30 May 2012

EPA Celebrates the ‘Crushing’ of One Million Working Refrigerators

EPA Celebrates the 'Crushing' of One Million Working Refrigerators

In a move that recalls the government venture that pulverized 700,000 used cars under the "cash for clunkers" program, the Environmental Protection Agency is now praising a company for "crushing its 1 millionth refrigerator."

. . .

Another government enterprise that took 700,000 cars off the road was 2009's Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) program, better known as "cash for clunkers." CARS gave consumers a $3,500 to $4,500 tax credit towards purchasing a new fuel-efficient car in place of a thirstier trade-in.

The program destroyed 690,114 viable used cars, with each treated with liquid glass to disable its engine before being shredded into scrap metal, most of which would end up in China, the biggest consumer of U.S. scrap.

Destroy stuff and build new stuff so we can get that GDP number

29 May 2012

Gila National Forest Fire

There is a big fire in the Gila wilderness, one of the largest in New Mexico's history. Many areas are being evacuated, though the area is sparsely populated.

27 May 2012

Obama's big deficit lie

President Obama claims federal budget deficits have not soared out of control during his administration. He has officially jumped the shark.

Maybe that's not quite the best expression, as claims of budgetary stability are simply misinformation at best, most likely just state propaganda. 

On Wednesday at a Denver fundraiser, Mr. Obama said he was "running to pay down our debt in a way that's balanced and responsible." He claimed that "after inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law" and that since he has been president, "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that." It doesn't take much thought to see that this is the most absurd claim in political memory.

Mr. Obama is basing his boast on an already discredited study by journalist Rex Nutting that purported to show that "Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years." Among other fatal problems with the study is that it omits all spending that took place during the first nine months of the Obama administration, which were the last nine months of fiscal 2009. Thus, all of the initial spending programs to which the White House points with pride - particularly the failed nearly trillion-dollar economic stimulus program - are George W. Bush's responsibility so far as Mr. Nutting is concerned.

The "savings" Mr. Obama signed into law were all based on rosy economic projections, none of which has come true. The fiscal 2010 budget, fancifully titled "A New Era of Responsibility," projected a $1.2 trillion cut in the deficit to $533 billion by 2013. The fiscal 2012 budget, which had no hopeful title, raised this number to $768 billion. Mr. Obama's September 2011 deficit-reduction proposal further raised the projected 2013 deficit to $912 billion. The fiscal 2010 budget also hopefully projected 6.26 percent economic growth for 2012 rather than the anemic 1 percent to 2 percent growth the country is suffering. Naturally, Mr. Obama would much rather make reference to the imagined future his economists projected than to the grim reality he actually created.

Other simple metrics show the disastrous impact of Mr. Obama on the deficit. The 2009 budget deficit was three times that of 2008. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product went from 3.1 percent in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009. The deficit for the first month of fiscal 2010 was $176 billion, which was greater than the $161 billion deficit for all of 2007. In his first 986 days in office, up to Oct. 3, 2011, Mr. Obama oversaw a $4.2 trillion increase in the national debt, which was more than the debt accrued by all presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined.

It's no wonder why Mr. Obama wants to portray himself as a deficit hawk. The federal budget deficit is the second-most-important issue in the election after jobs, on which Mr. Obama's record is equally dismal. The White House has never submitted a proposal that has come close to balancing the federal budget, even with 10-year projections to work with. The flawed economic assumptions used to sell Mr. Obama's programs were a bait-and-switch that left America mired in unsustainable levels of debt. It's incredible that Mr. Obama believes he can get away with such a big lie. He seems simply to have lost his grip on reality.


The Lifeboat Hour – 05/27/12

My guest tonight on the is , author of “” and spiritual light for a new paradigm. He’s also just about everybody’s best-choice for in new paradigm with a new consciousness.



from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/05/27/lifeboat-hour-052712/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-052712

Rand Paul Drops Bomb To Disarm Feds

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is taking on the federal government once again, specifically the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On Wednesday Sen. Paul introduced an amendment to a FDA funding bill that would disarm the FDA and would achieve several other goals.

While I don't generally agree with everything the younger Paul says, he's spot-on here with the state overstepping its authority by intervening in exchanges between consenting adults. How can there be a crime without a victim?

Paul began his statement to the Senate,

"I'm troubled by images of armed agents raiding Amish farms and preventing them selling milk directly from the cow. I think we have bigger problems in our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers' land and telling them they can't sell milk directly from the cow."

It seems his primary concern is over the federal government regulating the food industry from start to finish. One of the issues concerns unpasteurized milk, which is more healthy for you than, the stuff you get in the store, and it tastes better too. The federal government forbids it in interstate commerce. They think raw milk is a weapon of some sorts and farmers are the new terrorists.

Paul said that the first provision of the amendment would stop, "overzealous regulation of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint."

"The First Amendment says you can't prevent speech, even commercial speech, in advance of the speech. You can't tell Cheerios that they can't say there's a health benefit to their Cheerios. Under our current FDA laws, FDA says if you want to market prune juice, you can't say that it cures constipation," he said.

[...]


25 May 2012

The Manifesto of Joseph Andrew Stack

Cleaning out my digital closet, I ran across this backup I made of the manifesto of Joseph Andrew Stack, the man who flew a small plane into a building near MOPAC and 183 in Austin, Texas. It was such a sad tragedy, though luckily one with a low level of injury and loss of life. Rather than dealing with his situation, difficult as it may have been, he chose to act out in aggression towards others. Here it is in it's entirety, an insight into the mind of a person like any other, pushed too far beyond their limit.
 
If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?" The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I'm not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was "no taxation without representation". I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a "crackpot", traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political "representatives" (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the "terrible health care problem". It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You've got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly "holds accountable" its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law "requires" a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not "duress" than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here?
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early '80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having 'tax code' readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful "exemptions" that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the "best", high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the "big boys" were doing (except that we weren't steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two "interpretations" for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their "freedom"… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of "paying my dues"), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.
On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I'm sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be "healthier" eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn't quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early '80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a 'wet-behind-the-ears' contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
· "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
· "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
· "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it's not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can't believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my 'pocket change', and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their "freedom". Oh, and don't forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn't bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren't going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn't need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to "shore up" their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, 'special' facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I'm thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I'll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I've never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn't give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn't notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I'd never enter another accountant's office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl's unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn't have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's "business-as-usual". Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn't that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I'm hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn't limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at "big brother" while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won't continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn't so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010

Obama's big deficit lie

President Obama claims federal budget deficits have not soared out of control during his administration. He has officially jumped the shark.

Deficit spending only works when economic growth is in high gear, and even then it only works temporarily. Paired with rampant 4% inflation every year, growth is guaranteed to stagnate and decline. You can't make wealth from debt. 

On Wednesday at a Denver fundraiser, Mr. Obama said he was "running to pay down our debt in a way that's balanced and responsible." He claimed that "after inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law" and that since he has been president, "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that." It doesn't take much thought to see that this is the most absurd claim in political memory.

Mr. Obama is basing his boast on an already discredited study by journalist Rex Nutting that purported to show that "Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years." Among other fatal problems with the study is that it omits all spending that took place during the first nine months of the Obama administration, which were the last nine months of fiscal 2009. Thus, all of the initial spending programs to which the White House points with pride - particularly the failed nearly trillion-dollar economic stimulus program - are George W. Bush's responsibility so far as Mr. Nutting is concerned.

The "savings" Mr. Obama signed into law were all based on rosy economic projections, none of which has come true. The fiscal 2010 budget, fancifully titled "A New Era of Responsibility," projected a $1.2 trillion cut in the deficit to $533 billion by 2013. The fiscal 2012 budget, which had no hopeful title, raised this number to $768 billion. Mr. Obama's September 2011 deficit-reduction proposal further raised the projected 2013 deficit to $912 billion. The fiscal 2010 budget also hopefully projected 6.26 percent economic growth for 2012 rather than the anemic 1 percent to 2 percent growth the country is suffering. Naturally, Mr. Obama would much rather make reference to the imagined future his economists projected than to the grim reality he actually created.

Other simple metrics show the disastrous impact of Mr. Obama on the deficit. The 2009 budget deficit was three times that of 2008. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product went from 3.1 percent in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009. The deficit for the first month of fiscal 2010 was $176 billion, which was greater than the $161 billion deficit for all of 2007. In his first 986 days in office, up to Oct. 3, 2011, Mr. Obama oversaw a $4.2 trillion increase in the national debt, which was more than the debt accrued by all presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined.

[...]


24 May 2012

Taxation is Robbery, by Frank Chodorov

http://christopherburg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ron-paul-dont-steal.jpg
[From Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist, by Frank Chodorov; The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1962, pp. 216?239.]

THE Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as "that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects." That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word "compulsory" looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to ques­tion the "right" of the State to this use of power. What sanc­tion, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?

On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from "the nature of man," thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the State the key­stone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxa­tion per se; the State's taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the State is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.

The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the State is either a natural or a socially necessary institution. Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postu­late is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.

If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.

We look at the results of taxation, the symptoms, to see whether and how the principle of private property is violated. For further evidence, we examine its technique, and just as we suspect the intent of robbery in the possession of effective tools, so we find in the technique of taxation a tell­tale story. The burden of this intransigent critique of taxa­tion, then, will be to prove the immorality of it by its con­sequences and its methods.

[...]


Full article: Taxation is Robbery, by Frank Chodorov

The Deflation Dog Didn't Bite After All - Gardner Goldsmith - Mises Daily

Many people are unaware of it, but there has always been a Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. Overlooked in scripture, he has been there nonetheless, waiting with rancid, baited breath to gallop across the world and leave his destructive hoof-prints in the rubble of Western civilization. He is, according to many government spokesmen and media pundits, the Horseman called "Deflation."

Next to dire warnings of SARS, Mad Cow Disease, and the hegemony of conservative talk radio, the big "scare story" of 2003 was that deflation was upon us, or approaching. Beginning as a trickle in the first quarter of '03, the reports turned into a flood after April. Suddenly, dozens of "experts" and policy analysts lamented with great wailing the forbidding approach of the destructive force known as deflation. Politicians spending other people's money advised us that the Federal Reserve had better do something fast, because the dollar was, as many phrased it, "too strong."

Today, with the passage of a year to allow for dispassionate analysis, the anguish appears to have been misplaced. Not only has the US economy not fallen into a deflationary period, it has continued to see a consistent, though low, decrease in the buying power of the Dollar—a continuation of the inflationary behavior of the Fed that has been its salient characteristic for most of its existence.

In May of 2003, members of the Bush Administration began "talking down" the dollar, hinting that they wanted to see it lowered in value relative to the Euro. American Enterprise Institute economist John Makin was quoted in a May 26 Scripps Howard News Service article as believing that a 10 to 20 percent decline in the dollar would increase "economic growth" to 3% by 2004.


Full article: http://mises.org/daily/1506

Free people read Mises

22 May 2012

Guns and the State




Here is my point of contention;

It is not the gun that is the core of statism, but the weakness of individual resolve that allows faith to be put into the "state," which in turn goes power to the "state."

For my next trick, I'll twist your noodle, I would even offer that there is no state. It is myth, words, inanimate buildings, and documents. The state can do no harm to the individual, no more than a tree can. The state holds no power over men, nor grants them rights. Individual liberty comes from life itself. Submission to and worship of the state encourages those of ill repute to use it as the method of control and conquest over fellow men. 

What I take issue with is those who seek to infringe upon the liberties of others "in the name of the state" for gain. They make individual decisions to dismiss the principles of nonaggression and property rights, from which most all else is derived. Doing so in the name of the state is simply an excuse to commit aggression toward others without fear of consequence. Hold the individual responsible instead of the institution and those acts may well be relegated to history. 

When firearms are outlawed, crime rates rise naturally, though similar assaults remain. Think of it in economic terms if you will. Aggression simply takes on another method, but is not abated. (google John Lott or Masaad Ayoob) If a factor which reduces violent crime is removed (private firearms ownership), the criminal actors will patronize that market willingly. Think of the UK after its miserable handgun ban, with violent crime rates skyrocketing 40% in only the first few years.  

It is not the gun which is the danger, but the person who wields it. It can no more harm you than the tree. As devout Second Amendment supporters will no doubt conclude, guns are not the problem, but the criminal which uses that tool for ill intent.

The initiation of force comes from the individual, not the state. The state simply encourages that aggression. 

Fluoride in Austin Texas Municipal Water Supply

The city of Austin, Texas spends a half million taxpayer dollars per year to inject fluoride into the municipal water supply without the express and direct consent of the people consuming that water. This is hardly a small issue, as objections over the safety of the practice have been growing for years, with many solutions becoming available for consumers to remove fluoride at the point of use. That speaks volumes.

Local TV station KEYE is doing a big piece and surveying residents on the presence and potential dangers of fluoride in excessive quantities. The current (and hopefully soon to be former) mayor supports continuing inflicting potential harm and absurdity on residents despite public opposition, just as the EPA dismisses claims that it may do more harm than good (although that agency classifies it as a hazardous waste).

http://www.airandaqua.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Fluoride_Water_Main_600.jpg

Since the point of fluoride is for improved tooth health, why are we forced by the state to ingest it?

Here is the introduction to the phone survey.


Does Drug Interdiction Increase or Decrease Drug-related Crime?

http://hustlebear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/prohibition.jpg
 
A persistent problem facing our society is the use of illegal drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and crack. Drug use has several adverse effects. One is that drug dependence can ruin the lives of drug users and their families. Another is that drug addicts often turn to robbery and other violent crimes to obtain the money needed to support their habit. To discourage the use of illegal drugs, the U.S. government devotes billions of dollars each year to reduce the flow of drugs into the country. Let's use the tools of supply and demand to examine this policy of drug interdiction.

Suppose the government increases the number of federal agents devoted to the war on drugs. What happens in the market for illegal drugs? As is usual, we answer this question in three steps. First, we consider whether the supply or demand curve shifts. Second, we consider the direction of the shift. Third, we see how the shift affects the equilibrium price and quantity.

Although the purpose of drug interdiction is to reduce drug use, its direct impact is on the sellers of drugs rather than the buyers. When the government stops some drugs from entering the country and arrests more smugglers, it raises the cost of selling drugs and, therefore, reduces the quantity of drugs supplied at any given price. The demand for drugs—the amount buyers want at any given price—is not changed. As panel (a) of Figure 9 shows, interdiction shifts the supply curve to the left from S1 to S2 and leaves the demand curve the same. The equilibrium price of drugs rises from P1 to P2, and the equilibrium quantity falls from Q1 to Q2. The fall in the equilibrium quantity shows that drug interdiction does reduce drug use.

Drug interdiction actually causes drug demand to remain constant, though the reduced supply from law enforcement actions causes prices to increase. Education reduces demand, causing prices to drop, reducing profits for sellers, reducing negative social effects. Imagine that, statistical data and economic interpretation proving that the war on drugs is the problem, not the drugs themselves.
 
But what about the amount of drug-related crime? To answer this question, consider the total amount that drug users pay for the drugs they buy. Because few drug addicts are likely to break their destructive habits in response to a higher price, it is likely that the demand for drugs is inelastic, as it is drawn in the figure.


If demand is inelastic, then an increase in price raises total revenue in the drug  market. That is, because drug interdiction raises the price of drugs proportionately more than it reduces drug use, it raises the total amount of money that drug users pay for drugs. Addicts who already had to steal to support their habits would have an even greater need for quick cash. Thus, drug interdiction could increase drug-related crime.

Because of this adverse effect of drug interdiction, some analysts argue for alternative approaches to the drug problem. Rather than trying to reduce the supply of drugs, policymakers might try to reduce the demand by pursuing a policy of drug education. Successful drug education has the effects shown in panel (b) of Figure 9. The demand curve shifts to the left from D1 to D2. As a result, the equilibrium quantity falls from Q1 to Q2, and the equilibrium price falls from P1 to P2. Total revenue, which is price times quantity, also falls. Thus, in contrast to drug interdiction, drug education can reduce both drug use and drug-related crime. Advocates of drug interdiction might argue that the long-run effects of this policy are different from the short-run effects because the elasticity of demand depends on the time horizon. The demand for drugs is probably inelastic over short periods because higher prices do not substantially affect drug use by established addicts. But demand may be more elastic over longer periods because higher prices would discourage experimentation with drugs among the young and, over time, lead to fewer drug addicts. In this case, drug interdiction would increase drug-related crime in the short run while decreasing it in the long run.

Vulcan's Hammer: Is the U.S. dollar doomed?


Vulcan's Hammer: Is the U.S. dollar doomed?

Hello, hyperinflation? Is it our turn to dance now?

Health Care Costs



http://media.patriotpost.us/humor/2012/05-22.html

20 May 2012

The Lifeboat Hour – 05/20/12



from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/05/20/lifeboat-hour-052012/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-052012

18 May 2012

Krugman is Still the Idiot that Thinkers Know him to be

Paul Krugman looks at the first-quarter growth results from some developed economies and notes Japan's strong performance due to the post earthquake and tsunami reconstruction. He then compares it to Italy's dismal results due to austerity measures (which, as I've pointed out here, consists almost exclusively of tax increases, not cuts in spending).

Krugman then says that "there seems to be some kind of lesson here about macroeconomics, but I can't quite put my finger on it…" Is he really saying that what Europe needs to grow again is a massive earthquake and tsunami? Or maybe a nuclear accident? After all, Krugman once wrote that Fukushima's "nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary" for the economy.

Speaking of economic lessons, has the good professor never heard of "the broken window fallacy"?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/all-europe-needs-is-a-massive-earthquake-and-tsunami/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29

Wow, he's really doing a fine job reminding us why American economics in a increasingly/socialist republic, leaning toward toward the dangerous over-interventionist governments that have been historical epic failures is not the direction societies that thrive ever take. Economic theory, market theories; Paul Krugman skipped those classes in his degree studies. Oh, wait, it's an honorary degree?

Economics in the Crisis - Paul Krugman - The New York Times

He's definitely no more than a statist tool, discarding real market principles for moral hazard. These ideas are pretty easy, it just takes looking at it without the window dressing. I would hope that the general population has the same capacity to see our situation for what it is.

All Europe Needs Is a Massive Earthquake and Tsunami

Paul Krugman looks at the first-quarter growth results from some developed economies and notes Japan's strong performance due to the post earthquake and tsunami reconstruction. He then compares it to Italy's dismal results due to austerity measures (which, as I've pointed out here, consists almost exclusively of tax increases, not cuts in spending).

Krugman then says that "there seems to be some kind of lesson here about macroeconomics, but I can't quite put my finger on it…" Is he really saying that what Europe needs to grow again is a massive earthquake and tsunami? Or maybe a nuclear accident? After all, Krugman once wrote that Fukushima's "nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary" for the economy.

Speaking of economic lessons, has the good professor never heard of "the broken window fallacy"?


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/all-europe-needs-is-a-massive-earthquake-and-tsunami/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29

Bill Maher: If I Had A Son I Hope He Would Act LIke Trayvon Martin

It's becoming clearer and clearer that no matter what evidence comes out concerning the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Florida, America's media will support him.

On HBO's Real Time Friday, host Bill Maher actually said, "I just want to say if I had a son he would not look like Trayvon Martin, but I hope he would act like him" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

BILL MAHER: There's lots of new evidence that was made public this week in the Trayvon Martin case. He did have marijuana in his system, a drug that has never made anyone on planet earth violent. And at the moment that he confronted or was confronted by the wannabe cop loser who was stalking him, turns out he probably did beat the dog s—t out of that guy. I just want to say if I had a son he would not look like Trayvon Martin, but I hope he would act like him.


And what if it turns out either a judge or a jury decides George Zimmerman did indeed act in self-defense and Martin was the guilty party?

Apparently Maher doesn't care about that, for without all the evidence, much like most of the idiots in the media today, he's decided Zimmerman's guilty.

Exactly how has America "evolved" to a point where folks like Maher have such a powerful perch to speak such nonsense from?

Collapse

I have a hard time knowing everything about economics and markets I have learned, knowing people who are investing in 401k's, stocks and bonds.

JPMorgan Under the Microscope, More to Follow

With the problems over at JPMorgan, things are going to be changing in the investment world. We can look back at the Great Depression for a history lesson.

Banks were gambling with deposits and lost big. Legislation came about to prevent banks from doing it again, but then Clinton repealed it on his way out the door. That laid the groundwork for fraud and loss.

Hedging is just another term for proprietary gambling, which was outlawed to prevent what JPM did (along with many more likely to come out in the coming weeks as other institutions are forced to reveal their logs).

What's worse is that JPM's Jamie Diamond is on the Federal Reserve board. When the $16 trillion dollars were dolled out, JPM was tasked with distributing the funds. Legalized counterfeiting. JPM's $2 billion loss is chump change compared to what they have been doing for years.

The government won't be taking them to the woodshed, they are simply setting up a closer relationship between the banks and the state. More regulation of the industry is not the end goal, but more control of the state by the banks.

On another front: Silver and gold prices are diving, I believe artificially and temporarily, to drive investors to government bonds and the dollar, which are more unstable today than ever. I expect to see real commodities and valuable metals rise again as the dollar continues its down slide.

Public vs Private Education and Free Market Alternatives to Socialism

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwrAIKUONf6TYXf53FeHmuhbXqsu3ApVKEFUJ0JkRyr83lJa2-uE0uXazRHPOhqr_LaQpprqO2ZSrjGgCiobKhxsRE9r8P3kvEHIO0CuZ0mHim1rsLTiwtkggfuka9U0pgTsNsyz5a6tBX/s1600/article-1108763-02FA1BC4000005DC-843_468x323.jpg

 

There is an article reprinted in Walter Block's The Case for Discrimination (a great book so far) which describes the inefficiencies and rigid nature of public education institutions, one which conforms less to the educational needs of the students in regards to the preferences of the parent. Socialized markets tends to guarantee that some segment of society be dissatisfied, maintaining an imbalance and laying the costs on all taxpayers, even if those taxpaying parents choose private or homeschool options.

 

This has been a very divisive issue of late. Some parents want very much for their children to be fully educated, and they see learning about human sexuality as crucial to the well developed person. Others are equally vociferous—but on the other side. In their view, such matters should be left to the home or to the church, or not be discussed at all.

How can such disputes be resolved? Well, there are two and only two ways to accomplish this; all others are simply combinations and permutations of these polar solutions.

The first method is the use of physical force. The matter is decided by a dictator, or by a democratic election of the entire populace, or by a school board or a mayor or a city council or a parent-teacher association. However it is determined, the decision is enforced upon the losers. Whichever way it goes, we either have sex education in the schools, or we do not. One group, either the opponents or the proponents, must of necessity be dissatisfied.

The other method is called the free-enterprise system. Here, there are no such things as public schools. All are private. Each one determines its own policy on this issue. In some, sex education is totally banned. In others, it forms the central focus of the entire learning experience. In most cases, this subject plays a more intermediate role.

Under such circumstances, everyone can be satisfied. Parents can patronize the schools that most nearly reflect their own views on the matter. Given dozens—if not hundreds—of educational enterprises in each city, there is little doubt that all tastes on the spectrum can be accommodated.

Let us now consider an analogy. Instead of considering the proposition "We ought to have sex education in the schools," let us contemplate "We ought to have pizza in the restaurants."

Were this question solved in the manner presently used for sex education, our system would be very different. Most restaurants would be run by the government. All citizens would be forced to pay for these public restaurants, whether they used them or not. Those who patronized private ones would have to pay twice: once in fees for meals, and then again through taxes. People, moreover, would be assigned to the public restaurant located nearest to them.

As to the pizza question, all public restaurants would either stock this foodstuff, or they would not. There could be no such thing as restaurants specializing in different cuisines, and people sorting themselves out according to their tastes. Thus, either the pizza lovers, or the pizza haters, would be disappointed.

The point is, the market is almost infinitely flexible compared to government. And this holds true even when a free market in education is compared to educational socialism. In addition, the profit-and- loss system of free enterprise tends to weed out those entrepreneurs who cannot satisfy their customers. Let a business firm supplying elementary school services answer the sex educational question in a way at variance with a parent, and that is one customer gone to patronize a competitor. In contrast, the state educational bureaucrats have very little incentive to satisfy the demands of their captive audience; if the parents don't like the policy, it is just too bad for them: they must continue to pay their school taxes in any case.

The proof of this contention is that there simply is no "pizza in restaurants" issue now bedeviling society. The very idea is ludicrous. But the reason we have escaped this particular vexation is that the market functions, in large part, without our appreciation or even knowledge. The best way to answer the challenge of sex education in the schools is to privatize the entire industry, and allow each parent to decide this issue for him- or herself.

There is the objection that schooling is too important to be left to free enterprise, and that the government must therefore take it over.

It is certainly true that education is crucial to living a good life. The ignorant man is only half alive. But food, too, is important. And if we have found a way to feed people—efficiently and affordably—without emulating the Soviet system of collectivized farms, restaurants, grocery stores, and so on, surely we can do so with regard to education as well.

We conclude that the way to address the issue of sex education (as well as other seemingly intractable issues such as school busing, prayer in the schools, and debates over educational philosophy) is to allow the market to function. It is the most productive and moral economic institution known to man; surely it can suffice in this particular case.

 

Sadly, most proponents of socialized alternatives to free markets tend to disregard the inefficiencies of the state, the gross wasteful spending, political corruption, and above all the conflict with the principle of non-aggression in funding these government endeavors (non-voluntary taxation). With public schools in America being modeled after factories in the industrial revolution, it's no wonder dissension is increasing.

17 May 2012

White Powder Mailing Case Costing Millions To Investigate

Http://i.huffpost.com/gen/610877/thumbs/swhitepowdermailingcaselarge300.jpg
DALLAS -- Federal authorities say they hope to solve the worst white power mailing case in U.S. history because the letters are tying up first responders and costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
Amanda McMurrey of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service says authorities believe the same person has sent nearly 400 letters containing non-toxic powder to locations across the country and abroad from Texas over the past four years.
She says officials have found similarities in the letters and the way they were mailed, but the suspect has proved elusive in part because no finger prints have been discovered.

So, harmless mayhem is wasting taxpayer dollars, while the US Postal Service itself can not survive without a payer support. Considering that the agency is as inefficient as they come and private market companies like UPS and FedEx actually have incentives to maintain efficiency and profitability? It's no surprise that someone has decided to help them waste more money than they could on their own, if anyone thought it possible. Maybe it's FedEx themselves?
McMurrey says while no one has been harmed, each incident diverts fire department personnel and resources.
Investigators say two suspicious letters reported Thursday aren't connected to the case.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/05/17/white-powder-mailing-case_n_1525321.html

Con vs Pro

"Every time Congress makes a joke it becomes law. Every time Congress passes a law it's a joke." - Will Rogers

The opposite of pro is con.
The opposite of congress is progress.

16 May 2012

Pirate Bay ISP Ban Announced, Site Hits Increase

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQSed_QcqI_aQ4_PQSFY8Ih0qUUl0__p2xp-KMB2jUkup0DRobZUUEdtYQVn2_5jKJmh-gOxJjjY4-uovKQ-meHTjVevHJRCmnfnmwneYihX1wfkl21H0G6oe5jd4GF3Z0vjclHPx6Iid7/s1600/PirateBayBan.jpg


When the British high courts announced a pending ban on the Pirate Bay, unique daily hits at the site went up by 12 million. It amounted to free advertising.


Last week the UK High Court ruled that several of the country's leading ISPs must block subscriber access to The Pirate Bay. The decision is designed to limit traffic to the world's leading BitTorrent site but in the short-term it had the opposite effect. Yesterday, The Pirate Bay had 12 million more visitors than it has ever had, providing a golden opportunity to educate users on how to circumvent blocks. "We should write a thank you letter to the BPI," a site insider told TorrentFreak.

Pirate Bay Enjoys 12 Million Traffic Boost, Shares Unblocking Tips


Rather than discourage piracy, by shining a spotlight on the practice, the state might be encouraging even more people to see what all of the fuss is about. In economics, this is an example of the law of unintended consequences, evident by the increased use of the site. 


After an epic four year legal battle, the Australian High Court has upheld previous rulings that ISP iiNet is not responsible for the copyright infringements of its customers. Despite today's huge defeat for Hollywood, the chief of local anti-piracy group AFACT insists that the landscape has changed since the case began, with legislators and courts around the world now recognizing that ISPs have a role in preventing piracy.

virgin tpb blocked

Using another economic principle, consumers have the choice of which service provider to use in a free market. If one provider chooses to take a position that reduces the value of the service provided, the consumer has the choice of receiving less for their money, or moving to a new provider. This takes the ISP out of the position of being involved with the content of the Internet, putting it back to being no more than the method of connection, as it should be.

iiNet: ISP Not Liable For BitTorrent Piracy, High Court Rules ...


Intellectual property is still a topic of controversy well into the electronic age, one that simple state mandates will not solve. Protecting property rights through force is significantly less effective than through education. In a way, the act of discouraging piracy through vague fiat has the same effect of telling a child not to do something. They will, sometimes out of curiosity or spite, do it anyway.


To call the ideas protected by patents and copyrights "property" is misleading. Historically, "property rights" referred only to interests in real property (land, buildings) and personal property (tangible objects). This kind of property right existed before there even were governments, as people homesteaded land, produced goods, and traded. Government came into existence later, to protect these property rights; it didn't invent them.

Intellectual property has origins that are far different and far more recent. As law professor Lawrence Lessig has put it, some people's desire to treat IP rights just like we treat other property rights has "no reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition. Rather, intellectual property rights are the product of government fiat — of statutes that grant inventors, writers, and artists a monopoly privilege to use certain ideas for certain lengths of time.


The Fight against Intellectual Property - Jacob H. Huebert - Mises Daily

The World's Energy Future: Diversity

barrow

Yes, this is a bit biased, but the idea that energy diversity can help support sustainability is realistic. Attempting to put all of our energy needs onto just renewables will have adverse effects on our society and economy. While we need to move away from finite sources like oil, coal, and natural gas, dropping them like a rock will not solve any problem other than pollution, while having more negative effects than positive. 

If we've lived through the pollution we have seen, we can surely live through a transition from those pollution energies to renewables without going back to the stone ages. Those finite energy sources will likely become too expensive in terms of EROI before they run out, some within a few generations at the most optimistic estimates, so learning to reduce consumption now and let the world markets choose future energy sources is the best course of action. 

Stop subsidizing those sources which are environmentally damaging and have limited supplies. Why encourage consumption of a limited resource? Where is the logic in that effort? Give incentives to foster renewable energy technology instead. Incentivize reducing consumption of nonrenewables through taxes and put that revenue into renewables. Apply economic principles to the problem and we will see solutions rise to the challenge. 

And no, your hybrid is not helping anything.  

The American Petroleum Institute is the mega lobbying group for the country's oil and natural gas industry, just-released their annual Energy in Charts report.

The group warns of the energy crunch that looms over the country in the next decade — the same ones we have written about recently.

"We need to change course and acknowledge that the current path of shrinking energy options won't support the energy needs and economic growth required to ensure a better future for all Americans. We must not single out energy sources in order to promote one source of energy over another. We must abandon the energy rhetoric that pits one resource against another. We need all of our resources—oil and natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, biofuels and more."

We've compiled the 28 charts that together paint a pretty complete picture of where things stand now, and where they're likely to stand going forward. 

Remember of course that these charts come from a lobbying group with obvious interests.

By 2035, our energy consumption will have increased about 5%.



By 2035, renewable resources will satisfy one-sixth of the country's energy needs.



Natgas production has surged, while oil production has declined.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

¿Que este?

15 May 2012

Another Fairly Insane Cross-National Health Care Comparison

Yesterday, countless newspapers published a really disappointing story by Noam Levey that the Los Angeles Times ran under this title:

Global push to guarantee health coverage leaves U.S. behind; China, Mexico and other countries far less affluent are working to provide medical insurance for all citizens. It's viewed as an economic investment.

The article is little more than a puff piece for the hotly contested idea of universal coverage. It gives zero space to the competing strain of thought that the less the government does for the poor, the sick, and the vulnerable, the better off they will be.

It also doesn't consider that as spending on welfare and healthcare levels increases, yet the standard of living for the lower classes consistently decreases. Houston, we have a problem. 

It quotes "Dr. Julio Frenk, a former health minister in Mexico and dean of the Harvard School of Public Health" as saying, "As countries advance, they are realizing that creating universal healthcare systems is a necessity for long-term economic development." A necessity? Gosh. It's a wonder the United States ever became the world's largest economy.

Not that consuming more than producing is grounds for considering an economy great. 

It speaks of such government guarantees as being popular, when what it really means to say is that people are dependent on the government for their health care and frightened to death that someone might take it away.

Not that we would miss much, other than poor service, high costs, and long waits. Maybe if we looked at those socialist-like nations who have championed socialized healthcare we might see that removing it from the free market has negative results on efficiencies and costs. 

It laments the fact that the United States is an "outlier" because it fails to guarantee access to health care for all citizens, which "stands in stark contrast to America's historic leadership in education…Long before most European countries, the United States ensured access to public schooling." Yet it makes no mention of how U.S. students fare poorly in comparison to those in other advanced countries.

And public education (free and compulsory) is just as inefficient and wasteful. More spending results in lower returns on investment. 

It devotes no time to the costs of such guarantees, other than to say that they are sometimes "more than twice what was expected." But don't worry, those costs are borne by the government. It does not say where governments get all that money. I guess we'll never know.

The government does not exist. It consists of people like us. Those costs are passed on to taxpayers and those who participate in markets. The state does not take care of any costs without first taking resources from the public. 

Speaking of taxes, it makes no mention of how taxes suppress economic development. Evidently, unlike other taxes, those that support government-run health care systems do not incur the deadweight loss of taxation.



Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/sp3E1Ymxoz4/

Obama’s Allegiances

With his family by his side, Barack Obama is s...

NATO to Plan More War in Chicago

This week's NATO summit meeting, in Chicago, "will be full of aggressive activities: plans for wars around the world, new decisions about how the U.S will maintain hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East and ," said Chris Gavreau, spokesperson for UNAC, the United National Anti-War Coalition. Thousands of demonstrators are expected to converge on the city.

The Chicago school continues to remind us that the current regime is no better than its predecessors. 

Boycott the Two Major Parties

"We know him as a war president, we know him as an anti-civil liberties president, we know him as an austerity president – that's the record," said Dr. Tony Monteiro, professor of African American Studies at Temple University, in Philadelphia, speaking of Barack . "The same goes for Mitt Romney." Progressives and the Black Left should "boycott the two major parties" this cycle.

How about voting for an alternative to the status quo like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. Left and right are both wrong. 

Obama the Militarist

The president proclaims his militarism "proudly, with repeated references to 'taking out' al Qaida operatives through the most illegal methods imaginable," said political analyst Paul Street, author of The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama and the Real World of . Street noted that Obama called his own health care program "centrist," while admitting that it is modeled on a plan developed by the rightwing Heritage Foundation in the Nineties.

Wreak Havoc at Banks

JP Morgan Chase, the nation's largest bank, gambled away billions because neither party made any real "effort to crack down on derivatives in general," said Doug Henwood, editor of Left Business Observer. "It's remarkable how little has changed since the financial crisis" of 2008, said Henwood. "This is precisely the sort of thing that was supposed to be stopped."

Obama's Allegiances

President Obama's "policies are similar to the Bush administration but, in my opinion, are far worse, because he presented himself in 2008 as a change agent," said Abayomi Azikewe, editor of the Pan African Newswire. Today, people see Obama as he really is, "a representative of the banks, the transnational corporations and the Pentagon – pure and simple." Azikewe spoke with host Solomon Commissiong on Your World , broadcast on WPWC Radio, in Washington, DC.


Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PRNfm/~3/By9MIBo_O9I/