Medicare for all system exists in Canada. There are long lines for medical care in Canada, and the system is bankrupt. We need to reverse the economic effects of the HMO Act, and phase out Medicare. Our economy can't afford to be directing so much capital for such unhealthy results as the managed third party payment system coupled with the FDA/Big PHARMA complex has given us.
4. Again she believes something can be federally funded but locally controlled. It's laughable politically. We certainly do need a locally controlled education system, though. Student loan debt should NOT be forgiven. This would be a huge moral hazard which would perpetuate the problem. Just like how the financial sector had explicit and implicit government guarantees during the housing bubble which encouraged it to grow, the government guarantees of all of the student loans is in my estimation the second biggest reason that tuition has got so out of control (the biggest reason is inflation). However, in support of college students, future student loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. And perhaps past student loans should be retroactively made dischargeable (I haven't though through that in particular). Anything that can be done to liquidate bad college debt and encourage tuition to decrease should be considered. Except they shouldn't just be forgiven. After a student loan is discharged in legitimate bankruptcy, the borrower should have some sort of impaired credit for a time, but let the market (ratings agencies and private individuals in general) decide what people's credit should be.
5. Good intentions- get people into homes, hault foreclosures, all noble goals. But economically, these policies have the same effects of the policies which caused the housing bubble from 2001-2006 which led to the Great Depression that began in December 2007 and the financial crisis in 2008. We need to allow foreclosures, but certainly the feds should have an investigation of the robo-signing fraud, where judges didn't even examine documentation presented by banks, and just signed off on foreclosures.
6. Publicly owned utilities would lead to technological stagnation and long term physical deterioration of the utilities. This kind of centralization could also lead to the possibility that a natural disaster would knock out a monopoly, which would be slow to respond, instead of in a private profit seeking market, utilities would be up much faster. Also, since when did progressives believe in centralization? I thought they like decentralized power?
7. Allowing individuals or businesses to pay less in taxes is NOT a subsidy. [In an economic sense, I do see it as potentially distortionary, and having an effect as a subsidy.] This thinking suggests that the state owns 100% of one's productive effort, and allows the individual to keep some of it. If it allows the individual to keep more, it is a cost. That is the thinking that has led to our horrible tax system.
II. A Green Transition
This part of the Green New Deal is the perfect example of what Hayek called "The Pretense of Knowledge." Jill Stein believes that she knows what forms of energy are clean and economical. Only the market can decide what is economical. Of course, if there was no corporate tax and no income tax, the tax breaks which do benefit certain oil companies over other businesses wouldn't exist. This would help balance the playing field and allow for more competitiveness.
III. Real Financial Reform
Democratizing the central bank, putting it under Treasury, might be marginally better than what we have now in a philosophic sense- that as long as there is paper money ordained by the government, it should be issued by the government as opposed to by a government ordained private institution. However, practically speaking, it would probably be worse. It would no longer be a shell game between Congress and the Fed, and it will become even more obvious to markets that the central bank monetizes government debt. This would lead to a quick deterioration of markets.
How does she intend to break up banks which she decides are too big to fail. Of course the moral hazard of too big to fail is a big problem. But you need not break up the banks. You may need only allow them to fail or succeed on their own merits, and simply remove the guarantee to bail them out, and ensure markets that the government will not bail them out.
I agree with her on something! End bailouts for financial industry!
How does she want to regulate financial derivatives? Why does she want to regulate financial derivatives. It might sound good to people who know that derivatives proliferated during the bubble and had something to do with the crash. But let me tell you, derivatives didn't lead to the crash. Derivatives proliferated for the same reason that the housing bubble was growing - there was all of this excess liquidity and prices were going up and all of these people were borrowing money and feeling good. But the derivatives didn't cause the crisis. In fact, those who profited by being long credit default swaps deserved all of the money they earned - because their purchase of CDSs sent a signal to markets that there were people who did believe that defaults were going to be widespread and the whole system was unsustainable. I love the concept of derivatives. They smooth out markets and benefit both of those who enter into them.
The only part of Glass-Steagall that Bill Clinton repealed was the prohibition against a commercial bank and an investment bank being owned by the same entity. Perhaps repealing this prohibition made it physically easier to commit fraud by using some clients' money as it was not supposed to be used, but it did not make it legal. Talk about Glass-Steagall in relation to this current depression is a red herring.
A 90% tax on bailed out bankers would violate the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits Congress pass ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. This proposal is both an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder. The bailouts were wrong, but let's not do more wrong! Two wrongs don't make a right.
I might cover Part IV - A Functional Democracy tomorrow. I am very disappointed that their reference to their desire to cut military comes as only the last point in their entire platform; it is curt but specific, and agreeable. But it really doesn't give the important explanations as to why this is so important. But I can not continue this post tonight. I didn't go into detail as far as the economic machinations which are behind the numerous assertions I made above. However, I have described probably each and every idea in depth in the past. And if you do like what she has to say, then fine, vote for her. It certainly is a better vote than for Obama or Romney.
Peace
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Peace and War
It's interesting to note that "shalom aleichem" and "assalam alaykum" both colloquially mean "peace be upon you" in their respective languages: Hebrew and Arabic. It's amazing how similar people - language is one manifestation of that. Yet, the media and the politicians try to make it sound like the Arab and Muslim world despises Judeo-Christianity. No doubt, governments in majority Muslim countries use the American government's violence as an indictment of the American people. Each government is trying to drum up hate between the people they rule to start a war.
I've said this before, but it's important enough to note again: As war with Iran approaches, please remember that it will have support from each of the participating governments, certain manufacturing industries, and the banks which will get to lend the money to the governments to fight the war. The war will not have widespread support from the American people or from the Israeli people or from the Iranian people... or at least I hope it won't.
Stay active- tell your friends, tell your so called Congresspeople, tell your so called media THAT YOU DON'T WANT ANOTHER WAR!
I've said this before, but it's important enough to note again: As war with Iran approaches, please remember that it will have support from each of the participating governments, certain manufacturing industries, and the banks which will get to lend the money to the governments to fight the war. The war will not have widespread support from the American people or from the Israeli people or from the Iranian people... or at least I hope it won't.
Stay active- tell your friends, tell your so called Congresspeople, tell your so called media THAT YOU DON'T WANT ANOTHER WAR!
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
a baseball break
I really never talk about baseball anymore. I still love it, but between work and trying to change people's minds about morality (trying to convince about the non-aggression principle), who has the time?
But the Mets have been playing well. Other than their recent series against the Yankees, in which they lost the season subway-series - five games to one - Santana and Dickey have been throwing great - Santana tossed the Mets FIRST EVER NO HITTER and Dickey threw two complete game one hitters consecutively. So there's that.
There's also two minor stories of politics and baseball in the news. Barack Obama thought he was getting booed when he had brought up Kevin Youkilis. President Obama had a scripted line by some idiot bureaucrat who didn't think of all of the unintended consequences; he was trying to play cute with the innocent American people who just want to be left alone and to watch their baseball and football. It's really funny that some of the media also thought that Obama was booed. It was Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, who informed the people about a "Youk" chant could sound like booing. So Carney, who works for the president, saved the president from the media thinking he was booed because of bringing up a sore subject, then made the president look like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Brilliant!
The other new story is that presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul is going to be inducted into the Congressional Baseball Hall of Fame. His play during his first stint in Congress in the 70s and 80s culminated with what is believed to be the first of only two out of the park home runs.
But the Mets have been playing well. Other than their recent series against the Yankees, in which they lost the season subway-series - five games to one - Santana and Dickey have been throwing great - Santana tossed the Mets FIRST EVER NO HITTER and Dickey threw two complete game one hitters consecutively. So there's that.
There's also two minor stories of politics and baseball in the news. Barack Obama thought he was getting booed when he had brought up Kevin Youkilis. President Obama had a scripted line by some idiot bureaucrat who didn't think of all of the unintended consequences; he was trying to play cute with the innocent American people who just want to be left alone and to watch their baseball and football. It's really funny that some of the media also thought that Obama was booed. It was Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, who informed the people about a "Youk" chant could sound like booing. So Carney, who works for the president, saved the president from the media thinking he was booed because of bringing up a sore subject, then made the president look like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Brilliant!
The other new story is that presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul is going to be inducted into the Congressional Baseball Hall of Fame. His play during his first stint in Congress in the 70s and 80s culminated with what is believed to be the first of only two out of the park home runs.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
FOMC policy announcement tomorrow (I bet on a surprise)
The Federal Reserve's monetary policy making committee will be releasing information from their every-six-week policy meeting tomorrow (you can see their Press Release by clicking on the "Statement" link for June meeting tomorrow after 12:30. Despite the disappointed expectations from Bernanke's testimony at his address to the Joint Economic Committee (see the entire hearing), I have a feeling that the Fed is going to announce a formal easing program tomorrow. Certainly the Fed has not at all taken a QE3 (in reality a QE5 or QE6) off the table, but I don't think markets have signaled recently that they expect a new purchase program from the Fed. I could be off base, but I have a feeling that the Fed thinks a surprise announcement toward more money printing might jump start the economy. Of course, all it will do is jump start financial markets holding dollar denominated assets. Update: If Bernanke does announce a new round or easing or if he drops a strong hint that they might do it soon, we will see markets rally. Gold and silver could hit new records in the next few months. We will see.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Hope for America
I have said before that I still have hope for America for one reason - generally speaking, almost all Americans are pro-right-to-bear-arms - that is that all law abiding citizens should be allowed to own firearms. I had plenty of formal and informal debates in college, and we debated a host of issues. But the least controversial discussions I had with my very good Democrat friends were about guns and gun ownership. I saw pictures of them at one of their houses with an M1 Garand, some sort of large revolver, and a couple of other guns. They might believe in some sort of system like in New Jersey where you must have a Firearms Identification Card to own and purchase firearms, where I don't believe in that, but I doubt they support gun registration or microstamping. And they thought it was a good idea that good Americans have guns. Also, they definitely enjoyed shooting.
In addition to only .1% of Americans subscribing to the Brady campaign and most Americans liking that Americans have firearms, guns are all over popular culture - and in non-negative ways, in ways that will project the opposite of gun owners than a rapper will do when rapping about putting a cap into someone's ass. American Guns and Sons of Guns are two television shows which are just about building and customizing guns. Then there's Top Shot which is a shooting competition show. In other shows, like Storage Wars, Auction Hunters, Pawn Stars, Hardcore Pawn, and even Antiques Roadshow, firearms will commonly be an item about which we will learn history and get an appraisal.
I really don't see interest in guns decreasing or support of gun control increasing in America, which gives me great hope that Americans are not in a totally helpless mindset. If registration, banning, and confiscation like in Cananda Great Britain occur here, though, there will be no hope left.
---
Update: I just posted this blog entry to my Facebook, and apparently as I was writing the above, Art of Manliness (a great website I highly recommend visiting and reading a few articles) posted an article A Primer on the Shotgun.
Update #2, 6/7/2012: This came from Lew Rockwell's blog today.
In addition to only .1% of Americans subscribing to the Brady campaign and most Americans liking that Americans have firearms, guns are all over popular culture - and in non-negative ways, in ways that will project the opposite of gun owners than a rapper will do when rapping about putting a cap into someone's ass. American Guns and Sons of Guns are two television shows which are just about building and customizing guns. Then there's Top Shot which is a shooting competition show. In other shows, like Storage Wars, Auction Hunters, Pawn Stars, Hardcore Pawn, and even Antiques Roadshow, firearms will commonly be an item about which we will learn history and get an appraisal.
I really don't see interest in guns decreasing or support of gun control increasing in America, which gives me great hope that Americans are not in a totally helpless mindset. If registration, banning, and confiscation like in Cananda Great Britain occur here, though, there will be no hope left.
---
Update: I just posted this blog entry to my Facebook, and apparently as I was writing the above, Art of Manliness (a great website I highly recommend visiting and reading a few articles) posted an article A Primer on the Shotgun.
Update #2, 6/7/2012: This came from Lew Rockwell's blog today.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Patriots and expatriots
If wanting to expatriate from your country due to high taxes is unpatriotic, then I guess the founding fathers were unpatriotic.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Treasury ratings update
I started a post quite a while ago about how Fitch put the US government on notice by changing their outlook on Treasuries to negative. Although Fitch still gives the US government a AAA, it will not continue to if the government continues to run budget deficits and if the economy doesn't grow fast enough to support the growth in government. So I just found this saved, incomplete blog entry and I figured I'd write a quick update. To my knowledge Fitch has not made a change since then.
Last summer, S&P downgraded US Treasuries to AA+. Moody's maintains it's Aaa rating of treasuries, but also holds a negative outlook.
Of course, we are in the deepest depression of America's history. Economic activity is slowing down because capital is being drained from productive uses to prop up bad assets, keep banks afloat, and fund a violent government. All the while, the national debt increases at faster rates each year and tax receipts to the government slow down. The ratings agencies are being pretty soft on the government, although those in the government likely think that they have been too hard on them. My rating of Treasuries is that they are junk (not worse - only because they are so liquid right now) and that my outlook is negative - they will eventually be worse than junk - in default.
Last summer, S&P downgraded US Treasuries to AA+. Moody's maintains it's Aaa rating of treasuries, but also holds a negative outlook.
Of course, we are in the deepest depression of America's history. Economic activity is slowing down because capital is being drained from productive uses to prop up bad assets, keep banks afloat, and fund a violent government. All the while, the national debt increases at faster rates each year and tax receipts to the government slow down. The ratings agencies are being pretty soft on the government, although those in the government likely think that they have been too hard on them. My rating of Treasuries is that they are junk (not worse - only because they are so liquid right now) and that my outlook is negative - they will eventually be worse than junk - in default.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Capital controls in America?
I questioned some of my professors and peers back in college about the potential for capital controls, and I expressed my fear that they would happen. They all highly doubted that the government would implement any sort of capital control. Well, now the Senate has a bill to severely punish those who chose to renounce their US citizenship over taxes. This bill was introduced by one of the worst control freaks in the Senate, Chuck Schumer , and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey. The "Ex-Patriot Act" attempts to re-implement taxes on those who expatriate, introduce 30% capital gains taxes on them, and ban them from every coming back to the United States. This is not a patriotic bill. I think that the intent of the bill is two-fold - to continue to squeeze as much revenue into the government, and for the government to make individuals who want to leave feel threatened. Freedom to move your capital is a fundamental human right, and any attempt by the state to interfere is wrong. I hope my fear of capital controls is overblown, but the introduction of this bill furthers those fears.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
BUY THE DIP
I really think it's a great time to buy gold. It's down to $1555 per ounce, down from $1900 at its peak last summer, and it's past few months range of 1600-1750. I acknowledge that short term upward pressure on the dollar due to the failures in Europe could drive the price of gold down even further. But this pullback is a great time to get in. Plus, we will no longer see prolonged dips in gold below our current range when markets finally realize that the dollar is actually in worse shape than the Euro. If I could buy gold now, I definitely would buy some. Then I'd buy more in a couple of months. I don't pretend to be able to time markets, but I am bearish on the medium term for the US government's ability to start getting serious about spending, so I am confident that the price of gold will be substantially higher in future years. Even if it takes it many years for the problems with the Euro to play through, the Fed will probably assure that the effect of inflation in the dollar will at the very least mitigate the effect of Europe's problems on exchange rates and commodity dollar prices. Consistent accumulation and cost-averaging will work well for you if you share my views on the economy.
For reasonable premiums and low spreads, I recommend Krugerrands and gold bars such as these from the Perth Mint.
Oh yeah, silver could be considered even more attractive than gold right now. The Au/Ag ratio is about 55 to 1. It has been higher and lower than that after the US demonetized gold in 1933. But for some perspective, in the US during the nineteenth century, the ratio was about 16 to 1.
Small time investors and gloom-and-doomers should buy some 90% silver coinage (pre-65 dimes, quarters, and halves) at less than a dollar over spot per ounce of silver, sometimes just a few cents over spot! The buyback may be a little lower than for 1 oz bullion such as Eagles, Maple Leafs, or generic rounds or bars, but they could be great for barter in the worst case scenario that the currency collapses. You could also get 1 ozers as I just mentioned, and as a pure price-speculative investment in silver at a low premium and small spread, consider 100 oz bars.
For reasonable premiums and low spreads, I recommend Krugerrands and gold bars such as these from the Perth Mint.
Oh yeah, silver could be considered even more attractive than gold right now. The Au/Ag ratio is about 55 to 1. It has been higher and lower than that after the US demonetized gold in 1933. But for some perspective, in the US during the nineteenth century, the ratio was about 16 to 1.
Small time investors and gloom-and-doomers should buy some 90% silver coinage (pre-65 dimes, quarters, and halves) at less than a dollar over spot per ounce of silver, sometimes just a few cents over spot! The buyback may be a little lower than for 1 oz bullion such as Eagles, Maple Leafs, or generic rounds or bars, but they could be great for barter in the worst case scenario that the currency collapses. You could also get 1 ozers as I just mentioned, and as a pure price-speculative investment in silver at a low premium and small spread, consider 100 oz bars.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Romney - the fall man
I agree with radio talk show host Michael Savage on his contention that Mitt Romney is a fall guy for the Republicans. McCain was their fall guy back in 2008. The Republicans were just getting ready to loot America's treasury, which they did in September 08, when they nominated McCain in August 2008. The Republicans knew that President Bush was so unpopular and that they were going to be stealing lots of money from Americans by bailing out the banks, so they nominated a tough war hero who was able to take the lumps and who was on their side but simply wouldn't be able to actually win. It's obvious that the controllers wanted the Republicans to lose; the people needed to know that the another party (the Democrats) were going to save the economy from the implosion caused by the Republicans.
They, those who make the decisions in this country, wanted Romney, the more polished candidate, to sit out because he can actually win. But that didn't mean that they could put him up to lose. So Romney was an insider who they knew could win, which made him a more versatile tool than McCain.
Now, to an extent, they are trying to portray the Republicans as the saviors, or at least any establishment which is to the right of Obama is trying to portray Romney as the savior for anyone against Obama. It's possible that the controllers believe that Obama can get away with more than someone like Romney could, or maybe they have harsher plans for 2016 (see Marco Rubio and his foreign policy) and they wanted a savior after 8 years of Obama like Obama was after Bush. Rubio could certainly be that right wing hero who would demolish who ever runs against him after 8 years of the current administration.
As far as my estimation, there can only be one of two reasons for the constant barrage of Romney this and Romney that. He's a fall guy. Or, they want to see how much they can get away with from the public - i.e. putting up someone who has flip-flopped on every issue during an election cycle when more people than ever claim that they are looking for honesty and consistency.
They, those who make the decisions in this country, wanted Romney, the more polished candidate, to sit out because he can actually win. But that didn't mean that they could put him up to lose. So Romney was an insider who they knew could win, which made him a more versatile tool than McCain.
Now, to an extent, they are trying to portray the Republicans as the saviors, or at least any establishment which is to the right of Obama is trying to portray Romney as the savior for anyone against Obama. It's possible that the controllers believe that Obama can get away with more than someone like Romney could, or maybe they have harsher plans for 2016 (see Marco Rubio and his foreign policy) and they wanted a savior after 8 years of Obama like Obama was after Bush. Rubio could certainly be that right wing hero who would demolish who ever runs against him after 8 years of the current administration.
As far as my estimation, there can only be one of two reasons for the constant barrage of Romney this and Romney that. He's a fall guy. Or, they want to see how much they can get away with from the public - i.e. putting up someone who has flip-flopped on every issue during an election cycle when more people than ever claim that they are looking for honesty and consistency.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
campaign contribution limits, Citizens United, the Constitution
Is a corporation a person? No.
But does the first amendment to the Constitution read "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech?" of course.
It doesn't say that individuals have a right to freely speak but that groups of people or entities representing people can be regulated in their expression or expenditures.
But to humor those who say that the "Citizens United" case should be overturned on the grounds that corporations aren't people -
Let's pretend that the first amendment didn't exist or that campaign contributions aren't speech. Article 1, Section 4 is the only place in the constitution that gives Congress authority over elections - but this is about ELECTIONS, not campaigning, not donations. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations..." "Times and places" seems to mean when and where - and "Manner" seems to mean how the elections are held - type of ballot and type of elector system, for example.
Still, the feds would have no authority over campaign contributions because there is no positive grant of power to the federal government to regulate donations and funding to federal campaigns. How ridiculous is it that us regular people are restricted in how much we can donate directly to a presidential campaign; but then donations go to PACs, SUPERPACs, and lots of other far less accountable organizations. Abolish individual donation limit to candidates and increase transparency.
But does the first amendment to the Constitution read "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech?" of course.
It doesn't say that individuals have a right to freely speak but that groups of people or entities representing people can be regulated in their expression or expenditures.
But to humor those who say that the "Citizens United" case should be overturned on the grounds that corporations aren't people -
Let's pretend that the first amendment didn't exist or that campaign contributions aren't speech. Article 1, Section 4 is the only place in the constitution that gives Congress authority over elections - but this is about ELECTIONS, not campaigning, not donations. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations..." "Times and places" seems to mean when and where - and "Manner" seems to mean how the elections are held - type of ballot and type of elector system, for example.
Still, the feds would have no authority over campaign contributions because there is no positive grant of power to the federal government to regulate donations and funding to federal campaigns. How ridiculous is it that us regular people are restricted in how much we can donate directly to a presidential campaign; but then donations go to PACs, SUPERPACs, and lots of other far less accountable organizations. Abolish individual donation limit to candidates and increase transparency.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Propoganda from gold sellers
Five out of the seven points this article makes about gold are very valid. However, I believe points five and six are not actually myths, but truths.
"Myth" 5 is that bullion is the best way to invest in gold. Well, I think that bullion is the best way to invest in gold. Now, if you have a reputable coin dealer, you could get European gold (sovereigns, francs, etc) and common date pre-1933 circulated gold coins for similar premiums and spreads as regular bullion - coins and bars. Their values are just the gold which is why they're just bullion, anyway. They do not have regular weights like 1/10 oz, 1/4 oz, 1/2 oz or 1 oz, but if you are looking for smaller fractional coins (for the lower price level or the barter-ability), you could get lower premiums and smaller spreads on European coinage and pre-33 US coinage than on fractional maples or eagles if you have the right dealer. However, if the price is more than a few percentage points above the "melt" value (Actual Gold Weight x gold Spot), DO NOT BUY what a sales person might call "semi-numismatic" European gold.
-BUT-
The main point that this author makes is to buy high grade, high value "investment grade" coins. It is true that if you buy the high grade, ACTUALLY RARE coins, you CAN earn a high return over a long period of time. BUT, by buying a high grade, key date coin, you ARE NOT INVESTING IN GOLD - YOU'RE ARE INVESTING IN A RARE COIN - you are betting that in the future, something special about a particular coin will have appeal to other collectors in the future. So in this point alone is my confirmation that bullion coins and bars are a much better way to invest in gold, because it is actually an investment in gold. I'm not saying you can't make more money in rare coins - you can if you know what you're doing. But again, an investment in rare coins is by definition not an investment in gold.
As far as "myth" number 6, I believe both a "calling in of gold" and gold confiscation are unlikely to occur again in America. But just because gold was called in (not actually confiscated) in 1933, and FDR's executive order exempted numismatic coins, does not necessarily mean that a future calling-in or confiscation will also exempt numismatic coins. This is the actual myth - the only precedent that their myth, that numismatic gold coins will never be confiscated, has is the executive order issued by FDR! A future president could issue any executive order they want and Congress can make any statute they want (the Supreme Court is sure not gonna stop them). So myth number 6 isn't a myth at all. He is promoting the actual myth, for the benefit of unscrupulous dealers who sell high grade coins at high premiums to customers who believe the real myth.
My recommendation, in short, is that you invest in gold, you collect rare coins.
"Myth" 5 is that bullion is the best way to invest in gold. Well, I think that bullion is the best way to invest in gold. Now, if you have a reputable coin dealer, you could get European gold (sovereigns, francs, etc) and common date pre-1933 circulated gold coins for similar premiums and spreads as regular bullion - coins and bars. Their values are just the gold which is why they're just bullion, anyway. They do not have regular weights like 1/10 oz, 1/4 oz, 1/2 oz or 1 oz, but if you are looking for smaller fractional coins (for the lower price level or the barter-ability), you could get lower premiums and smaller spreads on European coinage and pre-33 US coinage than on fractional maples or eagles if you have the right dealer. However, if the price is more than a few percentage points above the "melt" value (Actual Gold Weight x gold Spot), DO NOT BUY what a sales person might call "semi-numismatic" European gold.
-BUT-
The main point that this author makes is to buy high grade, high value "investment grade" coins. It is true that if you buy the high grade, ACTUALLY RARE coins, you CAN earn a high return over a long period of time. BUT, by buying a high grade, key date coin, you ARE NOT INVESTING IN GOLD - YOU'RE ARE INVESTING IN A RARE COIN - you are betting that in the future, something special about a particular coin will have appeal to other collectors in the future. So in this point alone is my confirmation that bullion coins and bars are a much better way to invest in gold, because it is actually an investment in gold. I'm not saying you can't make more money in rare coins - you can if you know what you're doing. But again, an investment in rare coins is by definition not an investment in gold.
As far as "myth" number 6, I believe both a "calling in of gold" and gold confiscation are unlikely to occur again in America. But just because gold was called in (not actually confiscated) in 1933, and FDR's executive order exempted numismatic coins, does not necessarily mean that a future calling-in or confiscation will also exempt numismatic coins. This is the actual myth - the only precedent that their myth, that numismatic gold coins will never be confiscated, has is the executive order issued by FDR! A future president could issue any executive order they want and Congress can make any statute they want (the Supreme Court is sure not gonna stop them). So myth number 6 isn't a myth at all. He is promoting the actual myth, for the benefit of unscrupulous dealers who sell high grade coins at high premiums to customers who believe the real myth.
My recommendation, in short, is that you invest in gold, you collect rare coins.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Van Jones on libertarians, part 5
5. “You can’t call yourself a patriot if all you want to do is look at the Statue of Liberty … you like the Statue of Liberty, READ the poem at the base of that statue. ‘Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses who yearn to breath free.’ You can’t be an anti-immigrant bigot and a patriot at the same time.
I think Van Jones’s characterization of libertarians as people who just call themselves patriots all day and go to New York and post Facebook photos and all of that is inaccurate – it’s closer to what empty-right-wing-nationalists might do, but that’s neither here nor there. What’s more important is the glaring lie that libertarians are anti-immigrant. I don’t know one libertarian who doesn’t support the free flow of capital AND LABOR. Although I do think it’s unfair that illegal immigrants come over when those trying to come here legally are waiting for years and years, I still don’t scorn otherwise peaceful illegals. They shouldn’t have broken our laws by coming here and if they commit another crime they should go to prison and then get kicked out of the US.
I think Van Jones’s characterization of libertarians as people who just call themselves patriots all day and go to New York and post Facebook photos and all of that is inaccurate – it’s closer to what empty-right-wing-nationalists might do, but that’s neither here nor there. What’s more important is the glaring lie that libertarians are anti-immigrant. I don’t know one libertarian who doesn’t support the free flow of capital AND LABOR. Although I do think it’s unfair that illegal immigrants come over when those trying to come here legally are waiting for years and years, I still don’t scorn otherwise peaceful illegals. They shouldn’t have broken our laws by coming here and if they commit another crime they should go to prison and then get kicked out of the US.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Van Jones on libertarians, part 4
4. “You’re not a deep patriot if you teach your kid to sing America The Beautiful but then you do nothing when the oil spillers and the clear cutters and the mountain top removers come to destroy America’s beauty to make money for corporations. You’re not a patriot if that’s your position with regard to the environment.”
As far as oil spillers go, libertarians have very simple solutions to that. If the government didn’t cap liability for oil drillers in the case of accidents, the oil companies’ insurance providers would have a much greater incentive to do thorough inspections of drilling facilities. They would also set much higher standards for their oil drilling clients than the government did.
Talking about clear cutters and mountain top removers, there’s certainly no easy answer to every single question that faces America or the world. But first, the government shouldn’t give special grant to one corporation or one sector over a specific piece of land – this is corporatism (fascism) and not freedom or liberty. Under a state of liberty, private individuals, companies, or organizations would own most land that currently belongs to the federal government. Under a system of the government leasing land to a company for these purposes, the company might destroy it during the lease and return it stripped of beauty and resources. But if the company actually owned the land outright, they would have no incentive to destroy and strip the land to the point where it will be valueless; if they did, they would have a huge capital loss. Most federal land should be sold at OPEN auction in which any peaceful American (and maybe any peaceful foreigner) is allowed to bid. This would create an open playing field on which anyone could purchase land instead of allowing miners to destroy publically owned land.
And with regards to the environment in general, Van Jones makes it sound like libertarians don’t at all care about the environment. Not only does he neglect my above “tragedy of the commons” problem, but he also ignores the fact that libertarians believe that no company or individual should be allowed to pollute his neighbor’s land or air.
Oh yeah, and I actually have another part, so there will be a fifth post.
As far as oil spillers go, libertarians have very simple solutions to that. If the government didn’t cap liability for oil drillers in the case of accidents, the oil companies’ insurance providers would have a much greater incentive to do thorough inspections of drilling facilities. They would also set much higher standards for their oil drilling clients than the government did.
Talking about clear cutters and mountain top removers, there’s certainly no easy answer to every single question that faces America or the world. But first, the government shouldn’t give special grant to one corporation or one sector over a specific piece of land – this is corporatism (fascism) and not freedom or liberty. Under a state of liberty, private individuals, companies, or organizations would own most land that currently belongs to the federal government. Under a system of the government leasing land to a company for these purposes, the company might destroy it during the lease and return it stripped of beauty and resources. But if the company actually owned the land outright, they would have no incentive to destroy and strip the land to the point where it will be valueless; if they did, they would have a huge capital loss. Most federal land should be sold at OPEN auction in which any peaceful American (and maybe any peaceful foreigner) is allowed to bid. This would create an open playing field on which anyone could purchase land instead of allowing miners to destroy publically owned land.
And with regards to the environment in general, Van Jones makes it sound like libertarians don’t at all care about the environment. Not only does he neglect my above “tragedy of the commons” problem, but he also ignores the fact that libertarians believe that no company or individual should be allowed to pollute his neighbor’s land or air.
Oh yeah, and I actually have another part, so there will be a fifth post.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Van Jones on libertarians, part 3
3. “They hate everybody in American who looks like us… but they hate the people, the brown folk, the gays and the lesbians, the people with all these piercings and tattoos, y’all. Ha. When they say they love America, they don’t mean you, they don’t mean me.”
As if Van Jones hasn’t been slanderous enough, here he tries to make his audience automatically hate libertarians by claiming that we hate some of them. He's lying through his teeth, but more importantly, he's trying to divide the people and associate skepticism of government's wherewithal to "fix" the environment with hate and bigotry. Although I only know a few black people and a few gays and lesbians, I don’t think there’s a single one against whom I harbor ill will. In fact, one of my heroes is Bradley Manning , a gay soldier who was thrown into a government cage for revealing dirty secrets about the government’s criminality. Also, Congress's premier libertarian Congressman Ron Paul voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell (one of only 15 Republicans to do so). I am actually very good friends with one individual whose entire torso and both arms are covered in tattoos. If not knowing anyone with lots of piercings is the same as hating those with lots of piercings, then I guess, Van Jones, I’m guilty as charged on this last point.
And I love America, but that’s only because I love what America is supposed to be about – that is EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, individual liberty, and peaceful cooperation as opposed to the policies which Van Jones supports by his beliefs in green-eco-fascism and forced redistribution. My love of America isn't enhanced or diminished by the people.
As if Van Jones hasn’t been slanderous enough, here he tries to make his audience automatically hate libertarians by claiming that we hate some of them. He's lying through his teeth, but more importantly, he's trying to divide the people and associate skepticism of government's wherewithal to "fix" the environment with hate and bigotry. Although I only know a few black people and a few gays and lesbians, I don’t think there’s a single one against whom I harbor ill will. In fact, one of my heroes is Bradley Manning , a gay soldier who was thrown into a government cage for revealing dirty secrets about the government’s criminality. Also, Congress's premier libertarian Congressman Ron Paul voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell (one of only 15 Republicans to do so). I am actually very good friends with one individual whose entire torso and both arms are covered in tattoos. If not knowing anyone with lots of piercings is the same as hating those with lots of piercings, then I guess, Van Jones, I’m guilty as charged on this last point.
And I love America, but that’s only because I love what America is supposed to be about – that is EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, individual liberty, and peaceful cooperation as opposed to the policies which Van Jones supports by his beliefs in green-eco-fascism and forced redistribution. My love of America isn't enhanced or diminished by the people.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Van Jones on libertarians, part 2
2. “They want to smash down American education, but they call themselves patriots. They want to smash down American unions, but they call themselves patriots. They consciously say they want to defund America’s government… Grover Norquist, their great leader, says he wants to shrink America’s government to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub. That’s their great leader.”
Most of us libertarians want to abolish the federal department of education which has given us programs like No Child Left Behind, which made our failing high schools even worse; and government guaranteed student loans, which is the primary driver behind the massive student debt and the astonishingly high college tuition. Many of us would like to reform or mostly eliminate public schooling. But as for education, I know I very highly value education. Education can come from family and friends, every day encounters, and apprenticeships and on the job training. That is where education came from for most of world history. Schooling can be very beneficial for some, and a waste of time for others. Although schooling can produce positive results, schooling has also produced government-obedient drones (do some research on how kindergarten started) who have sat by while their own government commits murder and genocide. Schooling has also destroyed the self-esteems of those who might have otherwise been successful but were not cut out for schooling. So maybe we libertarians want to smash down the modern concept of the American educational system, but most of us value education. In fact, I believe that it’s only through education that people will support individual liberty over all other values when it comes to government action.
In spite of the fact that before unions, American workers were safer than any workers had ever been in world history by the early 1900s, I still think American unions served beneficial means at that time. There were dangerous and unsanitary working conditions that eventually would have gotten better without unions, but it is likely that those unions did help in speeding up those changes. And as far as the concept of unions, I support any VOLUNTARY association between individuals. If workers want to join a group of others working toward some end, that’s great. I would be opposed to government force to smash unions. But I want to smash down what perhaps some people believe unions should be – that they should have government granted power to force other workers to join and prohibit employers from voluntary associations with their workers.
And although I do think a characteristic of patriotism is the willing to dissent against government, I do not call myself a patriot for doing this. I think the word patriotism has lost its meaning and I think it’s a completely empty word.
The ONE thing that Van Jones gets right in his otherwise ignorant diatribe is that we libertarians “want to defund America’s government.” If mostly defunding the government means an end to the wars and an end to the regulations and government spending which take away from the life-enhancing productivity of the American worker, I sure do want to mostly defund the government.
I’ve been in the libertarian movement since October 2008 (after the bank bailouts) – and in over three and one half years, I never knew that Grover Norquist was our great leader. I knew he didn’t like taxes and that he was with Americans for Tax Reform, but I never heard him talking about ending the wars or about restoring our civil liberties here at home. I would say that since 2007, Congressman Ron Paul has been the leader of the libertarian movement. Followed in no order by individuals such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas E Woods, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell and countless other writers, economists, and lecturers. Grover Norquist isn’t even on my radar screen when it comes to great libertarian leaders.
Most of us libertarians want to abolish the federal department of education which has given us programs like No Child Left Behind, which made our failing high schools even worse; and government guaranteed student loans, which is the primary driver behind the massive student debt and the astonishingly high college tuition. Many of us would like to reform or mostly eliminate public schooling. But as for education, I know I very highly value education. Education can come from family and friends, every day encounters, and apprenticeships and on the job training. That is where education came from for most of world history. Schooling can be very beneficial for some, and a waste of time for others. Although schooling can produce positive results, schooling has also produced government-obedient drones (do some research on how kindergarten started) who have sat by while their own government commits murder and genocide. Schooling has also destroyed the self-esteems of those who might have otherwise been successful but were not cut out for schooling. So maybe we libertarians want to smash down the modern concept of the American educational system, but most of us value education. In fact, I believe that it’s only through education that people will support individual liberty over all other values when it comes to government action.
In spite of the fact that before unions, American workers were safer than any workers had ever been in world history by the early 1900s, I still think American unions served beneficial means at that time. There were dangerous and unsanitary working conditions that eventually would have gotten better without unions, but it is likely that those unions did help in speeding up those changes. And as far as the concept of unions, I support any VOLUNTARY association between individuals. If workers want to join a group of others working toward some end, that’s great. I would be opposed to government force to smash unions. But I want to smash down what perhaps some people believe unions should be – that they should have government granted power to force other workers to join and prohibit employers from voluntary associations with their workers.
And although I do think a characteristic of patriotism is the willing to dissent against government, I do not call myself a patriot for doing this. I think the word patriotism has lost its meaning and I think it’s a completely empty word.
The ONE thing that Van Jones gets right in his otherwise ignorant diatribe is that we libertarians “want to defund America’s government.” If mostly defunding the government means an end to the wars and an end to the regulations and government spending which take away from the life-enhancing productivity of the American worker, I sure do want to mostly defund the government.
I’ve been in the libertarian movement since October 2008 (after the bank bailouts) – and in over three and one half years, I never knew that Grover Norquist was our great leader. I knew he didn’t like taxes and that he was with Americans for Tax Reform, but I never heard him talking about ending the wars or about restoring our civil liberties here at home. I would say that since 2007, Congressman Ron Paul has been the leader of the libertarian movement. Followed in no order by individuals such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas E Woods, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell and countless other writers, economists, and lecturers. Grover Norquist isn’t even on my radar screen when it comes to great libertarian leaders.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Van Jones on Libertarians, part 1
This the first of a four part post about these comments Van Jones made about libertarians about a month ago. If you don't remember, Van Jones served for a brief time as President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs (then commonly referred to as the green czar).
It is truly staggering how Van Jones views libertarians. At times, he’s confusing libertarians with empty-right-wing-nationalists, and at others, he’s slandering anyone who questions the ability of and the authority for government to manage the economy. Van Jones is truly a dangerous individual, not because he is ignorant, but because he wants to push his beliefs on you by force of government while he lives in a state of ignorance. I don't know whether economic historian/basher-down-of-empty-arguments Tom Woods addressed Van Jones's diatribe at all, but I know he didn't do his patented 10 minute video on tearing apart each baseless assertion. Although I won't be as cordial or eloquent, I will give my best effort in attempting a Woods-ian smash down. Let’s take apart his arguments against “libertarians” one by one.
1. “They,” the libertarians, “say that the only thing that matters in America is liberty. They say that America has only one value – liberty. ‘Economic liberty. My economic liberty. And if you stand for any other value, you’re anti-America.’”
Certainly, libertarians argue that as far as government action is concerned, the primary concern should be to protect liberty (mitigate acts of aggression - murder, theft, and fraud). But I’m a libertarian, and I personally value lots more than just liberty. I have a large set of values, including but not limited to honesty and integrity, peace and mutual cooperation. I value my family very much. I value my fellow human, and I acknowledge that every other peaceful individual is important and deserves love and respect. I value my closeness with God. I value the relationships I have with my coworkers and my clients.
I don’t think that those who stand for values other than liberty are anti-American. I just listed a bunch of my own values other than liberty. I would never accuse anyone who shares any of my above values, even if only one exclusively, of being anti-American or un-American. Take for example Dennis Kucinich. I happen to have very deep philosophic disagreements with him on many key issues. But I believe that he is honest and that he supports peace and the rule of law. Some of his stances on issues are socialistic, and I will disagree with him very much on those issues, but I do not accuse him of being anti-American. There are plenty of politicians, both Republicans and Democrats (Barack Obama, George Bush, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham just to name a few) who I do believe are anti-American.
It is truly staggering how Van Jones views libertarians. At times, he’s confusing libertarians with empty-right-wing-nationalists, and at others, he’s slandering anyone who questions the ability of and the authority for government to manage the economy. Van Jones is truly a dangerous individual, not because he is ignorant, but because he wants to push his beliefs on you by force of government while he lives in a state of ignorance. I don't know whether economic historian/basher-down-of-empty-arguments Tom Woods addressed Van Jones's diatribe at all, but I know he didn't do his patented 10 minute video on tearing apart each baseless assertion. Although I won't be as cordial or eloquent, I will give my best effort in attempting a Woods-ian smash down. Let’s take apart his arguments against “libertarians” one by one.
1. “They,” the libertarians, “say that the only thing that matters in America is liberty. They say that America has only one value – liberty. ‘Economic liberty. My economic liberty. And if you stand for any other value, you’re anti-America.’”
Certainly, libertarians argue that as far as government action is concerned, the primary concern should be to protect liberty (mitigate acts of aggression - murder, theft, and fraud). But I’m a libertarian, and I personally value lots more than just liberty. I have a large set of values, including but not limited to honesty and integrity, peace and mutual cooperation. I value my family very much. I value my fellow human, and I acknowledge that every other peaceful individual is important and deserves love and respect. I value my closeness with God. I value the relationships I have with my coworkers and my clients.
I don’t think that those who stand for values other than liberty are anti-American. I just listed a bunch of my own values other than liberty. I would never accuse anyone who shares any of my above values, even if only one exclusively, of being anti-American or un-American. Take for example Dennis Kucinich. I happen to have very deep philosophic disagreements with him on many key issues. But I believe that he is honest and that he supports peace and the rule of law. Some of his stances on issues are socialistic, and I will disagree with him very much on those issues, but I do not accuse him of being anti-American. There are plenty of politicians, both Republicans and Democrats (Barack Obama, George Bush, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham just to name a few) who I do believe are anti-American.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
One year anniversary of the celebration of death
Many Americans, including lots of my peers at Lafayette College last year, celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden. I'll post a link of my reaction a year ago here .
I just have a few questions for those who were celebrating. Are your lives better? Do you believe that you are safer from terrorism? Are you further away from economic hardship? As I said a year ago, bin Laden was a criminal who deserved harsh punishment; but the drunken celebrations that took place (disrupting many of us who were writing final papers, I might add) like they did, celebrating a death, demonstrated lots of misplaced energy by Americans.
One year later, are you any better off?
I just have a few questions for those who were celebrating. Are your lives better? Do you believe that you are safer from terrorism? Are you further away from economic hardship? As I said a year ago, bin Laden was a criminal who deserved harsh punishment; but the drunken celebrations that took place (disrupting many of us who were writing final papers, I might add) like they did, celebrating a death, demonstrated lots of misplaced energy by Americans.
One year later, are you any better off?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
daring to say no to war
As the United States government approaches going to war with Iran, I wanted to take a brief moment to give a message to many around the world.
War is just about one or more governments using violence to unite support from their people against other people. Those in government need to continue to have the people's consent to stay in power, so they say that other people in far off lands are such a danger and that we need to have a preemptive war. Governments try to get their people to rally together which enhances the power of those governments.
Us regular Americans DO NOT want a war with Iran. We only desire peace, trade, and friendship with other regular people abroad. And I know that there are many people in Iran who feel the same way. It is only our governments who want war.
I hope the people of the United States, Iran, Israel, and of every other interested party, say no to our corrupt governments and their desire for war. We must all do what we can. That might be writing letters, talking with friends, writing blogs, making youtube videos... what ever it is. The world cannot afford another war. I know that the American people cannot afford another war. Do what you can to say no to war.
Note that there are those in Israel and Iran who have already sent messages of peace back and fourth. You can see some of these here .
[And the title of my post is a tribute to a compilation co-edited by Thomas E Woods called We Who Dared To Say No To War ]
War is just about one or more governments using violence to unite support from their people against other people. Those in government need to continue to have the people's consent to stay in power, so they say that other people in far off lands are such a danger and that we need to have a preemptive war. Governments try to get their people to rally together which enhances the power of those governments.
Us regular Americans DO NOT want a war with Iran. We only desire peace, trade, and friendship with other regular people abroad. And I know that there are many people in Iran who feel the same way. It is only our governments who want war.
I hope the people of the United States, Iran, Israel, and of every other interested party, say no to our corrupt governments and their desire for war. We must all do what we can. That might be writing letters, talking with friends, writing blogs, making youtube videos... what ever it is. The world cannot afford another war. I know that the American people cannot afford another war. Do what you can to say no to war.
Note that there are those in Israel and Iran who have already sent messages of peace back and fourth. You can see some of these here .
[And the title of my post is a tribute to a compilation co-edited by Thomas E Woods called We Who Dared To Say No To War ]
Monday, March 5, 2012
next potential 2nd Amendment supreme court case
Now it seems the last few years it's the ONLY issue we're winning - the 2nd Amendment. According to a Fox News article , a federal court found that a Maryland law requiring a "good reason" to own a handgun is unconstitutional.
Now that their state attorney general is appealing this, might it go to the supreme court? If so, and they rule with the sense they had for McDonald and Heller , we'll be 3 for 3 on the gun issue.
Now that their state attorney general is appealing this, might it go to the supreme court? If so, and they rule with the sense they had for McDonald and Heller , we'll be 3 for 3 on the gun issue.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Rick Santorum
When he was in the US Senate, he voted for:
Medicare Part D - the largest entitlement expansion since LBJ.
No Child Left Behind - abysmal failure for our students and teachers. it also further nationalized education (I thought Rick Santorum-type social conservatives are supposed to like education controlled by parents...).
And apparently he doesn't like low taxes, low regulation, or freedom to do what you want as long as you don't hurt others: watch
He also endorsed Arlen Specter which speaks for itself.
And heartland conservatives are supposed to vote for him.
Medicare Part D - the largest entitlement expansion since LBJ.
No Child Left Behind - abysmal failure for our students and teachers. it also further nationalized education (I thought Rick Santorum-type social conservatives are supposed to like education controlled by parents...).
And apparently he doesn't like low taxes, low regulation, or freedom to do what you want as long as you don't hurt others: watch
He also endorsed Arlen Specter which speaks for itself.
And heartland conservatives are supposed to vote for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)