The nullification movement by the states is too weak and deferential to federal power.
ECONOMY:
Bank failures continue.
TAX AND SPEND:
As if ripped from today's headlines, Murray Rothbard shoots down the Value Added Tax in 1972. Notice how Nixon was the proponent of the VAT back then. If you're wondering why government would prefer a VAT to a regular sales tax, it's because the VAT is hidden at each level of production, so consumers see only a small portion of it. That's one of the reasons government hides the income tax in withholdings. It hides half of payroll taxes in employer "contributions". Hiding taxes is key to being able to raise them. That's the FairTax requires an explicit accounting on every receipt. Here's one of many problems:
"The costs of record keeping and payment pose another grave problem for the market economy. Obviously, small firms are less able to bear these costs than big ones, and so the VAT will be a powerful burden on small business, and hamper it gravely in the competitive struggle. It is no wonder that some big businesses look with favor on the VAT!"That's always how it works. Big business as we know it couldn't exist without big government protecting it from competition. Another problem.
"A further crucial flaw exists in the VAT, a flaw which will bring much grief to our economic system. Most people assume that such a tax will simply be passed on in higher prices to the consumer. But the process is not that simple. While, in the long run, prices to consumers will undoubtedly rise, there will be two other important effects: a large short-run reduction in business profits, and a long-run fall in wage incomes [resulting in higher unemployment]."Obama would love that because he'd blame it on the market.
The Greek debt problem won't go away. Portugal, Spain and Italy are next up. California too. Then our federal government. Here's the problem:
""The way to solve this debt problem is not with more debt. The idea that you would solve a problem with too much debt and too much consumption with more debt and more consumption, that defies comprehension," Rogers said."Aristocrats don't care. Rogers says sovereign debt is our biggest risk, not already heavily regulated financial institutions.
Tax revolt at the polls in New Jersey as voters turn down tax hikes for schools.
President Obama celebrates California, the state suffering the most fiscally irresponsible state government in the union which is on a par with Greece for financial problems, as a model for America.
REGULATION:
Our government is so stupid it leads to headlines like this:
"Goldman Sachs e-mails show bank sought to profit from housing downturn"What else should it have done? Sought to lose money? Of course it sought to profit, but government wants us to think that's a bad thing.
FEDERAL RESERVE:
I'm always amused by the concerns over China's currency. Politicians in both the Bush and Obama administration complain when China devalues its currency, but China pins its currency to the US dollar, so China only devalues its currency when the US devalues the dollar first. If the Fed would stop devaluing the dollar, China would stop devaluing the yuan. Furthermore, because China holds its currency artificially low, it allows Americans to buy things at artificially low prices. It's as if the Chinese government is taking money from the Chinese people by force and sending it to Americans who buy Chinese products.
"For the individual Chinese entrepreneur, the undervalued yuan has brought disaster. China's central bank is not subsidizing the Chinese exporter but the American importer. Furthermore, ongoing inflation will only hurt both the Chinese consumer and the Chinese saver, as prices go up and savings are confiscated by depreciating their value."That's a great deal for Americans, and a bad deal for the Chinese. The Chinese government is looting the Chinese people and sending the money to Americans, and our government wants it to stop. That's just stupid. Here's how it works:
"Think of it this way. The Chinese producer fabricates Widget X, which before inflation is on the market for eight yuan. Let us assume that at this point the natural, market dollar–yuan exchange rate is one to four, which means that Widget X effectively costs two dollars (one dollar buys four yuan, and the widget costs eight yuan).
However, China's central bank steps in and inflates the yuan, causing the exchange rate to change to one to eight (one dollar to eight yuan). Now Widget X will cost the American consumer only one dollar. The winner is clearly the American, who purchased the good for half of the original price. The loser is the Chinese producer, despite now having eight yuan; each yuan is really worth half as much as before inflation. In effect, inflation cheated the Chinese producer out of half of the value of the good being sold. Although this example does not represent real-world changes in the exchange rate, the point stands. Over the long run, it becomes clear just how injurious currency devaluation is to the Chinese economy."Good for Americans. Bad for the Chinese. Here's another good point:
"But dollars being sold to the Chinese for their goods aren't just sitting in a tall pile in the center of Beijing, or stashed under Chinese mattresses. The Chinese aren't purchasing American goods, because American public debt has shown itself to be a much more lucrative buy. Dollars not spent on American goods are being used to purchase Washington's growing debt: $889 billion worth. The dollars "accumulated" by the Chinese through their trade surplus are being spentby the US government! If there is anything deserving of blame for wasting dollars, it is the American government."When Americans buy Chinese goods, dollar go to China. The Chinese have to spend those dollars on something valued in US dollars, i.e. something made in America. In a sane world, that would be American made products like cars or medical equipment, and it would boost our economy and our exports. But because we're being crushed by the weight of government, the Chinese are spending those dollars buying government debt. If we immediately cut spending to balance the budget and therefore stopped issuing federal debt, the Chinese would switch to buying American products, boosting our economy and our exports. But Democrats and Republicans run our government, so there's no way that's going to happen.
Banks are buying federal bonds which is a sure path to inflation. It also helps hold interest rates artificially low, prompting speculation the Fed is pressuring banks to do this. Interest rates had been rising because interest rates on bonds were going up since buyers were becoming more worried about default.
HEALTH CARE:
The New York Times explains that health care oppression in New York, similar provisions to Obamacare, overburden the healthy, drive up costs and put insurance companies out of business.
"Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”"Of course, they print this 15 years after New York's health care oppression is enacted and after Obamacare is enacted. Obamacare is designed to do the exact same thing to usher in socialized medicine.
WAR:
Author claims our navy ships aren't survivable against modern weapons.
This story of TSA abuse will make you angry, but will it make you angry enough to demand the privatization of the TSA? If this happened in a competitive marketplace, the agents would be fired and the family compensated.
Iraq really did have low enriched uranium.
Ralph Peters on stupid politicians:
"Our military knows how to plan. The problem -- a bipartisan one -- is that Washington elites don't want the military to plan for realistic scenarios. Because serious planning makes the costs and dangers of policies all too clear."The military should plan so politicians can understand the cost of their policies.
"We first saw this see-no-evil pattern under President Bush, when Pentagon neo-cons (with no military experience) forbade planning for an occupation of Iraq. They didn't just refuse to acknowledge any possible need for an occupation, they feared that detailed planning would reveal the potential costs of taking down Saddam -- numbers that might've been a red flag to Congress.
The consequences of failing to plan? The price we paid after reaching Baghdad without a "what now?" plan was vastly higher in lives and dollars than it should have been."
Or maybe they were right, and the war would never have happened - an even better outcome.
"Now we face a similar threat from the other side of the aisle."
Since we didn't face any threat from Saddam, that's not much of an endorsement for attacking Iran.
Ron Paul compares the rhetoric against Iran to the rhetoric used to convince the people to support war on Iraq. He doesn't support sanctions on Iran because he thinks they are part of a plan to start a war. But what he doesn't say is just because the WMD claims doesn't mean the claims about Iran are false. Trusting the CIA in this instance makes no more sense than trusting it in any other. I also never heard anybody make a serious claim that Iraq had drones that could attack the US. Iran really does have long-range missiles, though I'm not aware of any that can reach the US. The argument that we shouldn't punish the Iranian people for the actions of its regime is a strong one, nobody wants to see the Iranian people suffer, but the people are ultimately responsible for their government. If they leave it in power, they have to be considered culpable for its actions. I think Paul makes a mistake by not suggesting an alternative plan to stop the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons - a goal we know they've had for 20 years. I have no way of knowing if the sanctions Obama wants will harm the people or not or whether they will harm the movement to topple the mullahs or not, and that's what I'd like to hear.
This article claims that Israel needs US support to attack Iran. I find it hard to believe that Israel doesn't already have all the equipment it needs, including refueling planes, to attack Iran. That would be really stupid if it doesn't already have it since it considers Iran its biggest threat.
"Even nuclear experts scoff at the notion that a nuclear Iran would initiate an attack on Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with an estimated 200 high-grade nuclear weapons (more than China has), and a first-rate delivery system of missiles and supersonic bombers. For Iran to launch a crude nuke at Israel would be an act of national suicide, and while individual terrorists may kill themselves, nations don’t commit suicide. They may miscalculate, with devastating consequences, but they don’t deliberately self-immolate."
Are these the same experts who think the economy is recovering or who failed to notice that India, Pakistan and North Korea were developing nuclear weapons? Is it the same experts mentioned later in the article for being incorrect? No expert has a crystal ball, and they're wrong more often than they're right. Experts don't understand fanatics. The mullahs happily send others to blow themselves up as suicide-bombers. They stone women to death for adultery. They execute gays. There's no way in the world I want to trust fanatics like that with nuclear weapons. They might very well attack Israel with one looking forward to sending themselves and their entire population to enjoy 72 virgins. If Ahmadinejad had the opportunity, fanatic that he is, I'm sure he'd take it. This is why our policy should be to empower the people to overthrow the mullahs. I just don't know what the best policy to do that is. It's probably doing nothing. It might be opening up trade further. I wish Ron Paul would have made that case.
"Reading and watching American reporting on Iran reminds me of nothing so much as reading the Chinese state media about Taiwan when I was living in China back in the 1990s. It’s all pathetic nonsense, manufactured paranoia, and bluster."
I agree with that 100 percent.
Another downside of Arizona's oppressive new illegal immigration law is it puts pressure on Obama and Democrats to pass what some call immigration reform and what I bet is really amnesty. I still think enforcing existing law and allowing more immigrants to come here legally is all that's necessary.
Contrary to what alarmists would have us believe, the crime rate in Arizona is falling more rapidly than the rest of the country on average. We are not suffering a surge in violence from illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a problem, mainly stemming from our welfare services, but our immigration policy should be based on reason, not alarmism.
"That's not to say Arizonans don't have a right to be upset when Mexicans trespass across private land on a regular basis. But you could solve that problem by making it easier for them to immigrate legally."I'm all for increasing legal immigration, but ending the welfare state is the key to solving this problem. We should also allow illegals to go home without interference.
POLITICS:
Lew Rockwell comments how the bizarre acceptance by the public of politicians who lie, pointing out we never accept liars in the private sector, which is why Ron Paul stands out so starkly from the rest of the politicians. This gets back to my question about fraud. Why is it illegal to profit from lies in the private economy but not in the political economy?
Mark Steyn lampoons Democrat attempts to paint the tea partiers as a terrorist threat.
"Meanwhile, Comedy Central – you know, the "hip" "edgy" network with Jon Stewart from whom "young" Americans under 53 supposedly get most of their news – just caved in to death threats. From a hateful 83-year-old widow who doesn't like Obamacare? Why, no! It was a chap called Abu Talhah al Amrikee, who put up a video on the Internet explaining why a "South Park" episode with a rather tame Mohammed joke was likely to lead to the deaths of the show's creators. Just to underline the point, he showed some pictures of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director brutally murdered by (oh, my, talk about unfortunate coincidences) a fellow called Mohammed. Mr. al Amrikee helpfully explained that his video incitement of the murder of Matt Stone and Trey Parker wasn't really "a threat but just the likely outcome." All he was doing, he added, was "raising awareness" – you know, like folks do on Earth Day. On Earth Day, lame politicians dig a hole and stick a tree in it. But aggrieved Muslims dig a hole and stick a couple of comedy writers in it. Celebrate diversity!"He's in top form this week.
I can't help but be impressed with how badly Democrats have screwed up and in just over a year pushed people back to the Republicans they loathed so badly after eight years.
In a powerful reminder that our aristocrats are nothing but self-serving political hacks (I know, that's redundant), they invited Sigourney Weaver to testify about acidification of oceans. It's all about the photo-op.
Funny article on the funeral for John McCain's integrity from a liberal point of view. McCain the straight-talker just cracks me up.
"McCain lied to voters about his opinion of the Confederate battle flag, fearing that calling it what it is — a flag of treason, racism and slavery — would cost him votes in flag-worshipping South Carolina."So now anybody who has a confederate flag celebrates treason, racism and slavery? I don't think so (though maybe some do). I think it generally represents states rights and freedom from oppressive central government.
Mickey Kaus is running against Barbara Boxer in the California senate primary. Go Mickey.
I am still convinced that a Republican who bursts on the national scene in time for 2012 and promises to nullify 230 years of unconstitutional laws like Obamacare, Dept. of Education, the FCC, the SEC, the FAA, the TSA, the EPA, the FTC, the war on drugs, the DEA, the ATF, the power of the Fed to counterfeit, legal tender laws, welfare in all its forms, removing all federal barriers to energy exploration and exploitation, etc. and who promises to bring home all our troops overseas would win the nomination then win the election in a landslide. Nullification of those laws and bringing our troops home would cut well over a trillion dollars from our budget, and he or she could make money by privatizing many of those services like the FAA, TSA, NASA and selling them to the highest bidder, privatizing highways, selling off federal land, etc. He'd have to explain that while Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, he'd continue to support them because government had robbed seniors at the point of a gun and made them dependent on those programs while stealing the money from them to buy votes, but he would also have to make the case to seniors that they're paychecks will stop coming if they don't help reform those programs and free younger people from having government steal their money from them for the same programs. I also think supporting the FairTax and running on a campaign of empowering Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks would help increase the margin of victory and the mandate to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. He should also promise to run the most aggressive corruption investigation of Congress, the federal government and Wall Street in history.
MEDIA:
South Park creators on how the media hung the Danish Mohammad cartoonist out to dry. Comedy Central censors second South Park Mohammad episode after threat.
I get that the media has a double-standard, but the double-standard on golf is the least of my concerns.
Victor Davis Hansen on the double-standard of civility in politics.
MISC:
Substitute "US" for "Argentina" in this essay, and it sounds frighteningly familiar.
"A century ago, if you had told typical citizens of Argentina (which at that time was enjoying the fourth-highest per capita income in the world) that it would decline to become just the 76th richest nation on a per capita basis in 2010, they probably would not have found it believable. They might have responded, "This could not happen; we are a nation rich in natural resources, with a great climate for agriculture. Our people are well educated and largely descended from European stock. We have property rights, the rule of law and an open free-market economy.""Argentina is slightly ahead of the US in committing suicide by government.
This dummy says Obama should appoint a politician to the Supreme Court. No. He should appoint a person who will subordinate his opinions to the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment