Making Political Sense: Just a Few Phrase I Hate
By: James Miller
Published 04/19/2011“Hate” can be a pretty strong word, but there is no other way to describe the kind of feeling I get when people utter the following phrases.
We need a constant increase in the amount of money in society to keep up with the rising population.
This simplistic notion is driven by the idea that money constitutes some type of wealth in our society.
The reality is that money itself (especially paper money) is a facilitator of transactions, not a measure of wealth. It falls under the laws of “supply and demand” like any other commodity.
With a fixed supply, an increase in the demand for money will increase its value. Prices on all goods will lower to correlate with the rise in value. Since population increase coincides with a greater demand on money, money’s value will have to adjust automatically.
The only affect of an increasing money supply is the continual depletion of the value of money and incentive to consume rather than save.
Without government, we would not have rights.
It can never be stressed enough how dangerous this notion actually is. In a society where the government determines our rights, it can easily take them away.
Libertarians such as myself believe in the natural rights doctrine. Natural rights are universal and revolve around the ideas of liberty, private property and not interfering with the property of others.
They are not something the government grants us, rather they are the aspects of society in which government is unable to interfere.
These ideas evolved from society’s initial beginnings which grew from people's mutual gain from living close together and adopting a set standard of rules rather. Government came after.
If government did not provide (insert whatever public service), it would not exist.
Disregard the fact that education, protection and services for the disabled were all provided for by private entities before the government stepped in.
In a true market economy, the demand for such services will be provided by those seeking to provide the best care in order to earn a profit. At the same time, philanthropy and private charity would also fund such services.
The difference between the market economy and our current system is the implementation of forced payment for services through taxation. Just because the government legislates something does not guarantee its existence.
Congress could pass a law tomorrow that declares the U.S. establish a base on Mars, but we do not yet posses the technology to do so. Government can only provide services that are economically feasible, not pipedreams.
Going to the moon was possible only through previous technological gains and the siphoning off of billions of dollars in resources from the private sector.
And where exactly does the Constitution authorize the government to go to the moon anyway?
Critical thinking is one of the most valuable tools you can learn in college. It has no better use than debunk widely believed myths. Learn it now before it is too late.
Making Political Sense: Ron Paul for President
By: James Miller
Published 04/26/2011One congressman predicted the 2008 financial crisis. He knew the fiscal disaster that low-credit policies of both the Greenspan and Bernanke Federal Reserve would bring.
His career in Congress began after President Richard Nixon’s elimination of the gold standard. He recognized that cutting the gold standard would lead to an explosion in the money supply and subsequent prices.
He has broken with Republican Party leadership on his persistent call to scale down our massive military industrial complex and imperialistic global policy.
He is literally the only Congressman to call out the Federal Reserve System for what it is: a banking system run for elite financial institutions who receive newly printed “wealth” before the rest of the population.
He understands business cycles and the mechanism of human action through which order is achieved in a free society.
And he has never voted once to raise taxes.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul has proven time and time again to be the premier example of what a statesman should be. He does not think in terms of offering immediate favors for the sake of getting votes and campaign contributions.
The majority of his campaign contributions come through grass roots fundraising. Supporters realize that Paul is not beholden to special interests, but to the interests of the whole.
He is despised by those who reside in the highest arches of academia and financial wealth. They know he opposes the policies that subsidize their own well being.
Paul is concerned only with liberty and the long-term prosperity of the country.
Though he is often mocked by major political pundits as being “fringe,” Paul commands a small but dedicated base of supporters.
Pundits who ridicule Paul fail to acknowledge why he garners such enthusiasm. They are locked into the two-party ideology and acceptance of big government.
Why Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fail to cultivate such support is dumbfounding.
Paul represents the third way outside of the nanny-state liberals and war-mongering conservatives. The way is toward liberty and Paul is the embodiment of Jeffersonian democracy.
The generation before mine will run the entitlement state into the ground. It is inevitable; there is not enough money to go around.
With the country nearly bankrupt with over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the dollar will continue to lead the race to the bottom for all global currencies.
Paul has fought against this for more than 30 years and the mainstream media is beginning to catch on. “The Ron Paul Revolution” has already begun and it will be televised.
This will be my last column for The Slate. I just want to thank Chelsea Wehking and the rest of the staff for allowing me to write over the past year.
My goal was to bring a different perspective to politics and our government structure. If I changed at least one mind through writing, then all the hours dedicated to my column were worth it.
I thank everyone that has read my column and supported me in the past.
--------------
It's a bit depressing that I won't be writing for The Slate anymore but I am glad I got to get my message out for so long.
Krugman's column today ended on a surprising note:
Lately the inflationistas have seized on rising oil prices as evidence in their favor, even though — as Mr. Bernanke himself pointed out — these prices have nothing to do with Fed policy. The way oil prices are coloring the discussion led the economist Tim Duy to suggest, sarcastically, that basic Fed policy is now to do nothing about unemployment “because some people in the Middle East are seeking democracy.”Ron Paul has been great at shedding light on the Fed, but I think Krugman misstates his overall influence. You can't turn on the CNBC or pick up a newspaper without reading or hearing about increasing prices and the "i" word. Just check out the Reuters word bubble Krugman mentions on Bernanke's press conference:But I’d put it differently. I’d say that the Fed’s policy is to do nothing about unemployment because Ron Paul is now the chairman of the House subcommittee on monetary policy.
Check out this eye catching Politico article by George Soros:
So what exactly does Soros agree with?
While I was admiring the elegance of Popper’s theory, I was also studying elementary economics. I was struck by a contradiction between the theory of perfect competition, which postulated perfect knowledge, with Popper’s theory, which asserted that perfect knowledge was unattainable. The contradiction could be resolved by recognizing that economic theory cannot meet the standards of Newtonian physics.So Soros kind of agrees with Hayek that perfect knowledge on the market is impossible and attempting to base policy off of such knowledge creates unintended consequences (Hayek's information problem). Human action is too unpredictable for large governmental economic policy. Yet Soros still opts for regulation of financial markets, but fails to mention what these regulations would be. And I love how Soros labels Hayek a "Chicago school" economist; further proving his ignorance.That is why I sided with Hayek — who warned against the slavish imitation of natural science and took issue with Popper — who asserted the doctrine of unity of method.
Taylor Cottman is predicting 8% inflation in the U.S. over the next three years in his latest EconomyPolitics post. Why?
..the real threat of inflation is not the current printing of money which Bernanke et al have been doing. It is the previous printing of money which has been taken out of circulation. The threat is as great as its ever been. The amount of money in foreign reserves is about one third or more of M2, or every dollar which is held by US bank account (business or retail), and all currency combined.There are signs that this dollar regime will be ending. The cracks have been apparent for some time, but we just blew a big hole in the US Dollar dam. This week, China has announced that they will reduce their US dollar holdings by more than 1.7 Trillion Dollars.
1.7 Trillion dollars is the amount that we have added to our money supply since August 2007. If all that money were to come into the current US money supply all at once it would increase money supply by 19%. That would make US inflation among the highest in the world.Foreign dollar reserves do pose a threat to entering our money supply, but the same can be said of the $1 trillion in excess reserves that domestic banks have stored at the Fed. Unless Bernanke can plug the drain if this money is released, it could have a major inflationary impact.
Source: SIFMA If this action were to be followed by other central banks in Japan or Europe, there would be a real danger of hyperinflation to the tune of 50%.Now, odds are they won't do this all at once. That is why we have said that at least the amount of inflation, should it be spread out over 3 years should be 8% or more.
At least consumption and income are up a bit so Bernanke can take credit for something:
March Personal Income comes at 0.5% on expectations of 0.4%, while spending is also 10 bps higher than consensus of 0.5% printing at 0.6%. Sizable prior revisions see February income of 0.3% revised to 0.4%, while spending was revised from 0.7% to 0.9. As a result the February savings rate we revised lower to 5.5%, which is where the March savings rate came as well.
Yet savings remain stagnant, which doesn't bode well for long-term recovery.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar