Archive for Free Markets
The True Argument About Capitalism
Posted by: | CommentsNothing makes me want to scream at the top of my lungs into a trash can more than listening to or reading a debate over the good and evils of capitalism. One side points to everything from the housing collapse to the BP oil spill as evidence to the failure of capitalism, which always requires more government intervention into the production and exchange of goods. The person defending capitalism mutters some babble about individualism and how businesses create jobs. But the system is not perfect, so some government oversight is needed.
This is where I want to scream. The argument is moot. Capitalism does not exist. The economies of the world range on a scale from light socialism to communism. As it has been said many times before, capitalism or free markets become extinct the moment a central bank is created. The Federal Reserve practices a price manipulation for money (interest rates) that benefits one party while having a negative impact on another. Free markets are based on the premise of mutual benefit. Price rigging of any good, including money, interferes with the necessary signals between buyers and sellers that allow them to mutually gain.
Secondly, an exchange governed by regulation under the threat of penalty for non-compliance cannot be considered free and voluntary. It is hard to think of one transaction in this country that does come under a maze of bureaucratic rule. Even the products exchanged at a garage sale or Tupperware party must at some stage be approved regulators. Children selling lemonade on the sidewalk are now under government harassment for not having a business license or health inspection.
The following article by James Miller is one of the best I have come across that succinctly describes capitalism.
Bad Government Begats Bad Government
Posted by: | CommentsThe answer to bad government is always more government. A proposal by US Senator Charles Schumer from New York perfectly illustrates this sad but true axiom. After stories surfaced about strip searches of old ladies at airports in this country, the Senator has proposed setting up a passenger advocate at air terminals where passengers can lodge complaints against the TSA on the spot.
Of course like most government solutions, this idea completely misses the mark on several fronts. First and foremost, searches conducted by the TSA violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. You cannot solve the inherent problems of an unconstitutional government arm with another unconstitutional government arm. It is akin to one thief overseeing the actions of another thief. The question always with government advocates is what side they will be advocating for. One thing I can say for certain is that their concerns will not involve the US Constitution.
Fourth Amendment
Secondly, TSA personnel are not professionals in any meaning of the word. Most have little more law enforcement experience than a night security guard at the lumber yard. I would suspect that for many receiving a government check for non-work is quite common. The bottom line is that the people working for the TSA are not the brightest bulbs on the tree.
The real answer to airport security is to follow the path of private property and the free markets. The airlines should handle their own security issues. If passengers feel a particular carrier is not adequately promoting the safety of customers, than the flying public travel with another airline that will. The consequence of bad experiences will be customers taking their business to a competitor. The free market is the only advocate a customer needs; an idea that government does not advocate for.
Smashing the Peg Board
Posted by: | CommentsObama today chastised leaders for not having the political will to solve the European financial cesspool. This line about “political will” seems to be the fall back line when government has screwed things up so bad that no amount of bureaucratic tinkering will result in a good outcome.
George Bush ignorantly summed up the present mess several years by stating that Wall Street got drunk. The question never asked or answered by elected officials and bureaucratic lifers is who served all the free booze to the underage drinkers. Why did the Congress not revoke the bartender’s license? A true free market would never allow underage drinking. The person serving the booze would have been thrown out into the gutter. And the juveniles would have been left alone to throw up. Instead the government bailed the Wall Street kids out with more booze.
The massive debt piling up in country after country and now threatening to crush Europe was not a result of free market failings. Free markets never make promises to fund pension accounts at payout rates nearly equal to one’s income. Government debt, including the liabilities of state governments in this country, came about because of…. government. Today the US debt crossed the $15,000,000,000,000.
Demanding more government solutions to solve government caused problems is akin to hammering a square peg into a round hole. The continued pounding is sure to result in one of three outcomes: The pegs splits apart, or the hammer cracks, or the peg board smashes apart, or maybe all three happen. What we are observing in the world today is an economic peg board cracking into pieces.
Real political will means government putting the hammer down and walking away. The Federal Reserve, the Congress, the President, and all the bureaucrats need to walk away forever. Getting out of the way of the free markets is a true mark of political resolve.
Herman Keynes
Posted by: | CommentsCount me as one not running with the crowd toward the Herman Cain bandwagon. As I pointed out two weeks ago, his 999 tax plan has the folly of promising more revenue to the federal government. I admit not following the Republican Presidential nomination very closely. After perusing the news this morning, I was shocked to find out that Cain was once chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve. He was and by his words still are a bankster and economic interventionist.
In the recent past, he has thumbed his nose at the Austrians calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Cain calls such people ignorant. By his own admission he never saw the current financial calamity coming. As the economy imploded, Cain became a shill for the Bush administration talking up the strength of the economy. Furthermore, he supported the bailout and cheered taxpayer funds siphoned toward Wall Street.
Herman Cain also believes that Alan Greenspan as the best leader of the Federal Reserve over the last forty years. Greenspan is the type of person that Cain says he will appoint Chairman of the Federal Reserve if elected president.
As Austrians long ago realized and even our earlier Presidents, central banking is the root cause of the boom-bust cycle. How can you support a candidate that not only was part of the beast, but believes it does not need to be watched over through audits? How can you support a candidate that at heart is an economic interventionist? How can you support a candidate that believes the federal government needs more money?
The bottom line is that Herman Cain is another George Bush who does not believe in free markets. In other words he is no friend of liberty.
Enough said.
118 Words for Economic Growth Versus 160 Pages
Posted by: | CommentsToday Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney unveiled his 160 page job creation plan. Like most policy proposals coming from Republican political transvestites, Romney dabbles at the corners and babbles around the rest of the room. The first thing people should take away from his plan is that the former Governor of Massachusetts and author of state run healthcare belief in big government. Do you think a proposal from a defender of liberty and proponent of free markets would take 160 pages to outline a plan for government to get the hell out of the way?
On tax reform, Romney punted. Yes, I agree with him to eliminate the estate tax plus taxes on interest and dividends. But why in the case of interest and dividends implement a means test of anyone making under $200,000. He also favors keeping intact the Bush era tax cuts. A true believer in limited government would abolish any concept of a progressive tax system and argue for a means of restricting government revenues in addition to chopping the IRS completely.
Romney’s stance on regulations is pure double talk. He would eliminate regulations as an offset whenever new regulations raise business costs. Perhaps the former Governor can give an example of a law that did not increase economic costs. Why not take an ax to existing regulations.
On federal spending Romney proposes to cut non-security discretionary spending by 5%. Present discretionary spending not related to security amounts to around $491 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget. His plan would end up cutting a whopping $24.5 billion. The budget for the Department of education is $64.3 billion; Health and Human Services rings $84 billion in spending; Department of Agriculture adds another $25 billion; and the Department gushes almost $30 billion in federal outlays. And Romney can only come up with a measly $24.5 billion in federal government spending cuts. In the words of John McEnroe, “You can’t be serious!” Read More→
How Much Do You Really Know?
Posted by: | CommentsThe following test was forwarded to me that tests your knowledge of government, philosophy, and free markets. Sadly, the 2500 adults that took the quiz scored on average 49%. And perhaps even more discouraging, those that teach in our college and unversity classrooms scored just a bit better with an average score of 55%.
Give the quiz a try. Be honest and answer the questions without help. It will be interesting to see the scores of those that visit our website. I also invite all politicians to give it a try, but please resist your natural tendency to lie or cheat (sorry, I could not resist).
I missed three questions for a score of over 91%. One wrong answer was due to not properly reading the answer.
You Go Your Way Lad and I will Go My Way
Posted by: | CommentsSecessionists control the majority and vow to hold a vote on separation from the national government. Such a headline must sound like the dream of racists or the people of some African country few could pronounce or even locate.
But the thirst for liberty crosses all boundaries. People seeking to be free from tyrannical governments that oppress individual rights and free markets only hate the intrusions of the bureaucracy.
The next secessionist movement may surprise you.
Capitalism v. Christianity
Posted by: | CommentsThe reality is clear, the delusions rampant. At the end of the day, you must pick one or the other for, as Dr. Hsieh adeptly puts it: “ultimately these two cannot be reconciled, one or the other has to go..” Unless, of course, you prefer to live as a self-deluded hypocrit.. which pretty much describes the Republican Party in its current manifestation… As well as the secular left.
Which brings up one of the key points in Dr Hsieh’s podcast. That being if you are a committed Christian your political home is not with the Republicans, but rather and clearly with the Democrats. Democrats who morally defend their collectivist actions and programs (such as, and rather profoundly, the protestors who were arguing “tax the rich”) by an appeal to their Christian ethics actually have the high ground, Republicans who argue the opposite for reasons of long range planning, free markets in education, etc., simply have no moral argument – theirs is full-on subjectivity. Unless, of course, they have a morality premised not on Christianity, but rather individual rights: rational self-interest.
Make your choice, you have no other… and your time is running out.
Dr Diana Hsieh’s Noodlecast (Episode #62: Rationally Selfish Webcast – excerpt on Capitalism v Christianity).
John Mackey – An American Hero?
Posted by: | CommentsI think so.. As much as I detest the Christian News Channel, aka FoxNews (btw, I detest CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC more) they do occasionally have some excellent guest appearances. One such appearance recently was John Mackey. Oh, the scum bags tag on this one is in reference to some of the members of the audience, and a couple of the clips of protesters, and, especially, the final segment where Stossel brings in another guy (didn’t get his name but is clearly an unapologetic socialist)..