Energy, Environmentalism, and Economics

Common resources are recognized as needing protection from abuse and over-consumption. The abuse of common resources is known as the Tragedy of the Commons and has been explored by environmentalists and libertarians alike. Today, many people believe that the best methods to achieve these goals of protection and preservation are government regulation. While this appears a productive method to prevent the resources from exploitation, it is less than efficient, and generally agreed to be immoral by the exclusion of voluntarism in individual interactions and exchanges. Let's take the whaling industry and fossil fuels as an example, a simple one at that.

Before fossil fuels, there was whale oil. Used most commonly for fueling lamps to light homes, it was the most affordable source to meet that market need. While anyone can see the actions of whalers as violent and aggressive toward a species other than our own, hunting is a way of life for many around the world. Calling for an outright ban on any action will only drive that action into black markets, but will not causes that action to cease. It will drive costs to consumers to rise, however. And that increased potential profit encourages producers to deliver services and goods despite regulations and bans. Look at any service or product the government regulates or has labeled illegal and you will find the trade flourishing. Prohibition has always been an avenue of failure, it takes many forms, but so many continue to be drawn to the flawed concept like moths to a flame. It might be funnier if it were not so true.

The effect of mass harvesting of whales for their oil was the decline of their numbers, something that both those in the industry at the time and modern tree-hugging environmentalists alike can recognize. As their numbers declined, costs rose. This is a very basic economic principle. As prices rose, entrepreneurs looked for alternatives to whale oil which could meet consumers needs at a lower cost. This was a natural effort without government intervention. Laws that protected whales from harvesting did not come about until well into the second half of the 1900s, like 1973's Marine Mammal Protection Act. In fact, in 1851, a French law actually encouraged the hunting of whales. As usual, government regulators are late to the party, passing laws after the economic or environmental damage is already done.

Fossil fuels displaced whale oil, but the transition from whale oil as fuel to fossil fuels happened without interventionism, through the free market and Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. Whale oil costs were rising and producers were seeking a more affordable alternative. By the 1840s, kerosene had already begun to replace whale oil as an illuminant. This decreased it's demand and lowered it's cost, but kerosene was significantly cheaper and did not require the industry to kill whales. This was the beginning of the decline of the whaling industry, but was such a significant decrease in demand that laws which came over a century later did little more than recognize the position of animal rights proponents who showed up with legislators well after the party was already over, not surprisingly.

Moving into the future, without intervention into energy markets by governments, consumers and producers will shift from fossil fuels to new sources over time as well. Fossil fuels are finite resources, meaning that there are limits to the long-term viability. Eventually, there may not be enough oil or coal to run internal combustion engines or fire coal plants to generate electricity. The problem with government interventionism is that it ends up promoting the wrong choices (or sometimes simply at the wrong time) when markets will promote the best choice naturally.

In time, we may have electric cars juiced up by wind farms, solar arrays that power office complexes on independent grids, geothermal home heating systems, tidal generators, and other renewable energy sources which are also environmentally friendly. As long as the free market is allowed to function at it's greatest naturally efficient level, the transition will be as simple as using kerosene to light homes instead of whale oil. Simply let the Invisible Hand guide us to a more efficient alternative.

Massive Coronal Mass Ejection

On July 23rd, a coronal mass ejection (CME) blasted away from the sun with rare speed: 3400 km/s or 7.6 million mph. CMEs moving this fast occur only once every ~5 to 10 years. The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory recorded the cloud's rapid departure from the sun:

The source of the CME was sunspot AR1520, which sparked many bright auroras earlier this month when it was on the Earthside of the sun. Now, however, the active region is transiting the sun's farside so this blast was not geoeffective. One can only imagine the geomagnetic storms such a fast CME could produce if it were heading our way.

I can only imagine how a CME of that magnitude would effect te Earth had it been directed at our little planet...



http://www.spaceweather.com/

Mainstream Media and Truth: Mutually Exclusive

In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories.

For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for "quote approval" before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. The goal is to keep the campaigns as "on message" as possible and to avoid gaffes at all cost. But this kind of thing is not just happening with political campaigns. According to the New York Times, "quote approval" has become "commonplace throughout Washington". In other words, if you see a quote in the newspaper from someone in the federal government then it is safe to say that a gatekeeper has almost certainly reviewed that quote and has approved it. This is another sign that "the free and independent media" in this country is a joke. What we get from the mainstream media is a very highly filtered form of propaganda, and that is one reason why Americans are turning away from the mainstream media in droves. People want the truth, and more Americans than ever realize that they are not getting it from the mainstream media.

The following quote comes from the recent article in the New York Times mentioned above and it is absolutely jaw dropping….

The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president's top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.

Read more:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_New_Y...8/Y/M.html

Rothschild Anoints Alexandre Heir as Family Cements Reign

Alexandre de Rothschild said his father always told him to "do what you want -- if you want to play tennis, go ahead." Alexandre, now 32, did not devote his life to perfecting his serve, breeding horses, or the other pursuits one might imagine are available to a scion of the world's biggest family-owned bank.

Instead, he took jobs at other financial firms before joining the family business four years ago, becoming the seventh generation of a banking dynasty that can be traced to the 18th century.

Today, as the firm undergoes a generational shift to younger bankers, he's being groomed to run Rothschild and succeed his 69-year-old father, David, within five years, according to three people with direct knowledge of the plan.

"Whether it's chairman, CEO, one, the other, both -- it could take various forms and there's no timing pressure," said Alexandre in his first interview. His father, David de Rothschild, isn't worried about his readiness. "What I observe of Alexandre's attitude and behavior and what colleagues tell me is very comforting," he said. "But again, he's not under pressure to be more visible or add titles. Things are progressing as they should."

The comments by David and Alexandre are the most explicit yet to spell out succession plans at Rothschild, a storied name in finance that reported revenue of 1.14 billion euros ($1.42 billion) last year and ranks 10th among banks worldwide in advising on deals, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It advised Nestle, the world's biggest foodmaker, on its $11.9 billion takeover of Pfizer's infant nutrition unit this year.

Presumed Ascension

Alexandre's presumed ascension is part of his father's long-sought goal to establish a new corporate structure that cements control of the firm within the Rothschild family. The plan, approved by shareholders on June 8, converted Paris Orléans, the holding company for Rothschild operations in France, the U.K., and elsewhere, into a limited partnership. The family now has 56 percent of voting rights, though its ownership stake is 47 percent. About 38 percent of the group's shares will be listed on the Paris exchange.

more here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012...reign.html

Is Euro Crisis Spreading to Germany?

Because of the nature of the situation in the Euro area the situation in the periphery is often up for analysis. For example I looked at Spain's current problems only yesterday. However if you have a periphery you also have to have a core and today I wish to look at the core nation the Federal Republic of Germany. She wears various coats for example she is the potential saviour of the Euro but often also metamorphoses into the supposed villain of the piece.

I would Imagine there is more than a small portion of those economies in Europe which would prefer not to pay for the irresponsible fiscal actions of neighboring nations states. As Germany comes to the rescue to bailout others, the dilute their own economy and devalue their currency through inflation. 

The German economic locomotive

This part of the story is something of a stereo type which I have hinted at in the use of locomotive. However if we look at the numbers from the Federal Statistics Office we see that she has lived up to such a description,up to now anyway. For example economic growth was 3% in 2011 and real earnings actually had positive growth over the year of 1.1%. Employment has continued to rise for example in May it was 41.497 million as opposed to 40.945 million a year earlier and 40.419 million in May 2010. Rising employment has meant that unemployment has fallen over the past 2 years as well giving an unemployment rate of 5.5%. And of course we have her export and trade performance.

In 2011 Germany exported goods worth 1 060.0 billion euro and imported goods worth 902.0 billion euro. In 2011, the value of German exports for the first time exceeded a trillion Euros.

It had been a long time since America produced more than it consumed, but that time might just return soon. The US unfortunately runs deficits in most areas of its economy. 

This is reinforced by the fact that Germany has had a trade surplus every year since 1951,although of course back then we are only looking at West Germany. I think we can call that a trend!

[...]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/EconForecast/~3/Hx8oyF_XJxY/is-euro-crisis-spreading-to-germany.html

The Fed Has Destroyed LIBOR

Intentional distortions of one of the world's most important financial benchmarks has sparked a worldwide scandal.

What's more, suggestions that central banks knew about manipulations of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and looked the other way have led many to accuse central banks of failing in their duty of keeping the financial markets working properly.

Manipulations of the LIBOR rate, while minuscule to most individuals, had much more substantial effects in the money markets, where banks go to borrow money from each other and hedge against changes in lending and interest rates.

These central banking cartel manipulations prevent private financial institutions from lending at rates which are competitive in market economies. That intervention by maintaining artificially low rates encourages lenders to loan to borrowers when they would not otherwise. This creates an inflation in the market which will lead to a burst of not equilibrated in the short term. 

Everyone should get free healthcare...

The chief strategist of a firm that specializes in brokering deals on Eurodollar futures contracts told Business Insider that blaming bankers for manipulating LIBOR misses what's really happening in money markets; LIBOR is still being distorted, and on an official basis.

That's why, he argued, the old way of monetary financing—and with it, LIBOR fixings—has been destroyed in the wake of the financial crisis.

"It didn't seize up [during the crisis]. It ceased to exist," he told Business Insider.

Understanding what he means takes some understanding of how LIBOR works and what its fixing affects and is affected by.

LIBOR isn't really based on a tangible number; it's based on a compilation of bank responses to the question, "At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in a reasonable market size just prior to 11 am?"

Banks need to find money to settle transactions denominated in other currencies or involving transactions abroad. Therefore they use instruments like Eurodollar futures, which allows them to borrow or lend dollars at banks outside the United States for a certain period of time.

The effects of any central bank action are felt directly in these markets. When the Federal Reserve wants to lower the federal funds rate, it uses open market operations—this means it states its intention of depositing more money in banks' accounts at the Fed, making it cheaper for other financial firms to get dollars.

In the years leading up to the financial crisis, the relative stability in rates allowed algorithmic traders to take advantage of very minute changes in LIBOR at various maturities, like those mentioned by Barclays traders in documents released by European regulators. The Fed and other central banks could control that rate by adjusting interest rates, but LIBOR moved pretty much in tandem with the federal funds rate.

(Click for larger image.)

"My colleagues and I, we say that [LIBOR] is 14 bps over the federal funds rate...as a joke," the trader told Business Insider, pointing to the uncanny correlation between the two rates up until 2007 and since 2009. When the rate at which banks lent to each other began to jump in late 2007, however, "the system couldn't take it at all," he added.

In the lead-up to and during the financial crisis, real interbank lending for any length of time beyond overnight practically stopped. Thus, saying that banks were pushing down their reports of the prices at which they could borrow is at best misleading, because the demand for lending long-term was nonexistent.

"We submitted a hallucination," said the source.

Central banks responded to the credit stress by offering massive lending facilities, which allowed banks to to access money—in particular, dollars—through a vehicle outside the traditional private money markets. That has changed the way the markets work.

The trader explained, "Since the crisis, banks don't fund themselves [through the traditional money markets] because they don't want to. It's really now about old contracts," that were purchased ahead of the crisis.

But while markets may have exited the crisis credit crunch, markets for securities determined by LIBOR have not, the trader told us. Instead, he says there's an implicit push by the Fed to keep the lending rate low, even though it should be much higher now.

By releasing interest rate projections and jumping to non-standard measures like quantitative easing and dollar facilities, the Fed destroys the incentive to actually exchange money via Eurodollar contracts. This means the Fed is refusing to let LIBOR function as a true, independent indicator.

"If you're long the TED [you believe there will be more financial stress] in a time of trouble, you buy T-bills and take the money offered to you, so you sell a Eurodollar." Essentially, you believe you'll be profiting off of higher lending costs for banks in the future. But if the LIBOR is kept artificially low, then you lose money on a Eurodollar futures contract.

But now, the Fed has become so committed to keeping interest rates down indefinitely—and has jumped so quickly to measures that distort the market—that it has completely destroyed any faith or interest in new contracts.

The trader believed that central banks have recognized that disaster happens when the LIBOR begins to deviate from its general relationship to the federal funds rate, and therefore the Fed (and perhaps other central banks) have suppressed it to make sure rising rates don't generate fear while it develops another money market system.

"I think what they want to do is make sure the system doesn't go crazy." Otherwise, he argues, "You're not just embracing a fantasy. You're embracing a fantasy that created the great credit bubble."

Central bankers will meet in September to discuss changes to the LIBOR system, and it is believed that they could use this moment to develop a complete alternative to rate, and thus the money markets it governs.

It's all gone Pete Tong...

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMoneyGame/~3/yKWB-y5kcDY/expert-end-of-libor-2012-7

Japan Osprey Aircraft Arrival Sparks Protests

American imperialism is no more apparent than the fact that there are so many US bases inside of foreign, sovereign territory. 

TOKYO -- A shipload of the U.S. military's latest transport aircraft arrived in Japan on Monday amid protests over safety issues that have aggravated longstanding grassroots concern over the presence of American bases in the country.

Workers began unloading and assembling the 12 MV-22 Osprey aircraft in the city of Iwakuni soon after the ship arrived. The U.S. plans to deploy the tilt-rotor aircraft to Okinawa to replace older CH-46 helicopters that are already there.

Read More...
More on Video

---

Original Page: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/japan-osprey-aircraft-protests_n_1694510.html

Spanish Stock Market Plummets By 12% In Two Days

A few hours ago, the IBEX hit a level of 5905, the lowest since April 2003. The irony is that as recently as weeks ago, various momentum chasing self-professed stock "experts" saw some technical formation or another, making them believe that the bottom is finally in for the IBEX, which is "fixed." Turns out it wasn't; it also turns out the market was completely wrong and the result is a 12% slide in the Spanish stock market in two days as reality's return is fast and furious. If this happened in the US, it would be the equivalent of 1500 DJIA point collapse in 48 hours, and unleash mass panic and civil disobedience as people realized their 201(k) is really a +/- 001(k).

Okay, now we are at the bottom? Things can only get better from here, right? Let's just bail them out again! Seems like most never can wrap their heads around how bad things can actually get...

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Intelwar/~3/msdRWpUxaMU/fast-and-furious-return-reality-spanish-stock-market-plummets-12-two-days

Getting Started in Gardening

There are many reasons to have your own garden. Growing and eating vegetables that you grew from scratch by preparing soil, planting seeds, weeding, watering and picking all yourself is incredibly rewarding. Money can be saved as seeds are much less expensive than the corresponding produce. Fresh produce harvested straight from the garden taste better and is more nutritionally sound. Another benefit of having your own garden is you control what chemicals (or lack thereof) are used during the growing process.

For those preparing for a long-term survival situation gardening is a necessity. Regardless of how much food is stored away it will only last for so long and will eventually run out. Gardening is one of several ways to supplement a food storage program and provide vital sustenance.

Regardless of how much research is performed on all aspects of gardening nothing replaces hands on experience. So, if gardening is part of your long term plans get started now.

[...] 

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Intelwar/~3/_AbSBp2fnJk/

More at: ModernSurvivalOnline.com

Huff and Puff: Why Would Anyone Think Gun Control is Patriotic?

Sanjay Sanghoee, writing for the Huffington Post this week suggested that gun control would be patriotic. In other words, destroying the Second Amendment would be showing patriotism. He wrote:

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, it is time to take a long, hard look at the role of guns in our society. This is not about politics but about pure common sense.

Let's start with the simple facts: a gunman, who is most likely insane, went to the front of a packed movie theater during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opened fire on the crowd with assault weapons. A dozen people died and dozens other were injured and probably traumatized for life. A disgusting act that has shocked the nation, but who is to blame for what happened?

The liberals would say that it is the NRA and the gun industry, who make it absurdly easy to secure assault weapons in the United States, including over the Internet. The conservatives in turn would say that it is not guns but people who do the killing. Literally speaking they are correct, but if the essence of what the conservatives claim is true, then the reason we have crazy massacres in this country is because Americans are a bunch of homicidal maniacs with no impulse control; and if that part is true, then should we really allow this same crackpot citizenry to carry firearms? You see the problem?

This is just nonsense. But then the writer added:

The Second Amendment of our Constitution was meant to protect us from harm, but had the Founding Fathers known back then that the proliferation of guns would put us in harm's way today, I bet you anything they would have put safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

The framers of the Constitution did create safeguards against despotic regimes: the Bill of Rights. Those inclusions were intended to reaffirm the natural rights of citizens and restrict the state from infringing upon them. 

The right to defend oneself makes sense but that should not encompass the right to own weapons of mass destruction, or to endanger the welfare of society. The belief that we need to stockpile guns of every kind to protect us from our own government is a sign of deep paranoia and madness.

In terms of gun rights, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc., the government can be seen as a threat for its efforts to restrict or remove many of these guaranteed freedoms. There is no paranoia or conspiracy theory when we have entire municipalities and states restricting firearms rights to near non-existence. Think of Chicago, New York City, or the entire state of California. To get much worse, gun rights are simply remove entirely. 

And to the people who think that way, let me ask you this: do you really believe that if the U.S. government decided for some reason to direct all its military might against you , you would stand a chance against them?

Would standing up for those collective liberties in the face of a government which is out of control not be most patriotic? I believe so, and gun owners understand why more than most. 

Guns were actually fairly common when the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment. And do we really want to take the risks of being left defenseless?

The spark that started the rebellion against the crown in this country occurred when Britain tried to end gun ownership by the colonists. I believe they knew better than anyone the reason firearms rights were more than necessary to defend a free society. 

---

Original Page: http://www.firearmstruth.com/2012/huff-and-puff-why-gun-control-is-patriotic

Stoking Fearmongering Ahead of London Olympics

America's "war on terror" never ends. Neither does Britain's. After London was named host for this year's summer games, terrorist fears were stoked. Former Australian/UK British civil servant Peter Ryan performs security consulting services. He's advising the International Olympic Committee on London preparations. His consultancy thrives on hyped threats, real or otherwise. After the city was named host in 2005, he told organizers to "think the unthinkable." Besides other advice, he said: "You are not just thinking about football hooligans, getting drunk in a pub and causing trouble." "You are dealing with a different animal, completely new threats - suicide bombers and protecting the critical infrastructure. You cannot have a power station going down and all the lights going out." He said athletes' food and water supplies must be protected. Check for poisons, he advised.

---

Original Page: http://www.FreedomsPhoenix.com/Article/115408-2012-07-23-stoking-fear-ahead-of-london-olympics.htm?EdNo=001&From=RSS

Anaheim Cops Shoot Rubber Bullets, Unleash Dog on Crowd Protesting Police Shooting

How is this the best response to an accusation of police violence, met with more violence? Rather counterproductive to me...

When mostly Latino residents in an Anaheim, California neighborhood gathered to protest a police shooting, the cops responded by...shooting rubber bullets and siccing a police dog on a mother holding an infant child.

Below is a report from local TV station KCAL, which incorporates amateur video gathered on the spot. The result is a trenchant reminder of the distributed nature of surveillance in today's world. Reason has been covering this power shift extensively (see this video about the killing of homeless man Kelly Thomas by Fullerton, California police and the way citizens sparked an investigation). It's obviously a good thing that law enforcement at all levels is being held more accountable for its behavior but I also sometimes wonder about the irony that former Reason staffer Radley Balko (of The Agitator and Huffington Post) noted in this 2011 interview: Police are almost certainly more respectful of civil liberties than they were 50 years ago. What's changed is that regular people are more empowered to capture and circulate bad actions by the cops.

Having noted that, this is some messed-up video below.

Hat tip: Ted Balaker

 

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/caIT-NOcKzU/anaheim-cops-shoot-rubber-bullets-unleas

What IF he is RIGHT ???

‎[How did he get people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the money-less, and rewards for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the world. He did it with a compliant media – did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and …. . … change. And the people surely got what they voted for.]
Note: "If you think Obama, think again for this was Hitler. See the parallels? I saw them clearly arise in Bush #42 and Clinton #43, but with Obama #44 there is a definite match. We are in the ENDGAME.  Is it too late? Should STHF can we expect outside rescue per se since UN |NATO would side with the US de facto dictatorship. JIMO"

Quote: "I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now" is word.

[...]

---

Original Page: http://bonfiresblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/what-if-he-is-right

Tragedies and Ill-conceived Gun Laws

Early last night I sat and watched Dr. Suzanna Hupp's testimony to Congress on gun laws after the tragedy at Luby's October 16, 1991, in Killeen, Texas.

Sadly, there was another shooting tragedy in Aurora, Colorado late last night, near another preventable tragedy: Columbine.

I am sure that many will call for increased gun laws, but as always these are hollow and fail to take into account the reality that criminals will not heed laws, that is their nature. More gun laws only negatively impact the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Calls to ban high-capacity magazines and assault weapons were proven to increase violent crime during the Assault Weapons Ban of 1992. There is a reason the Brady Campaign failed to keep the AWB on the books; it was a failure, a solution to a problem it created itself.

As Hupp correctly suggests, when a person commits these sort of acts, it is an illness, a mental problem that compels them. No law will prevent their intended actions, only the dedication of law-abiding citizens to protect each other in these situations. Violent criminals like these examples are like rabid dogs. The focus needs to be on those politicians willingly legislating away the right to defend ourselves from them.

Law enforcement's duty is to respond, by which time the tragedy is usually over. Many courts have ruled that police have no duty to protect, which can only lead us to understand that we have to defend ourselves. If this means breaking bad laws, so be it. A right the judicial body will never disclose is that of nullification. A jury can set a precedent and strike down a bad law simply by failing to convict a defendant of a charge.

It is statistically proven that allowing citizens to arm themselves decreases crime rates. All we need to do is consider the increases in violent crimes in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, even the United Kingdom and other locals to see that the solution is obvious if only we would consider reality instead of relying on emotional arguments and opinions. Gun control encourages criminals to commit violent crime.

Remember this the next time you consider abiding by a poorly-conceived gun law and ask yourself if it makes you and your loved ones any safer. As Suzanna Hupp put it, I would rather be charged with a crime, defending the lives of those I love, than to adhere to bad laws and have to bury them. This is why the Second Amendment was worded the way it is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Higher Education: the Next Bubble to Burst

(Everyone should get free healthcare)

Almost everyone knows the country went through the wringer after the housing bubble burst. Now a new bubble looms before us - the higher-education bubble.

Scholars and economists at the Mises and Cato Institutes have been campaigning to increase awareness about this issue for years. Those who understand market economics and the downsides of government interventionism are keenly aware of what happens in these situations.

Just as easy money, lowered lending standards and political hype came together to vastly overinflate the housing sector, a combination of easy money (federal grants and loans available for nearly every student), lowered academic standards (colleges that readily accept students with pathetically weak basic skills) and political hype (the notion that getting a degree will guarantee a huge boost in earnings) have produced a vastly overinflated higher-education system.

Why would any lending institution support a student who wants to take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to pursue a liberal arts degree, or another field in which the student is unlikely to gain employment sufficient to pay back loans? Lenders in the market see great risk, so they don't loan. The government steps in and guarantees the loans, so the universities accept the student anyway. And tuition costs skyrocket as a direct result.

The higher-education bubble has been inflating for decades, and it’s ready to burst, or at least deflate. That’s because many Americans are realizing that the huge cost of college is often a waste. Whereas college degrees used to be regarded as sure-fire investments, the labor market has become glutted with people who have been to college but can’t find “good” jobs.

Did you know that 22 percent of customer-sales representatives and 16 percent of bartenders have bachelor’s degrees?

Furthermore, at many schools, academic standards have fallen to the point where students can coast through without learning anything worthwhile. As University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds recently wrote, “The higher education bubble isn’t bursting because of a shortage of money. It is bursting because of a shortage of value.”

[...]

More: LEEF: Burst the higher-education bubble - Washington Times

All we need to do is look at programs or industries where the government steps in to guarantee loans in this country to see how costs to consumers rise as a result. Higher costs are also passed along to taxpayers if those markets are subsidized. It's a failure of epic proportions, but one where the spoils of which are so willingly accepted despite the likely end result and market reactions. 

Both of the following examples are from a year ago, and they were not the first warnings from market economists.

A college degree once looked to be the path to prosperity. In an article for TechCrunch, Sarah Lacy writes, "Like the housing bubble, the education bubble is about security and insurance against the future. Both whisper a seductive promise into the ears of worried Americans: Do this and you will be safe."

But the jobs that made higher education pay off during the inflationary boom, kicked into high gear by Nixon waving goodbye to the last shreds of a gold standard, came primarily from government and finance.

In 1990, 6.4 million people worked for federal, state, and local governments. By 2010, that number had grown almost 6 times — to 38.3 million — with many of these jobs being white-collar.

Without sufficient private market jobs to support the revenue needs of the government (taxation of labor), it is easy to see how decreasing revenues can be a problem when paired with ever-increasing government spending. The appearance of cutting budgets is just that; appearance. Spending is cut for future budgets, and is usually cut from proposed increases, not overall budgets. More private market jobs are needed, not public sector. Public jobs contribute a net loss, not a gain.

In 1990, the financial sector was less than 7.5 percent of the S&P 500. By 2006, this sector had grown to 22.3 percent of the S&P, and that year the financial sector constituted 45 percent of the index's earnings.

[...]

The Higher-Education Bubble Has Popped

One of the major complaints of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, many of whom have taken on significant student debt, is that the cost of college is too darn high. And they're right, but not because of greedy corporate fat cats. No, the real guilty party here is federal politicians, who for decades have been fueling high profits — and prices — at both for-profit and nonprofit schools.

Guaranteeing loans promotes those producers to increase costs to consumers. When it is student loans, that results in higher tuition costs, despite a lower likelihood that students will ever be able to pay them back. Those tuition costs are passed on to taxpayers as well without consent, and without ever enrolling in universities or receiving services. There is a reason private lenders will not invest in many students, but big government sure will, at the expense of other people. But we all are the other people...

Wait. Big profits at nonprofit colleges? Yes, money has been piling up even at schools you thought had no interest in profit. And Washington, D.C., is the biggest hand feeding the beast.

Thanks to recent congressional hearings and battling over new regulations for for-profit schools, most people — including many college-aged, profit-disdaining Wall Street squatters — are probably at least vaguely aware that for-profit colleges are making good money.

[...]

D.C. Drove Up Your Student Debt

Anyone care to point out the next bubble being inflated now? I'll give you a hint; other countries which took this route saw increased costs and decreased quality.

 

Everyone Should Go to College

Mises and Cato were writing an talking about this 2-3 years ago. Its funny how anyone can see it coming but no one tries to do anything different. 

Why Oil Market Manipulation Is Far Worse

EconMatters: Since the Global Community all the sudden seems to be preoccupied with Market manipulation even though the authorities knew it was a problem for over 5 years with Libor Rate Fixing. It is high time authorities look at the Crude Oil market which has been(...)

This is an issue with many markets for goods and services, especially oil and even precious metals. My belief is that this is a method by which the dollar is being propped up as a continued viable global currency, a safe haven for investments. But every fiat currency crashes following inflation and devaluation. And we are probably nearing the end of the life cycle of this one as well. 

Read the rest of Forget Libor-Gate; Why Oil Market Manipulation Is Far Worse (XLE, SCO, UCO, USO)

Economics in the Oil Industry

Consumers do individually have a somewhat finite amount of money to put toward spending in markets, so they tend to get the most they can for the money they have. Policymakers tend to look past the inefficiencies and waste (deadweight loss) created as unintentional consequences of their fiat actions. Consumers actually have less money value in the long-run, due to rising inflation rates and the devaluation of currency already in circulation as new money gets minted and created by fractional reserve banking.

While a portion of the population may gain from such measures as increased tax rates on some products, the social good is not maximized through this method, as the most efficient product in the market is not allowed to equalize itself naturally. Without interventionist policies, oil costs would normalize (saying goodbye to wild fluctuations in market costs) and slowly decline as the finite resource slides down the slope toward inefficiency in terms of EROI. Alternative energy sources to oil would become more appealing to both consumers and producers (and investors) in a free market as the costs of production of oil increase, as it's supply decreases (as it's done since about 1971).

I'm not all that surprised to see policymakers laughing off Hubbert's research from the mid-1950s, only that it is done so overtly. At least most of the tax on oil consumption is laid at the feet of those consuming it. If only the same could be said for the corn-for-fuel market...

Oklahoma Lawmaker Drafting Bill To Jail Enforcers of Obamacare?

Ah, the Tenth Amendment, the one that reminds us that we live in a nation which is built of people, not politicians, and that everything distills down to individuals. States are above nationalism, and individuals above all else. Obama declaring his mandates as the word of gods is a mite trite. And even proposing legislation such as this is a gentle reminder to despots that the power in society is in the hands of the collective individuals, and that the breakdown in liberty only stretches so far before patience snaps. 

By The Watchdog | July 18, 2012 President Obama will not like this. He thinks his word alone is law. He thinks the American people must submit to his achievement called Obamacare. Despite the mass protest and phone calls flooding capital hill saying to our elected congressmen saying "do not pass this bill into law". [...]

---

Original Page: http://pprnnews.prepperpodcast.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-drafting-bill-to-jail-enforcers-of-obamacare/

Morgan Stanley in Trouble?

Sounds like trouble to me. And they deserve it. 

In this podcast:

(1) I discuss whether Morgan Stanley is financial trouble.

(2) I examine how much European debt exposure they have

(3) I ask the question of whether the ECB will engage in QE

Disclaimer: Please do your own due diligence when investing or trading. This information is only for educational purposes.

---

Original Page: http://dont-tread-on.me/?p=20835

The Price Of Corn Hits A Record High As A Global Food Crisis Looms

Imagine that. Growing food and using it instead as fuel leads to food shortages. And it's subsidized, so consumers have less resources with which to purchase food goods after undue, unnecessary taxation. Hello Dust Bowl, haven't seen you in a while...

Michael Snyder, Contributor
Activist Post

Are you ready for the next major global food crisis? The price of corn hit an all-time record high on Thursday. So did the price of soybeans. The price of corn is up about 50 percent since the middle of last month, and the price of wheat has risen by about 50 percent over the past five weeks. On Thursday, corn for September delivery reached $8.166 per bushel, and many analysts believe that it could hit $10 a bushel before this crisis is over.

The worst drought in the United States in more than 50 years is projected to continue well into August, and more than 1,300 counties in the United States have been declared to be official natural disaster areas.

So how is this crisis going to affect the average person on the street? Well, most Americans and most Europeans are going to notice their grocery bills go up significantly over the coming months. That will not be pleasant. But in other areas of the world this crisis could mean the difference between life and death for some people. You see, half of all global corn exports come from the United States. 

So what happens if the U.S. does not have any corn to export? About a billion people around the world live on the edge of starvation, and today the Financial Times ran a front page story with the following headline: "World braced for new food crisis". Millions upon millions of families in poor countries are barely able to feed themselves right now. So what happens if the price of the food that they buy goes up dramatically?

[...]

About 30 percent of the soybean crop was in poor-to-very-poor condition, which compared with 10 percent a year ago.

Conditions for both crops are expected to worsen in Monday's agriculture agency report.

More than half of the country is experiencing drought conditions right now, and this is devastating both ranchers and farmers. Right now, ranchers all over the western United States are slaughtering their herds early as feed prices rise. It is being projected that the price of meat will rise substantially later this year.

[...]

If prices rose that fast last year, what will those statistics look like at the end of this year if this drought continues?

Sadly, America is not alone. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. is not the only place that is having problems with crops right now….

Dry weather in the U.S., as well as the Black Sea region; a poor start to the Indian monsoon and the possibility of emerging El Nino conditions suggest agricultural products may rally, Barclays said in a report e-mailed yesterday.

And all of this is very bad news for a world that is really struggling to feed itself.

In many countries around the globe, the poor spend up to 75 percent of their incomes on food. Just a 10 percent increase in the price of basic food staples can be absolutely devastating for impoverished families that are living right on the edge.

You may not have ever known what it is like to wonder where your next meal is going to come from, but in many areas around the world that is a daily reality for many families.

The United Nations estimates that 267,000 Yemeni children are facing life-threatening levels of malnutrition. In the Middle East's poorest country hunger has doubled since 2009. More than 10 million people — 44% of the population — do not have enough food to eat, according to the United Nation's World Food Program.

In the United States, we aren't going to see starvation even if nearly the entire corn crop fails. Our grocery bills might be more painful, but there is still going to be plenty of food for everyone.

In other areas of the world, a bad year for global crops can mean the difference between life and death.

The 1,450 mile long Colorado River is probably the most important body of water in the southwestern United States.

Unfortunately, the Colorado River is rapidly dying.

People need to wake up because we have some very serious water issues in this country.

In the heartland of America, farmers pump water from a massive underground lake known as the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate their fields.

The problem is that the Ogallala Aquifer is rapidly being pumped dry.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, "a volume equivalent to two-thirds of the water in Lake Erie" has been permanently drained from the Ogallala Aquifer since 1940.

[...]

---

Full Page: http://intelwars.com/?guid=c571b7f9b43b5a416f8528b9093eb5b8

Spanish protests over new austerity measures

Government workers staged rallies in dozens of Spanish cities today as the country's parliament passed the latest round of austerity measures. The ruling conservative Popular Party used its majority in parliament to push through the measures.

More pushback around the world as collapse looms on the horizon. These sort of efforts by the state will only promote collapse, not prevent it. 

---

Original Page: http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/32726/f/579300/s/21844ccf/l/0L0Stelegraph0O0Cfinance0Cfinancialcrisis0C941310A70CSpanish0Eprotests0Eover0Enew0Eausterity0Emeasures0Bhtml/story01.htm

Libor Fraud Now Part of the System

The Libor rate rigging scandal was all about keeping the financial system and the big banks from failing.  Forget prosecuting the perpetrators because Roberts says, "The minute those interest rates go up, the loss to people will just dwarf the interest rate loss."  Fraud is now part of the system that keeps it from crashing.  Roberts has a PhD and was responsible for economic policy at the Treasury.  He says, "We are probably headed for a crash anyway because I don't think they can maintain this forever."  Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Paul Craig Roberts.''

---

Original Page: http://implode-explode.com/viewnews/2012-07-19_LiborFraudNowPartoftheSystemPaulCraigRoberts.html

Obama on Entrepreneurs and Innovation

While I hardly believe one person is responsible for the success or failure of collective economics, especially on a national or international level, US president Barack Obama is so misinformed (or willfully ignorant) of economic principles that he actually believes innovation comes not from entrepreneurs, but from government intervention.

President Obama said in a speech at the weekend that governments and not individuals create jobs, telling entrepreneurs: 'If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

He added: 'You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.'

The inflammatory campaign speech comments underline the extent to which Obama believes that the state rather than ordinary citizens create jobs and wealth. 

Obama says the wealthy AREN'T responsible for their own success ... 

If you have a great idea, invest your time and resources into that idea, and you succeed, I believe that you are responsible for your success and deserve whatever profits or acknowledgement you receive, not the government. The state and it's interventionist policies, regulations, and ever-increasing taxation stifles innovation, impedes entrepreneurs, and holds back advancement, preventing any benefit or social good.

Obama's criticism of Romney (I honestly can't tell much difference between Obamney) and capital investment firms is misplaced. Without firms such as Bain, companies like Howard Johnson, where Obama fondly recalls childhood family memories, would have faded into history during the Great Depression.

“Entrepreneurs embody the promise of America: the idea that if you have a good idea and are willing to work hard and see it through, you can succeed in this country. And in fulfilling this promise, entrepreneurs also play a critical role in expanding our economy and creating jobs.” – President Barack Obama, January 31, 2011

I am having a hard time keeping up with the flip-flops from the Obama regime. The level of narcissism Obama maintains is nearly a psychological issue. If he believe half of what he claims, he is mentally unfit for public office. If he is simply a mouthpiece, reading speeches tailored for him, he is the puppet many claim. And we have a long line of potential replacements willing to tow the same line.

The regime wants to control and manage the entrepreneurial spirit, which is a statist goal.

The recent White House announcement of a new government program to promote entrepreneurship must signify that the Obama Administration finally “gets it” about job creation and economic recovery, right? Certainly free-market conservatives can agree with the President’s inspiring words. But … 

The regime wants to have the final word on what will be allowed in the market and what will be suppressed. This is not innovation, but interventionism, which is known instead for destroying innovation. Big surprise there.

The problems, as always, emerge in the details of the program. This “coordinated public/private effort” appears to be just another head-fake in the direction of capitalism with the intention of growing more government.

Obama's “Start-Up America” Initiative: Stalling Entrepreneurs

We do not have true capitalism, and have not for maybe a century or more. True innovation thrives without regulation and governmental burden, not under it's thumb and seeking it's approval. What we have is state-capitalism (it's no big secret, even the Economist understands this), with it's complex system of regulations, it's involuntary and intrusive taxation system for redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who do not. While many establishment supporters claim capitalism is the cause of our economic woes, they are at least correct about the methods, if not the name itself.

America saw free markets in the Not So Wild, Wild West, where government was absent until the turn of the twentieth century. Property rights were maintained, entrepreneurs thrived, society benefited, jobs grew, taxation did not yet exist before the government saw an opportunity to feed. Once the state stepped in, all that changed, just as it has changed across the world as the interventionism and it's proponents intervene and claim that they are the reason for the success of others, despite being an obstacle rather than a support system.

Political Rhetoric - Obama Edition

Watching the Obama speech in Austin, Texas this evening, an exercise in frustration. Listening to him speak about high education and healthcare costs, it is more than apparent that he either had little understanding of interventionist government policies in regards to microeconomics, or he is simply pandering to the crowd. Or maybe he actually believes that a failure of economic policy for almost an entire first term is somehow a success.

Either way, he is no better than his predecessor, and in some terms likely significantly worse.

Schiff: How government programs drive up college tuitions

Media Advisory: Subcommittee to Discuss State Initiatives to Reduce College Costs (July 16, 2012) Peter Schiff does a fine job of highlighting the history behind the increases in higher education costs over time through interventionist government policies. These are pretty basic economic principles; subsidization of products and services leads to increased costs. I would hope that the actual causes of higher education costs would be discussed in these hearings. How government programs drive up college tuitions - YouTube

The Lifeboat Hour – 07/15/12

from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/07/15/lifeboat-hour-071512/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-071512

The Lifeboat Hour – 07/08/12

from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/07/08/lifeboat-hour-070812/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-070812

Krugmann: Forget Those ‘Budget Things,’ U.S. Gov‘t Needs to ’Just Spend & Do a Bunch Of Stuff’

New York Times Economist and Nobel peace prize winner Paul Krugman has some candid advice for the US government: forget budgets and start spending.

The alarming advice came while on a panel discussion in Washington, D.C. last month. The panel was entitled "End This Depression Now" and focused on the economic recourse the country had in the wake of current economic instability.

Krugman was asked what he would do "If we made Paul Krugman a dictator for a period of time?"  After applause from the audience Krugman noted that the "biggest" thing holding back the economy has been "unprecedented cutback in state and local spending."  Krugman, a committed Keynesian, argued for massive government hiring in the fields of construction and education.

Wow. Krugman is still the idiot most people with even the slightest economic understanding know him to be. Put it this way; if your household is broke, in debt more than can ever e paid back? Why would it be responsible to increase debt? Krugman thinks its okay for the government to do that. The problem is that decreasing private sector jobs can not support increased public sector jobs and higher levels of government spending. Krugman and likeminded tools just don't understand reality. 

This tactic, he said, would reduce unemployment to below 7% and would only cost "a few hundred billion a year," which the economist explained "is not that much."  But the real goal for Krugman is a 0% unemployment.  

O achieve zero unemployment, public sector jobs and taxation must also go to zero. That is the real world, one we saw in the past when governments had little or no intervention into free markets. That is the only practical and possible method to get to zero unemployment. With Krugman's ideas, we can't get there from here. 

To achieve this employment utopia, we must encounter a catastrophe on par with WWII according to Krugman:

"What took us out of the Great Depression… it was Europe's entry into WWII and the US buildup that began in advance.  We were at full employment before Perl Harbor.  So if we can get something that will cause the government to say, 'Oh never mind those budget things, lets just spend and do a bunch of stuff."

During those prewar times, we had free markets and low unemployment. Then government stepped in and it's been downhill since then. 

---

Original Page: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/krugmann-forget-those-budget-things-u-s-govt-needs-to-just-spend-do-a-bunch-of-stuff/

On the One Percent and Healthcare

Why do so many fall into the false paradigm of class warfare? Do so many truly believe that by taxing the rich we can resolve the problems caused by giving the government more resources to squander inefficiently? Do so few understand that state interventionism is the problem, and that increasing its scope and authority will have negative effects rather than positive? 

Why don't we just abolish taxes and let the government fend for itself? 

Healthcare was cheaper and better before government interventionism ruined it, just as with everything else it touches. Allowing the state more authority over this market has consistently increased costs and decreased quality. Why are so many ignoring reality?

Taxation creates unemployment. Subsidization in turn increases costs. Moving services to the public sector increases inefficiency and promotes abuse, as there is no market profit to maintain a necessary balance. 

What disturbed me the most is that people generally fall for the false left-right paradigm and focus more on fighting perceptions an failing to understand the market forces which move industries and our economy. I so many people believe out economy is broken? Why do most of them stop at simply complaining about. Why not learn economics and understand the actual root causes of these problems, rather than focus on the results and fail to grasp even the basics? 

Increasing the tax burden on any one segment (or all segments for that matter) will only encourage increased waste and spending while continuing to ignore the fact that government interventionism through regulation and taxation of markets is what has brought us to the precipice. 

An eye for an eye makes the world blind as Gandhi said. Anyone who believes that more government is the answer for too much government is being willfully ignorant. Using the state's monopoly on force to inflict the will of any segment of society on the whole is not a solution, but a propagation of the problem. We are harming ourselves when we try to use the state to harm others. 

Left and Right are both Wrong. (still)

Nullify Obamacare Individual Mandate

There are so many ways that Obamacare was and is wrong. If its a tax, the Supreme Court can not hear the case until after it has been levied, which would be a few years from now. Under the Commerce Clause, it is not Constitutional to tax citizens for not participating in commerce. Any way you cut it, this legislation is bad for consumers. At best, it will increase inefficiencies and costs to taxpayers. At worst, public healthcare collapses and proves free markets are a more practical and cost-effective alternative to public choices, especially where there is no choice for the public. Even Congress exempted itself, which speaks volumes. 

Under the Tenth Amendment, we already have 26 states opposing and leaning toward nullification this law, or tax, or whatever. Any way you look at it, government interventionism into health care only leads to a less than optimal result. 

Even Obama can't decide which it is. Or isn't. 

Even Oklahoma gets it:

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Mike Ritze plans to reintroduce a bill to "nullify" the individual mandate in the 2010 federal health care legislation in Oklahoma.

"I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling and believe that state governments were intended to serve as a check on the federal government," said Ritze, R-Broken Arrow. "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is better known as ObamaCare, is an example of federal overreach and my legislation will authorize the state to resist it and ban the enforcement of it."

Ritze said his legislation would authorize the Oklahoma attorney general to defend citizens who fail to purchase health insurance against the federal government and criminalizes the enforcement of the individual mandate.

"My hope is that ObamaCare will be repealed, but I do not think that means we have to wait for the repeal to happen. Oklahoma lawmakers should do what they can to support our choice to make our own health care decisions," Ritze said.

###

TAKE ACTION

Nullify in YOUR state. Contact your state reps and urge them to introduce the Nullification Act NOW. Or push them to pre-file for the 2013 legislative session. They Need to hear from you early AND often!

Get the model legislation here
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/07/oklahoma-state-rep-to-file-bill-to-nullify-individual-mandate/

The Lifeboat Hour – 07/01/12

from Progressive Radio Network » Lifeboat Hour | Progressive Radio Network http://prn.fm/2012/07/02/lifeboat-hour-070112/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lifeboat-hour-070112