Minimum Wage Laws Cause Unemployment

The U.S. Congress first instituted a minimum wage with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ensure workers a minimally adequate standard of living. In 2007, the minimum wage according to federal law was $5.15 per hour, and it was scheduled to increase to $7.25 by 2010.

Minimum wage laws are basically price floors paid to workers, which creates a shortage of available jobs, and a surplus of willing workers, or unemployment. As with most state intervention, the needs or wants of a smaller portion of a population are met at a cost to the entire population, even when the goal on the surface is to promote some policy that benefits those who are disproportionally neglected.

If the minimum wage is above the equilibrium level, as it is here, the quantity of labor supplied exceeds the quantity demanded. The result is unemployment. Thus, the minimum wage raises the incomes of those workers who have jobs, but it lowers the incomes of workers who cannot find jobs.

In reality, this type of price floor actually causes the problem that wage mandates are touted to resolve. Funny how that tends to work out so often when the state initiates market mandates that fail consistently in the face of basic economics.

The minimum wage has its greatest impact on the market for teenage labor. The equilibrium wages of teenagers are low because teenagers are among the least skilled and least experienced members of the labor force. In addition, teenagers are often willing to accept a lower wage in exchange for on-the-job training.

Want to end unemployment? Repeal state-mandated minimum wage laws. 


Rent control is another example of a failure to promote fair market prices and an equilibrium supply/demand rate through state mandates. The result is lower costs, but also a lower supply of available rental properties, as well as a generally lower quality of available rental units. What motivation to landlords have to maintain properties when there is a fixed market price?

In free markets, landlords try to keep their buildings clean and safe because desirable apartments command higher prices. By contrast, when rent control creates shortages and waiting lists, landlords lose their incentive to respond to tenants’ concerns. Why should a landlord spend money to maintain and improve the property when people are waiting to get in as it is? In the end, tenants get lower rents, but they also get lower-quality housing.

Policymakers often react to the effects of rent control by imposing additional regulations. For example, there are laws that make racial discrimination in housing illegal and require landlords to provide minimally adequate living conditions. These laws, however, are difficult and costly to enforce. By contrast, when rent control is eliminated and a market for housing is regulated by the forces of competition, such laws are less necessary. In a free market, the price of housing adjusts to eliminate the shortages that give rise to undesirable landlord behavior.

Ah, free markets. It seems that politicians and those unwilling to work for their needs and wants are the only ones truly benefiting from these sort of measures. In the end, these sort of market restrictions are akin to taxation, as they manipulate the market in a negative way, increasing inefficiency and costs while creating little collective benefit.

As I say, taxation is theft, which is a form of violence against another, something that I can not in good conscience defend. Whether it be rent control, import tariffs, wage laws, or other market controls, the society overall suffers the burden and gains no true benefit.

Source: Mankiw, N. G. (2007). Principles of microeconomics. (5th Edition ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Obama Wants USA To Bail Out Europe

The Greek bailout has the potential to put the global economy into a recession. Some critics say that Greece isn't getting bailed out but the actual banks that own the Greek debt are. Many say the banking establishment needs to go and shouldn't be bailed out as a risky deal goes bad. Lew Rockwell, chairman at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, gives us his thoughts on the Eurozone debt crisis.

Lew Rockwell: The Euro and the EU were a mistake

As the European debt crisis continues to escalate, President Obama urged European Union leaders today to act quickly to resolve the eurozone crisis, saying that “the United States stands ready to do our part to help them resolve this issue.

“This is of huge importance to our own economy. If Europe is contracting or if Europe is having difficulties, then it’s much more difficult for us to create good jobs here at home because we send so many of our products and services to Europe; it is such an important trading partner for us,” the president said following an annual meeting between U.S. and EU officials. “We’ve got a stake in their success, and we will continue to work in a constructive way to try to resolve this issue in the near future.”

While Obama did not say what kind of assistance the U.S. would be willing to provide, earlier today the White House ruled out any financial contributions from U.S. taxpayers. “We do not in any way believe that additional resources are required from the United States or from American taxpayers,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

“This is a European issue, that Europe has the resources and capacity to deal with it and that they need to act decisively and conclusively to resolve this problem,” Carney said.

Obama Says US 'Stands Ready to Do Our Part' for Eurozone Crisis

President Barack Obama said resolving the European debt crisis is of “huge importance” to the U.S. and his administration is “ready to do our part” in stabilizing the global economy.

Obama said a “large part” of the annual U.S.-European Union summit was spent on the impact of the crisis in the euro- zone. He spoke at the White House after meeting with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso.

Van Rompuy said the U.S. and EU “both need to take strong action” to maintain the economic recovery. Barroso said he has “full confidence” that Europe will deal with the sovereign debt issue.

Iran’s nuclear program, strengthening exports and investments, Middle East peace prospects, terrorism and cyber crime also were on the agenda for annual meeting.

The summit comes as European finance chiefs are set to meet this week to discuss a rescue plan, and days ahead of a Dec. 2 report by the U.S. Labor Department on the nation’s unemployment rate for November. The rate for October was 9.0 percent.

About $4.6 trillion was wiped from the value of global equities this month on mounting concern that Europe’s debt crisis is spreading.

Obama Says Solving Euro Crisis of 'Huge Importance' to US

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/uncle-sam-wants-you-bail-out-europe

Officially it never was called an "Emergency summit." But with the European currency only days from collapse according to many economists, it was clear that European leaders came to beg the American president for help.

A closed-door conversation today between US President Barack Obama and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso dealt with, among other things, the ongoing crisis that is spreading out of the Eurozone and into the United States.

And according to statements courtesy of Obama, the time of American intervention could be coming soon, and at a monumental cost to the American public.

The European debt crisis, says the president, is of “huge importance” to the United States, and the Obama administration is “ready to do our part” in keeping the economy overseas afloat.

As Obama attempts to postpone the impeding crumbling of the American economy — and his own administration — the president could propose a bailout to the countries of the European Union that could cost taxpayers upwards of trillions. Given that RT reported earlier today on the massive bailout extended from the Federal Reserve to the biggest banks in the country between 2008 and 2010, an offering of trillions couldn’t be out of the question.

Obama to bail out Europe? — RT

It's hard to actually write a cogent critique of this as this is just such a horrible idea, it practically renders me speechless. What exactly is our part? Are we part of the Euro? Wasn't the Euro created in part to be a competitor to the supremacy of the US Dollar? So isn't it partly in our interest, in order to keep the US Dollar the world's reserve currency, to see the Euro fail horribly? And one more question. The money will come from where exactly? Aren't we ourselves faced with a debt/GDP ratio of 100% with an annual deficit equal to 11% of GDP? Where exactly are we going to find the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars necessary to stem this crisis? There was a rumor this weekend that the IMF was readying a bailout of just Italy which could have totaled $800 billion, so if you add Spain, Portugal and Greece to the mix (and potentially France) the numbers get very serious very fast (of course the rumor was swiftly denied, I guess it was too early to mention that discussion point). Even if Obama is simply referring to the bailout of Europe via the IMF, our "quota" is almost 18% of the funding so for Italy alone this could cost the American taxpayer $144 billion. And chances are it would be much higher as Italy's quota is over 3% and all the countries smaller than Venezuela contribute 28% (how exactly do you ask third world countries to bailout out a lazy first world country?) so my guess is some IMF participants simply won't participate. Try getting that through Congress. Senate Democrats can't even pass a budget. 


The Federal Reserve option just isn't much better. So we are going to print money to buy European bonds now? Our monetary base is $2.6 trillion right now so printing of the magnitude that would be required could have severe a severe inflationary impact, hurting American consumers as commodity prices will undoubtedly skyrocket. As an extra kick in the face, the Euro will actually get even stronger as we will be printing massively at the same time the ECB isn't. Just brilliant. 


For once, it might be a good thing that Team Obama is in campaign mode 24/7. As soon as they see their poll numbers dropping (and they will, like a rock), they will probably chicken out of any actual bailout and do nothing but the usual handwaving. Unless they want to get to the point where even Ron Paul can beat them in the general election. 

Is Obama Going to Bail Out Europe?

Free Energy vs Energy Industry Profits

Converting solar to electric energy is not the complicated part, it is changing the focus of the energy industry as a whole. With so much focus and corporate profit on maintaining the current fossil fuel-based energy system, change needs to be localized, as does the reduction on those fossil fuels. In electric energy, transmission is the greatest loss of energy in the process. Creating vast solar arrays in regions when the sun is constant does capture and convert a great deal of energy into electricity for use, but being nowhere near the point of use makes it a highly inefficient solution, just as coal plants are today, wasting much of the energy produced in transporting it where it will be used. Localizing production of solar energy is one highly efficient way to capture that energy and utilize it right at the point of use. Storage systems are still a necessity if that energy is not put to use immediately upon conversion, so batteries or similar devices are still a necessity.

Other supplemental systems that take advantage of electromagnetic currents of the planet are another option for localized energy conversion into a form we can use anywhere, without the need of massive, inefficient power plants. John Bedini developed his monopole device to do just that, reduce reliance upon inefficient sources and work toward a new era of inexpensive energy. Further back, Nikola Tesla experimented in capturing and converting energy without relying on inefficient sources that degraded the environment. Changing the way that people use and capture energy is the greatest hurdle, but that is easier than forcing the energy industry to move toward sustainable solutions. Free energy is not something that big oil or coal companies are willing to invest in, and they have a history of using the government's monopoly on force to silence these innovations, simply to avoid losing profits.

Mises: The Higher Education Bubble

Read by Steven Ng. B.T. Donleavy is a foreign-exchange specialist in New York City. He has worked at several Fortune 500 companies and he advised Michael Moore on the effects of loose monetary policy for the film "Capitalism: A Love Story".

From: Audio Mises Daily , Wednesday, May 12, 2010 by B. T. Donleavy

The Education Bubble

In the advent of the worst financial crisis seen in decades, there is much to be learned. Many economists agree that creating false demand will eventually create a bubble and crush a market much faster than the natural economic cycle. Take for instance the student loan market. Student loans, subsidized and unsubsidized, allow an 18-year-old to finance some or all of the next four years of his or her life, including living expenses. Morally, is it right to allow our children to start their lives immersed in debt?

In 1992, Congress increased the amount of money a student can borrow from the federal loan program with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The act also enabled students defined as "in need" easier access to funding. Now we see student loans dominating the higher-education industry and accounting for 50% of all financial-aid packages.

According to FinAid.org, the average range of tuition inflation is normally 8% annually, and prices have not fallen or stabilized once since 1977, regardless of economic climate. In 2004, the Census Bureau released a report saying private university and college tuition are "up 93 percent from 1990." This symptom may be attributed to cheap and accessible money, and it is becoming an issue now because tuition is still rising but wages have been flat for a decade.

The Department of Education reports having a $63.7 billion budget in appropriations for 2010. It has also received $96.8 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The department's website states that "department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 14 million post-secondary students." That is roughly 4 million short of every college student in the country. Does this mean that only 22% of students in the United States have adequate means to pay for college? Based on America's economic model, this statistic should theoretically be impossible. This means that over 3/4 of Americans attending higher-education institutions are "in need."

There are benefits to the industry being able to increase prices. Colleges and universities need to be competitive. New revenue means that a college or university can afford better professors and improve infrastructure. It can create new dorms for incoming students and build new facilities to allow better access to labs and campus centers. The overall quality of a school and the educational services it offers will increase.

Loans and grants are not necessarily a bad thing, but when the amount of money flooding the industry drives up the demand to the point of the former becoming a market essential, there is an influx of risk. Similarly, healthcare has also enjoyed the fruits of easy money because of the insurance industry. The added funding for research and development has aided advances in medication and technology. But third-party funding usually drives prices up because consumer decision is weakened in the economic equation. Now healthcare is often unaffordable to the independent purchaser.

In most cases, student aid is an immeasurable liability. The individual's risk at 18-years-old cannot be accurately quantified even with a cosigner. Realistically, no private institution would lend this kind of capital to such a young demographic without credit history. It also should be noted that reports have shown average college students to carry 4 credit cards and an average balance of $3,000 that they cannot pay off in full. This is a small sum compared to the amount they will inherit after a four-year tenure, but it shows that credit is being handed out indiscriminately. A massive amount of speculation is being placed on the payees with no indication of them being able to afford repayment.

"The risk associated with loan obligations are shifted to the taxpayer. Consequently, the act removes obligation and creates a moral hazard with the creation of a virtual backstop."

A boost in educational funding for financing may come at a price. If the current trend continues, students will increase the amount financed and they will be paying for the majority of their education in loans. As the January 14 edition of the Economist notes, "only about 400,000 more Americans were employed in December 2009 than in December 1999, while the population grew by nearly 30m." With an unemployment rate of 10% (real figures are closer to 17%), matters look only more ominous.

Millions of students will graduate with the same popular majors and compete for fewer jobs because a significant amount of manufacturing and industry has left the United States. The supply of students entering the job market will be endless, and businesses will lower the base pay of new employees because of their abundance.

The other scenario is that businesses will not hire them at all because they are fully staffed, thus creating a bottleneck in the job market. Unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare will all suffer from the supply and demand effects of this type of crisis.

State and city universities will not be able to handle every student but they may remain the most inexpensive way of obtaining a diploma. City University of New York has reported a 77.5% increase in transfer students in the last year. This is a sign of education becoming unaffordable. Without major state funding or tuition increases CUNY's infrastructure will not be able to handle the capacity of incoming students.

It is difficult to come to a reasonable assessment on how to address an impending student-loan crisis. Candidates running on a platform of limiting financial aid or reducing the Department of Education will be writing a political death sentence for themselves. The recent Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 will end subsidies for student aid to private lenders. This will make it easier for students to shop for a loan by going directly to the source but will only address who controls the market and has no effect on the economics of tuition cost.

Payments will have a threshold of 10% of a graduate's disposable income and will be forgiven after 20 years while a public servant will be forgiven after ten. The risk associated with loan obligations are shifted to the taxpayer. Consequently, the act removes obligation and creates a moral hazard with the creation of a virtual backstop. With the combination of this backstop and decreasing wages because of an oversupply of workers, the result can only perpetuate default. This bursting bubble will be massive and will affect other major industries such as housing, auto, and credit.

Because of the ease of obtaining these types of loans and leniency in repayment terms, the postsecondary education industry may possibly raise tuition at a faster rate. There lies no risk for a college or university. As long as prices are met, schools can charge whatever the market is willing to pay. Keeping up with the rising costs will be difficult to do because public funding will have to increase exponentially relative to tuition.

In conclusion, we see that the theory of scholastic financial assistance through government intervention does not perform as advertised. The program will actually only hurt the people it is trying to help.

Parents are no longer able to save for their child's college years because postsecondary education price inflation is exponentially higher than the savings rate. This forces more and more students to go into debt before they earn their first professional dollar. It will eventually be disruptive to the economy and will have a massive impact on other industries. Furthermore, debt forgiveness is a moral hazard that means that the debtor has no real obligation and the taxpayer is now responsible.

Whether the student-loan industry is run by the American government or by subsidized lending institutions, the business model is flawed and will continue to force prices upward regardless of whether it makes economic sense.

The Education Bubble

Would you like your college education to be free? Sure, who wouldn't? Well, the people of Tunisia and Egypt are learning that whenever the government supplies something, it is never really "free."

In Tunisia, "free" university education is guaranteed to anyone who passes the government's exams at the end of high school. Largely as a result of this, the number of Tunisians who graduated college more than tripled in the last ten years. This may sound like a good thing, but it has produced a glut of graduates.

Fifty-Seven percent of young Tunisians entering the labor market are college educated. This is while only 30 percent of Americans earn a college degree by the time they are 27. Recent Tunisian college grads have an unemployment rate approximately three times higher than the national average of 15 percent. This is up ninefold from 1994.

The reason for this is not necessarily because having a college education hinders people in getting a job, but because so many college grads are entering the labor market at a time when there are few jobs.

Additionally, government domination of the educational system discourages economic growth. The Tunisian Ministry of Education decides what major students will have. Students are not allowed to change fields during their course of study. This control reduces the type of expertise necessary to create successful businesses.

The Tunisian educational system is also enormously expensive. Of Tunisia's GDP, 7.2 percent is spent on education, more than any European or North American country beside Denmark and Iceland, which also spends 7.2 percent of its GDP on education. Tunisia's educational results, however, appear to be horrible. A 2002 UNESCO report puts its graduation rate at about 30 percent.

Having such a large number of unemployed youths can be dangerous. As George Mason University sociologist Jack A. Goldstone notes, "Educated youth have been in the vanguard of rebellions against authority certainly since the French Revolution and in some cases even earlier."

In fact, the Tunisian protests began after a recent graduate killed himself because government authorities confiscated his fruit stand when they discovered he did not have an "official" permit. The BBC reported that most of the early protesters were unemployed recent graduates.

Like Tunisia, Egypt also has a massive youth-unemployment problem. Unsurprisingly, it also has a system of "free" college education.

In Egypt, enrollment in tertiary education increased from 14 percent in 1990 to approximately 35 percent in 2005. Yet this has not helped the unemployment rate among recent grads. The national Egyptian unemployment rate is 9.4 percent, comparable to the United States, but the unemployment rate for people between the ages of 15 and 29 is 87.2 percent. College graduates, largely because of their age, have a ten times higher unemployment rate than for those who did not attend college.

The Egyptian government also rigidly controls the educational system, just like in Tunisia. A centralized government committee controls decisions regarding curriculum, program development, and deployment of faculty and staff for institutions of higher learning across the entire country. Private universities were only legalized in 1992, and enrollment is very small.

In Egypt, educational expenditures were 3.7 percent of GDP in 2007. By most accounts the Egyptian education system is underfunded. Its educational standards were called "abysmal" by the Economist. Fewer than half of all students graduate, and many universities are viewed as diploma mills.

Although the Egyptian government may have avoided some of the economic costs of "free" higher education that the Tunisian government has incurred, it has not avoided the social costs.

We, in America, might not be as far away from the problems of Tunisia and Egypt as some may be inclined to think.

From 1997 to 2007, full-time enrollment in US tertiary education increased 34 percent. The average college student graduates with $24,000 in debt, a 40 percent real increase from 1997. In 2008, only 57 percent of students enrolled in a four year college graduated within six years. The unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds is 52 percent. The underemployed as a group may be as large as the unemployed in America. For example, in 1970 only 3 percent of mail carriers had a bachelor's degree, while today the number is 12 percent.

Although our case may not be as extreme as that of Tunisia or Egypt, we are headed in the same direction. And just like in Tunisia and Egypt, our education bubble is fueled by governmental policy.

Government accreditation laws keep potential institutions of higher education out of the market, which allows the institutions already in the market to raise their prices. Accreditation institutions can also force institutions of higher education to make changes that increase costs. For instance, the American Bar Association forced the University of Colorado Law School to increase the number of electrical outlets in the library and to construct an instructional court room, which the university claimed caused them to increase tuition.

Government aid also helps institutions of higher education inflate prices. For instance, although the cost of higher education in real dollars increased by 68 percent between 1986 and 2006, when increased government aid is accounted for the real cost to the student increased by only 29 percent. The ceiling of how much students are able to pay is artificially raised, allowing the colleges to charge more.

Also, if a student defaults on a loan backed by the government, which is by far the most common kind of loan, the lender does not bear the loss, the government does. This obviously encourages the lenders to lend more freely than they otherwise would. Enormous losses have been socialized. There is currently $730 billion of outstanding student-loan debt, and the overwhelming majority of losses will be borne by the government if it is not repaid. Only 40 percent of all student debt is being actively repaid.

There are more causes to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt than just the higher-education bubble, but the effect it has had cannot be ignored. We could be bringing ourselves dangerously close to the point when all the people of our country have to learn, one way or another, that nothing the government provides is ever free.

The Education Bubble Is Fuel for Revolt

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.

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.

"Prices and wage rates boom," writes Mises.

Everybody feels happy and is convinced that now finally mankind has overcome forever the gloomy state of scarcity and reached everlasting prosperity.
In fact, all this amazing wealth is fragile, a castle built on sands of illusion. It cannot last. There is no means to substitute banknotes and deposits for nonexistent capital goods.

Times have changed.

Last week, HSBC Holding Plc announced plans to eliminate 30,000 jobs worldwide by the end of 2013. The job cuts will affect "support staff where we believe we have created an unnecessary bureaucracy in this firm over a number of years," HSBC chief executive officer Stuart Gulliver said.

Goldman Sachs plans to cut 1,000 positions. Bank of America is laying off 1,500 employees and closing 600 retail branches.

At the same time that banks are trimming their fat, according to a Labor Department report released earlier this month, from May 2010 to May 2011 local governments shed 267,000 jobs and state governments 24,000. Local government employment in May, at 14.165 million jobs, was the lowest since July 2006.

An increase in the amount of real savings, which induces a fall in the interest rate and a lengthening of the production schedule, increases an economy's productive capacity, creating genuine growth brought about by the investment in higher-order goods such as factories and other production assets.

"Like all booms, higher education has been fueled by credit."

Conversely, easy, cheap credit fools entrepreneurs into believing that society's collective time preference has fallen, enticing them into investing in higher-order goods, such as land, factories, and the like — when in fact the collective time preference hasn't changed, and the demand for higher-order goods is merely a mirage. The result is booms and busts rather than genuine growth.

College degrees are similar to what the Austrians call higher-order goods. It's thought that a student will gain knowledge and seasoning in college that will make him or her more productive and a candidate for a high-paying career. The investment of time and money in knowledge pays through higher productivity and is translated into higher income. Higher education is the higher-order means to a successful career.

PayPal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel, questioning the value of higher education, tells TechCrunch,

A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed. Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It's like telling the world there's no Santa Claus.

The excesses of both college and homeownership were always excused by a core national belief that, no matter what happens in the world, these were the best investments you could make. Housing prices would always go up, and you will always make more money if you are college educated.

The New York Times' David Leonhardt even claims,

Construction workers, police officers, plumbers, retail salespeople and secretaries, among others, make significantly more with a degree than without one. Why? Education helps people do higher-skilled work, get jobs with better-paying companies or open their own businesses.

Using data from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, Leonhardt asserts that dishwashers with college degrees make $34,000 a year while those without make $19,000.

No employer in their right mind would pay nearly double for a dishwasher with a college degree. However, there are plenty of fresh college graduates cobbling together multiple low-level jobs just to make ends meet.

"More college graduates are working in second jobs that don't require college degrees," writes Hannah Seligson in the New York Times, "part of a phenomenon called 'mal-employment.' In short, many baby-sitters, sales clerks, telemarketers and bartenders are overqualified for their jobs."

Nearly 2 million college graduates were mal-employed last year, up 17 percent from 2007. Nearly half of all college graduates are working at a job not requiring a degree.

In the United States, 80,000 bartenders as well as 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees. Nearly a quarter of all retail salespersons have a college degree. In all, 17 million Americans with college degrees are working at jobs that do not require a bachelor's degree.

"Young college graduates working multiple jobs is a natural consequence of a bad labor market and having, on average, $20,000 worth of student loans to pay off," said Carl E. Van Horn, director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers.

"The median starting salary for those who graduated from four-year degree programs in 2009 and 2010 was $27,000, down from $30,000 for those who graduated in 2006 to 2008, before the recession," Seligson writes, adding, "Try living on $27,000 a year — before taxes — in a city like New York, Washington or Chicago."

Like all booms, higher education has been fueled by credit. In June of last year, total student-loan debt exceeded total credit-card debt outstanding for the first time, totaling more than $900 billion.

"Not only are the returns poor, but the quality of the product is poor."

All of this credit has pushed the average cost of tuition up 440 percent in the last 25 years, more than four times the rate of inflation. But while the factors of production on campus have been bid up, just as they are in any other asset boom, the return on investment is a bust. In 1992, there were 5.1 million mal-employed college graduates. By 2008, the number was 17 million.

Not only are the returns poor, but the quality of the product is poor (as in the case of new-construction quality in the housing boom). According to the authors of Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, 45 percent of students make no gains in their critical reasoning and thinking skills, as well as writing ability, after two years in college. More than one out of three college seniors were no better at writing and thinking than they were when they first arrived at their campuses.

Many projects contemplated and started during the real-estate boom are never completed, as prices are bid up, and owners run out of capital. Such is the case for many attending college, as over 45 percent of those who enroll as freshmen ultimately give up, realizing they lack the disciplinary and mental capital, and do not graduate.

Similar to the government push for increased homeownership, government is foursquare behind having more young people attend universities. One of President Obama's top goals is to increase the number of Americans attending college.

But why? "Among the members of the class of 2010, just 56 percent had held at least one job by this spring, when the survey was conducted," reported the Times recently. "That compares with 90 percent of graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007."

And because they can't find jobs, 85 percent of college grads move back in with their parents after they graduate. According to a poll by Twentysomething Inc., a marketing and research firm based in Philadelphia, that rate has steadily risen from 67 percent in 2006.

Perversely, while the market tries to clear away malinvestments in finance and real estate, plus the jobs that supported them, colleges continue to turn out more business majors than any other discipline. In 2007 and 2008 there were more than 335,000 business degrees granted — 100,000 more than a decade before, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

At the same time as law schools have a building boom underway, many new law grads can't find work or are working temporary jobs at $15 an hour.

David Segal reports for The New York Times,

As other industries close offices and downsize plants, the manufacturing base behind the doctor of jurisprudence keeps growing. Fordham Law School in New York recently broke ground on a $250 million, 22-story building. The University of Baltimore School of Law and the University of Michigan Law School are both working on buildings that cost more than $100 million. Marquette University Law School in Wisconsin has just finished its own $85 million project. A bunch of other schools have built multimillion dollar additions.

And while law grads can't find work, law schools are enrolling more students than ever before at tuition rates of $40,000+ a year. Segal explains that law-school tuition has increased at 4 times the rate of undergraduate education, which itself has increased 4 times the CPI. "From 1989 to 2009, when college tuition rose by 71 percent, law school tuition shot up 317 percent."

Students and their parents are investing in the higher-order good of a college degree, in the mistaken belief that plenty of jobs await college graduates at the end of four or six or seven years. However, time preferences haven't changed. The demand for consumer goods remains, and that's where the jobs are. The boom in demand for bankers, barristers, and bureaucrats is over.

The Higher-Education Bubble Has Popped

On Liberty, Economics

To change the world for the better, to really change the world, we can not believe that one candidate for public office will save our society. True salvation lies in the people, changing their hearts and minds. If we start from the ground and work our way up, we can realize a future that functions for the greater good; not for the benefit of those who govern, but for the governed. I see Anarcho-capitalism as one of the most likely solutions, abandoning our failed system of crony government that benefits those in support of ever-increasing government, but working to free the individual people to live life as we are meant to. Libertarian politics are a step in the right direction for the government, but a small step at best for that governed majority. Economics will always be tied at the hip to politics as long as those who govern believe that we must control private exchanges between individuals and organizations for the benefit of those in government.

Cato: How Much Ivory Does This Tower Need?

Is the Obama administration justified in it's efforts to circumvent Congressional authority to set economic policy? Increasing government subsidies of educational costs is simply unsustainable.

How Much Ivory Does This Tower Need?

It is commonly asserted, especially by people within higher education, that the American Ivory Tower is strapped for cash and tightfisted taxpayers are to blame. Taxpayer support for postsecondary education has long been in decline, this narrative goes, and has forced schools to continually raise tuition to make up for the losses.

Tallying taxpayer-backed expenditures on higher education over the last quarter-century, and separately tallying 15 years of taxpayer burdens after accounting for student loans being paid back, reveals that this narrative is inaccurate. No matter how you slice it, the burden of funding the Ivory Tower has grown ever heavier on the backs of taxpaying citizens. Whether one examines taxpayer dollars in total, per enrollee, per degree, or per tax-paying citizen, real spending has gone up.

Unfortunately, financial costs are only part of the story. While the evidence is not conclusive, it appears that the additional spending and the additional students and degrees it has helped to fund do not ultimately constitute a net societal gain. Instead, all the coerced, thirdparty support has likely produced several damaging, unintended consequences: credential inflation, sky-high noncompletion rates, and rampant tuition inflation. In other words, the money taken from taxpayers, in total and on an individual basis, to "invest" in higher education has been on the rise, and it appears to be hurting both taxpayers individually and society as a whole. We have taken money from people who would have used it more efficiently than has the system to which it was given.

How Much Ivory Does This Tower Need? What We Spend on, and Get from, Higher Education

To me, this is why promises to reduce costs to students and forgiveness of loans is invalid to me, as those costs are simply passed on to taxpayers, even if indirectly by playing a shell game with spending and debts.

Homeowners Associations and Threats of Violence

 

I'm seeing less and less reasons to continue to maintain a HOA. I'd rather see it change to a voluntary organization, especially in rough economic times. I keep my property clean and well-maintained, so I don't see the point in having anyone tell me to do what I already do, under threat of violence. As for those who fail to maintain and clean their property, I see it as their right, since it's their property and not mine. I believe that most state, city and county ordinances are sufficient in maintaining safety and sanitary situations.

I am here to say, I am not sure of the HOA’s job.  My guess is, it’s an effort to line their pockets, so someone can sit behind a desk and write letters from tattle tailing neighbors, and charge too much for mowing grass, but I could be wrong.  I guess this is the price you pay to live in civilization, and even though I knew about the HOA before moving, I didn’t know about the fluctuating fees, and nosy neighbor clause.  My advice is to get a copy of the HOA guidelines for a neighborhood you are considering, along with several yearly projections of their estimated costs (if it’s an established neighborhood) and see if the fees have changed from year to year, so you can get an idea of how they manage things.  And, if you get the chance, have a chat with the people living there, it will give you a feel for what you are getting into.  We will see if the economy gets better, what kind of surprise fee change we will get!  The HOA=government at its finest.

Home Owners Associations Is it a Dictatorship, Government?

Are HOA dues a form of violent threats?

Extortion: Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. This is a common reaction to forced taxation, but can apply to a variety of scenarios, including mandatory owners associations. Threat of legal action up to and including taking away possession of one's home is a threat of violence. This is why I believe that a voluntary owners association is more practical and supports individual property rights and freedoms. I believe that a homeowners association should simply encourage residents to maintain and keep property clean, without that threat of violence. If residents chose to participate and improve or maintain the community beyond their homes, that should be a choice, not a mandate. It is the people that make a community work, not the threat against them, which improves or maintains the community.

Should others have the right to dictate how you live your life?

A Chicago suburbanite has been growing his front yard for food. And it raises a lot of questions about the legality of food independence. So far, the act of growing food for personal use is not illegal; rather, it is left up to neighbors to decide what is best for their neighborhoods. More or less, this is probably the best and most democratic method of neighborhood sustainability for now, except when trouble comes days like ours where a serious economic decline in which unkempt front lawns of abandoned or repossessed houses invite a further plunge in already slumping real estate values.

Urban Agriculture: Chicago Suburb Gives a Yarden the Stinkeye

Most people are not happy with these HOA's and their Communist / Nazi dominating overseeing warlord attitude concerning you as an individual property owner and your rights.
Some states like Arizona now compel builders to have HOA's, which are regulated by a general real estate term called CC&R's (covenants, conditions & restrictions).

Homeowner Association Rant blog

Sign a petition to take some of the bite out of homeowners associations: Permanently Stop Homeowner and Property Owner Association Foreclosures 

JP Morgan Gives $4.6 Million To NYPD

New York City Police Foundation — New York

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops, as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD's main data center.

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon a note expressing "profound gratitude" for the company's donation.

"These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe," Dimon said. "We're incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know how much we value their hard work."

This garbage is why I have been making every effort I can to extract any of my money that JPM is clutching to still. These crooks throw up every barrier the can to helping the small investor. I'm done investing. I'm done supporting a corrupt system that manipulates our economy for the benefit of the big players. I'm done contributing the results of my hard work to gamblers and thieves. Like Mike Ruppert says; at this point, anyone still supporting these systems is the enemy.

Perfect timing too, with the Occupy Wall Street Protests threatening to undermine banks' stranglehold on the failing economy, they are throwing money at law enforcement in hopes that their assets will be protected. The trouble I see is that law enforcement are generally one step away from unemployment and homelessness, just like the rest of the nation. After a few officers get foreclosure notices from JPM and similar banks, that's when their support will end. Law enforcement and military enlistees are in the 99% with the rest of us, it's just a matter of helping them recognize it, waking them up.

JP Morgan Gives $4.6 Million To NYPD

Source - The Daily Bail

Obama Bucks Can't Save Solyndra

"Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy as part of the 2009 stimulus package. This wasn't small potatoes. The loan guarantee was for $535 million. ... As my Washington Examiner colleague David Freddoso reported, an audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama's visit noted that the firm had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence. The auditor noted that Solyndra 'has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders' deficit that, among other factors, raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.' One of the original investors in Solyndra was Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, who was also a major contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign. In early 2011, Kaiser and other investors provided an additional $75 million in financing to Solyndra. They did so on condition, approved by the Energy Department, that they receive priority over previous creditors, including the government. ... But let's assume for the time being that there was no criminal conduct here, no violation of government procedures, no fraud. Let's assume everyone in the administration acted with good faith. There's still a scandal -- the scandal of the government handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to unproven and speculative businesses. ... The real scandal is the 'green jobs' loan guarantee program itself. And the ones getting scammed are American taxpayers." --political analyst Michael Barone

How can we stop crony capitalism?

More

The Peak Oil Crisis: Efficiency is the Solution

Efficiency is most definitely the answer to dwindling resources, But government involvement in business has a way of undermining and at times corrupting those goals. 

If there is a way to get through the loss of fossil fuels, it lies in developing new and more efficient ways to generate renewable energy and more efficient ways of utilizing the fossil fuels we have left. Renewable sources currently provide only 16 percent of our energy in the U.S. and 11 percent of our electric power. Unless the production of these renewables can be increased substantially in the next 50 years and the efficiency with which we use energy increased many fold, then the world is going to become a very dark and stagnant place.

There is running debate going on between people who believe all is lost without copious supplies of fossil fuels to power the global civilization and those who believe that the conservation and efficiency that will come with very high fossil fuel prices will provide a recognizable future for civilization. The great unknowns in all this is whether there will be sufficient financial and other resources available to effect the transition and whether or not the damage wrought by a changing climate will be so serious that a global transition to renewable energy will be difficult if not impossible.

For the immediate future, however, much of what life in the future will be like will depend on the technologies that will enable civilization to continue while using only a fraction of the energy that is consumed today and to develop the technology to produce large quantities of cheaper renewable fuels. The manner in which our fossil fuels are being used is so wasteful of the energy contained in fossil fuels that major reductions can be made with little real impact on the activities that consume energy. The prime examples of this waste is the internal combustion engine which uses only 14 percent of its fuel to turn the wheels while wasting most of the rest. Huge central power plants waste most of the energy that devours coal and natural gas, and produce much waste heat that is dumped into the air or local water bodies or in line losses. Without the massive waste, the fossil fuel age could last a lot longer.

Announcements of new technological discoveries and developments that may prove to be important to the post carbon era are being made constantly. Some of these technologies are likely to have a significant impact on future decades if not centuries - just as steam wrought massive changes to the 19th century and internal combustion did to the 20th. Keeping track of all the changing technology that may impact the way we live is not easy. Some developments make it into the media and receive widespread attention; other equally significant developments are so technical or are still unproven laboratory experiments that few ever hear of them or appreciate the significance they could have. As these emerging technologies are likely to be an important part of our future, I will make an effort to keep track of those that could have much potential and discuss them periodically.

The Energy Independence and Security Act will effectively ban 100-watt incandescents starting in 2012. Seventy-five-watt bulbs will depart in 2013, followed by 60- and 40-watt lamps a year later. During August the Department of Energy announced that Phillips Lighting had been awarded the $10 "L" prize for the best LED light bulb. This 60 watt light bulb will be available next year as will others. The Indians who are about to be faced with endemic power shortages expect to be marketing a $15 LED shortly. A start-up called Switch expects to be selling a 60 watt bulb in the fall that draws 13 watts, creates light indistinguishable from an incandescent, and will sell for around $30.

Most of us recoil at the notion of a single seat car that does not have the flexibility to drive everybody, everywhere, at any time. Cheap gasoline has so conditioned us to this mindset that we do not acknowledge the massive waste involved in large cars moving only one person most of the time. If 75 percent of our travel was done without the waste of the single person in a multi-person automobile, the fossil fuel age would last a lot longer.

More

Gerald Celente from Trends Research

DNR:
Democrats 'n Republicans
Do Not Resuscitate

More

No Additional Subsidies for State & Local Governments

According to press reports, the president will roll out a $300 billion stimulus package "jobs plan" this week. The plan will contain additional subsidies for state and local government, including money for school construction.
My colleagues Adam Schaeffer and Andrew Coulson have explained that money to build schools is one of the last things that the government school system needs (see here and here). There will probably be money for "hiring teachers" and other targets that the administration thinks will play well with the electorate – not to mention government employee unions.
The electorate – and reporters covering the president's plan – should understand that subsidies to state and local government have gone through the roof since 2000:

A Cato essay on federal aid to state and local government explains why these subsidies should be abolished, not increased. The following are five fundamental reasons:

1. Subsidies undermine constitutional federalism. The federal government should handle only those issues that are truly national in scope, such as defending the country from attack. The Constitution assigned the federal government specific limited powers, and the 10^th Amendment clearly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
2. Subsidies destroy the concept of the states being "laboratories of democracy." The beauty of "fiscal federalism" is that it allows the states to experiment and figure out what does and doesn't work. It also allows citizens to live in a state with policies that match their preferences. Federal subsidies stifle this experimentation and limit the choices available to citizens.
3. Subsidies fuel burdensome regulations and bureaucratic waste. The federal government creates countless regulatory hoops that the states have to jump through in order to get the federal handouts. The rules and regulations naturally spark an explosion in bureaucracy at all levels of government. When I was a budget official in the state of Indiana, I saw firsthand the federal and state taxpayer money being wasted trying to administer programs funded with federal dollars.
4. Subsidies misallocate taxpayer resources. Federal aid misallocates resources because the money is distributed on the basis of political, rather than economic, considerations. Congress uses complex formulas to disburse money to the states that ensure that just about everyone gets a piece of the pie. Spreading the largesse across many congressional districts and states helps secure the votes necessary to ensure that the programs are continued. For example, federal community development subsidies were originally intended for poor areas, but now the money goes to poor, middle-class, and rich areas alike.
5. Subsidies breed irresponsibility and waste. Federal politicians and bureaucrats waste a lot of money for the simple reason that it isn't their money. Federal subsidies exacerbate the problem at the state and local level: not only are state and local officials playing with other people's money – they're playing with money that they didn't have to tax from their citizens. And because state and local citizens weren't taxed to pay for these federally funded activities, they have less incentive to pay attention to how the money is spent.

More

Postal Service on verge of financial collapse

The U.S. Postal Service is on the verge of financial collapse and should eliminate Saturday delivery, close thousands of local post offices, restructure its health plan and lay off 120,000 workers to survive, according to Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.

Donahoe asked lawmakers to allow him to make “radical” changes to the centuries-old institution so it could avoid defaulting on its obligations. At a Senate hearing Tuesday, he said the Postal Service is all but certain to miss a $5.5 billion payment to its retiree health fund due at the end of the month. And that only begins the trouble, he said, warning that the postal system is heading toward a $10 billion net loss this fiscal year and is near its borrowing limit.

With operating cash running out quickly, trucks, mail processing centers and mail delivery could come to a halt by this time next year, Donahoe said.

“Failure to act could be catastrophic,” Donahoe told members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees the postal service.

The new proposals reflect heightened desperation at an agency that has been on the decline for years. The rise of email has dramatically curbed demand for old-fashioned letters, while competitive delivery companies have put the squeeze on the post office’s business model. Last year, the post office delivered 171 billion pieces of mail, down 20 percent from just four years earlier. Volume is on track to fall an additional 2 percent this year.

More

Egypt Trades One Dictator for Another, is the US Any Different?

Revolution. It's a funny word when you think about it. In political terms, 'revolution' conjures images of heroes battling tyrants, of all-out forcible insurrection in the name of freedom and change.

Funny is right. It's a big joke on the people by the elite. Huge riots continuing in Egypt. Experts say one of the problems over there is, there's a huge difference in wealth between the extremely rich and the vast majority of people who have nothing. Well, thank God that could never happen in this country. —Jay Leno

From a celestial perspective, however, 'revolution' denotes one complete orbit of a planetary body around its center, as in the earth's revolution around the sun. In other words, after a revolution, you end up right back where you started.

Same word, two completely different meanings– on one hand you have change, and on the other you have more of the same. This is exactly what has happened after Egypt's revolution this year.

This sounds eerily similar to the two party system we have in the US. We shift back and forth between the two, with political revolutions that shift the balance of power back to the other party, but the elite still maintains all control. The general public is allowed to believe that thongs have changed for the better when the shift happens, but it's a rouse.

Sure, Hosni Mubarak is now standing trial after 3-decades of looting and pillaging his country's wealth. For most Egyptians, this is viewed as a major victory; there is a feeling of intense optimism here on the streets of Cairo, and even though nothing is fundamentally different, expectations are high.

Mubarak was a symbol of tyranny, and a great deal of blood was shed to topple his regime. Unfortunately, Egyptians have essentially replaced one form of dictatorship with another.

There is now one person in charge of Egypt– military Supreme Commander Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. Tantawi was Mubarak's Minister of Defense, and as the man in charge of roughly one million soldiers, sailors, and airmen in a country with no political system, Tantawi has absolute authority.

He's not shy about using it either. Just ask any of the thousands of Egyptians who have been tried and sentenced by despotic military tribunals over the last several months.

Many of these 'criminals' were bloggers like Maikel Nabil Sanad– found guilty of insulting the Egyptian military establishment. Sanad is currently serving a three-year sentence after a rubber-stamp tribunal convicted him five months ago. Several other bloggers and public figures have been jailed or detained as well.

Despite all the song and dance about freedom in Egypt, their revolution has brought them right back to where they started– an autocratic dictatorship.

The more things change...

When you think about it, this is how things usually work out in politics. How many people have campaigned on the 'change' platform, only to end up following the same path as the last guy? As the saying goes, 'the more things change, the more they stay the same.'

Egypt is due to hold parliamentary elections in a few months' time. It's questionable whether Tantawi will give up his supreme, unchecked power… but whatever happens, one thing is clear: a new power elite will emerge in Egypt that helps itself to wealth and privilege at the expense of everyone else.

I'd be seriously surprised to see the military leadership step down after taking control of the country. Especially after the violations of human rights and oppressive actions against the natural right to free speech.

This is the great weakness in any political system: 'government' is based on the idea that some individual or organization is awarded power than no human being should possess– the power to kill, to declare war, to steal, to defraud, to counterfeit.

All of these powers are considered immoral by man, but perfectly acceptable for government… and no matter how much they dress it up as being good for the people, any political system makes full use of its authority in order to maintain the status quo and keep the ruling elite in power.

This is why the world powers are collapsing. These governments and control systems have been taking too much and pushing too hard for far too long, and the average person around the world is getting tired of it. Most people simply want the freedom to live their lives and make their own choices. Most of what governments do is for big business interests and has little positive effect on the lives of the individual.

Egypt underscores an important lesson from history: with rare exception, even when you topple the ruling elite, someone else will simply step up to fill the void… just as the French traded Louis XVI for Maximilien Robespierre's Reign of Terror in the 1790s.

This is why advocating for political change, while virtuous and noble in deed, is ultimately a wasted effort. Power-hungry megalomaniacs and their sycophantic yes-men will always rise to the top, conning the masses along the way that 'change is coming'. It's all a big snow job.

Bottom line- politicians are in it for their own benefit, not for yours. We only have a finite amount of resources available– time, money, and energy. It's far better to allocate those resources to improving your own situation rather than some politician's chances of reelection.

Localization is the most effective way to change the world. Let go of reliance on central governments. Stop contributing to the financial systems that big businesses and government rely on to survive and grow. Focus on local community and those elite systems of control will fade into history.

It's time to invest in yourself– build a pool of savings, develop alternate sources of income, diversify internationally… and most of all, have a plan. You don't want to be caught flat-footed when these sociopaths drive the bus off the cliff.

More

We have no ability to stop those willing to jump off the cliff, we can only make the decision not to follow.

Collapse Consciously, as Baker says


Wake Up

Home Foreclosures, Government Doesn't Know How to Fix It

Washington has issued a plea to the public for ideas on how to get rid of houses For sale or rent by distressed owner: 248,000 homes. That's how many residential properties the U.S. government now has in its possession, the result of record numbers of people defaulting on government-backed mortgages. Washington is sitting on nearly a third of the nation's 800,000 repossessed houses, making the U.S. taxpayer the largest owner of foreclosed properties. With even more homes moving toward default, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration are looking for a way to unload them without swamping the already depressed real estate market. Trouble is, they haven't figured out how to do that. The government admitted as much in August, when Fannie, Freddie and FHA issued a joint plea to the public for ideas about how to solve the problem. (Give it your best shot: You have until Sept. 15 to email ideas to reo.rfi@fhfa.gov.) "They're stuck," says Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a Washington-based consultant that advises banks and other clients on government policy. "They don't know what to do." Since the 2008 financial collapse, the government has spent billions of dollars trying to extricate borrowers from high-cost loans, aid delinquent homeowners and stabilize neighborhoods. The results have been disappointing. The Obama Administration's signature loan-modification program has helped about 657,000 homeowners - far short of its goal of 3 to 4 million. The program was a victim of its complexity and its inability to cope with overwhelming demand. Many families hit hardest by the housing downturn are concentrated in states that are having the most difficulty recovering from the recession, including Florida, Ohio and Nevada.

More

Justice nominee keeps names of 11 clients secret - Washington Times

Michael E. Horowitz, President Obama’s nominee as the Justice Department’s top watchdog, has earned more than $4 million since last year as an attorney representing the likes of Pfizer Inc., Dow Chemical Co. and Cablevision Systems Corp. But he is keeping the identities of nearly a dozen other clients secret on newly filed ethics forms.

Federal ethics rules require nominees to disclose clients and customers so ethics officials and the public can vet potential conflicts of interest. But because of a narrow exception to the rules, Mr. Horowitz is withholding about half of his client list, meaning he essentially will have to police himself on any potential conflicts.

The secrecy is permitted thanks to an exception that allows attorney-client confidentiality to trump government disclosure mandates in limited circumstances, such as when a client has been involved in secret proceedings.

Nominated last month to be the Justice Department’s inspector general, Mr. Horowitz noted on a recent disclosure form filed with the Office of Government Ethics that the names of 11 clients were being withheld “where the representation involved a grand jury or other nonpublic investigation and the client name was not made public.”

Under federal ethics rules, nominees are permitted to keep clients secret if the identity is protected by court order or under seal. In addition, nominees can decline to disclose the identity of a client who has been the subject of a grand jury or nonpublic investigation, or if a written confidentiality agreement was in place when the lawyer was hired.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/1/justice-nominee-keeps-names-of-11-clients-secret/

Social Activist Hazare Encouraging People to Fight Corruption

 

NEW DELHI: This is not the end, but a new beginning — this was the general mood on Sunday after Anna Hazare ended his fast. People at the Ramlila Maidan claimed that the movement has only inspired them to continue the revolution in their day-to-day lives.The movement, driven largely by undying public support and enthusiasm, has resulted in heightened awareness of corruption and how it has bled the country white. "I had planned to pay Rs 4,000 as bribe to clear an exam, as I felt I wasn't sufficiently prepared. But after participating in the movement, I have promised myself never to do it. I will not be corrupt," said Deepak Rathi, an engineer from Faridabad.Rahul Raghav, businessman, said: "The first step is not to pay bribe anymore. I own an HR consultancy firm, and most of the time, we have to pay bribes to hire consultants. But this will happen no more, even if I suffer losses. If everyone stops paying bribe, no one will face problems."A group of civil services aspirants present at the grounds claimed that the movement had inspired them to envision future where electoral reforms, decentralization of power and direct involvement of people in nation building was possible. "I am impressed to see that a change at such a mass level could be brought about through the united effort of the common people. Perhaps it has helped to make many people less cynical about life. The movement has certainly given the youth an adrenaline rush," said Dhruva Sharma of the group.Megha Nand Lakhera, who had come with her husband and three-year-old daughter to celebrate the "people's win", said: "Now we will not ignore everyday corruption that we tolerated earlier: be it at ration shops or in public transport. These small things will make a difference, and we have brought our daughter along, hoping that we will be able to educate her for a better tomorrow."

Times of India

Apple Lobbies Obama For Tax Holiday, Wants To Bring Its Riches Home

Amazing. Obama only seems interested in helping the American people when there is something in it for him and big government. He has little concern for reality or for the dissent he is breeding in the American people with his power grabs and bleeding of the national economy. This effort by government to collect as much wealth from private citizens and companies to create a more socialistic society is one of the main reasons we are in such bad shape and are headed the way of the former soviet union; collapse.

Will Obama continue to position himself against the US economic recovery and taxpaying voters? Or will he continue to push toward socialist reforms that will lead us to a national collapse?

Apple's profits stashed overseas is getting restless for a trip the the United States. The tech giant, frequently seen wealthier than the U.S. government and Exxon-Mobile, is lobbying the U.S. government for a five percent 'tax holiday.' In a bizarre picture, Apple is aligned with Republicans and against the Democratic American President.

At it's last quarterly report, Apple announced it had almost $80 billion in cash.
Google, Oracle and Cisco are also part of the "WIN America Campaign" that argues "incentives to invest at home is a common sense solution that will immediately inject up to $1 trillion into our economy and provide businesses with the security and certainty they need to help Americans get back to work," according the the group's website. So far, the proposed bill has picked up support of 15 Republicans and eight Democrats in the House of Representatives.

So far opposed to the effort is President Barack Obama, to whom the companies donated $1.3 million in 2008.

Apple has a growing interest in protecting its foreign profits. During the last quarter, 62 percent of the iPad and iPhone maker's profits came from international sales. For some time, Apple executives have pointed to China as holding a huge potential for sales growth.

Source

Government and Wall Street Conspiring Against your 401k

A while back, I made a prediction that something bad was going to happen before the end of 2011.  I think the recent stock market plunge qualifies as “something bad.”  Where have all the trillions of dollars gone from the stock market?  I think Wall Street is up to its old tricks and harvested the public’s hard earned 401-k money—again.  The stock market has been an awful place for the “buy and hold” investor to park his money for the past 11 years.  The little guy has been fleeced time and again by the short selling sharks.  Back in June, James Howard Kunstler wrote a piece on his blog (Kunstler.com) that ended with this statement: “Bernanke, Obama, Geithner are powerless against the dark lurking churn, though they can easily make it worse. What a summer we’re in for. Get out of the stock market.” (Click here for the complete original post.)   How can they make it worse?  Print lots of money and bail out their friends.   Telling people to get out of the market was a stellar call.  Mr. Kunstler is today’s guest writer, and according to him, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.  Please enjoy his excellent post.—Greg Hunter–

More