By Milton Friedman Re-Blogged From YouTube
It’s time to show you’re Fed up! Get mad as hell! Don’t take this any more! Scorch the earth with your rage! Yell from the rooftops! Stick your head out the window and scream! Fight the economic injustice that serves the rich! Kick political asses, and kick them hard! Don’t just whine, do something about it!
Ten commandments to show you’re Fed up!
1) End manipulated markets by taking away the Fed’s mandate to create sound employment, The addition of this mandate gave the Federal Reserve way too much economic power! Denude the Federal Reserve back to its one original mandate — maintaining a stable money supply.
For the past few centuries, Western Civilization has dominated the world both culturally and economically. Why? Some point to imperialism, slavery, and colonial wars. But those sins are common to all empires throughout history. What separates the West from the rest? Stanford historian Niall Ferguson has the answer in this highly informative video.
Pleze watch the VIDEO
It’s time for free-market capitalism to reclaim its legacy as a creator of prosperity — not just for citizens of the Western world, but for people everywhere. It’s not capitalism that has to justify itself; it’s everything else. Why? Because everything else has resulted only in poverty. Does that surprise you? Are you skeptical? Andy Puzder, author of “The Capitalist Comeback,” has the charts and data to prove it.
Please view the VIDEO
By Shawn Regan – Re-Blogged From National Review
And markets are much better
As the Soviet Union began to collapse, the socialist economist Robert Heilbroner admitted that central planning had failed economically but said we needed “to rethink the meaning of socialism.” Now it was the thing that had to emerge if humanity was to cope with “the one transcendent challenge that faces it within a thinkable timespan.” Heilbroner considered this one thing to be “the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment.” Markets may be better at allocating resources, Heilbroner thought, but only socialism could avoid ecological disaster.
Re-Blogged From WUWT
A cool image as space exploration marches onward. ~ctm
SpaceX’s Dragon lifted off on a Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Saturday, May 4, with more than 5,500 pounds of research, equipment, cargo and supplies that will support dozens of investigations aboard the International Space Station. On Monday, May 6, while the station was traveling over the north Atlantic Ocean, astronauts David Saint-Jacques of the Canadian Space Agency and Nick Hague of NASA grappled Dragon at 7:01 a.m. EDT using the space station’s robotic arm, Canadarm2.
Not long ago, a new variety of orchid was discovered at the Newmarket racecourse in Suffolk, England. The track’s managers were horrified at first. When an endangered plant is found on your land in England, eco-regulators seize control; and this flower was, apparently, the only one of its kind in the world.
But the Jockey Club came up with an ingenious defense. If the orchid truly was unique, it argued, and if it flourished only on ground that had been churned up by horses’ hooves for the better part of 400 years, then surely the correct course was to maintain that unusual habitat.
Socialism has failed across the world – from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to China, Vietnam, North Korea and, most recently, Venezuela. So now the left references countries like Denmark as “proof” that socialism works. Otto Brons-Petersen explains why they’re wrong: Denmark is just as capitalist as the United States.
Please watch the video.
The Western world has produced some of the most prosperous and most free civilizations on earth. What makes the West exceptional? Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire and author of “The Right Side of History,” explains that the twin pillars of revelation and reason — emanating from ancient Jerusalem and Athens — form the bedrock for Western civilization’s unprecedented success.
Please watch the Video.
Why is it that no one defends free markets, and socialism, despite all the evidence of its failures, comes back again and again? Unsurprisingly, the answer lies in politics, which have always led to a boom-bust cycle of collective behaviour. Furthering our understanding of this phenomenon is timely because the old advanced economies, burdened by a combination of existing and future debt, appear to be on the verge of an unhappily coordinated bust. But that does not automatically return us to the free markets some of us long for.
Cycles of collective behaviour
Throughout history there have been few long-lasting periods of truly free markets. Contemporary exceptions are confined to some small island states, forced to be entrepreneurial by their size and position vis-à-vis the larger nations with which they trade. The governments of these islands know that the state itself is not suited to entrepreneurship. Only by the state guarding the freedom of island markets and the sanctity of property rights can entrepreneurs serve the people in these communities and create wealth for all.
My goal is to make you mad. Not at me (though I expect to ruffle a few feathers with this one). At the evil being wrought in the name of fighting inflation and maximizing employment. And at the aggressive indifference to this evil, exhibited by the capitalists, the gold bugs, and the otherwise-free-marketers.
So, today I am going to do something I have never done. I am going to rant! I am even going to use vulgar language (which is totally justified).
In researching several recent articles, I re-read old passages from Keynes. Consider these snippets:
“For a little reflection will show what enormous social changes would result from a gradual disappearance of a rate of return on accumulated wealth.”
We have written numerous articles about capital consumption. Our monetary system has a falling interest rate, which causes both capital churn and conversion of one party’s wealth into another’s income. It also has too-low interest, which encourages borrowing to consume (which, as everyone knows, adds to Gross Domestic Product—GDP).
What Is Capital
At the same time, of course entrepreneurs are creating new capital. Keith wrote an article for Forbes, showing the incredible drop in wages from 1965 to 2011. There was not a revolution, because prices of goods such as milk dropped at nearly the same rate. The real price of milk dropped as much as it did, because of increased efficiency in production. The word for that which enables an increase in efficiency is capital.
Or, to put it another way, capital provides leverage for productive human effort. We don’t work any harder today, than they did in the ancient world (probably less hard). But we are much richer—we produce a lot more. The difference is capital. They had not accumulated much capital. So they were limited to brute labor, to a degree which we would find shocking today.
By Keith Weiner – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle
It is easy to think of government interference into the economy like a kind of friction. If producers and traders were fully free, then they could improve our quality of life—with new technologies, better products, and lower prices—at a rate of X. But the more that the government does, the more it burdens them. So instead of X rate of progress, we get the same end result but 10% slower or 20% slower.
Some would go so far as to say, “The free market finds ways to work even through government restrictions, taxes, and regulations.” We won’t address cardboard straws emerging where plastic straws are banned. Or gangs selling illegal drugs on the black market, when they are prohibited by law.
As usual, we want to talk about the most important kind of government intervention. And it happens to be the one kind of government intervention that is accepted by nearly everyone. The intervention supported by the otherwise-free-marketers.
By Stefan Gleason – Re-Blogged From Money Metals Exchange
Never in our lifetimes has American politics been so marked by division and dysfunction.
The longest partial government shutdown in history occurred after the Democrat-controlled Congress wouldn’t compromise with President Trump on a border wall. The impasse is but one symptom of a deeper malady – one that threatens to wreak wider social and financial instability in the years ahead.
Put plainly, the pillars of the American system as we have known it are eroding.
By Kaylee McGhee – Re-Blogged From Liberty Headlines
According to a poll released by Gallup on Monday, 57 percent of Democrats favor socialism while only 47 percent have a positive outlook on capitalism.
It marks the first time in Gallup’s measurement since 2010 that a clear majority on the left (outside the margin of error) has shown a socialist inclination.
By Andrew Roberts – Re-Blogged From Prager University
The decades-long “Cold War” (1947-1989) between the United States and the Soviet Union was so named because the two global powers never came to direct blows. Yet, the war was not without its victims. In fact, millions of Cubans, Koreans and Vietnamese suffered under Communist tyranny. In this video, Renowned British historian Andrew Roberts explains why “The Cold War” could just as easily be called “The Third World War.”
[Looking at the world today, including here in the USA, I think the Cold War still may be going on, with Russia, China, and/or Islam much closer to winning against the US. -Bob]
By Alasdair Macleod – Re-Blogged From Gold Money
The most important question faced by the human race is almost never addressed in modern times: which should be the master, the state over the individual or the individual over the state? It is particularly relevant today, bearing in mind President Trump is demolishing the established order both domestically and within America’s wider sphere of influence. The blowback he is getting from all the vested interests that have wormed their way into the processes and assumptions that drive government policy is considerable. It is very much relevant to the UK’s Brexit process, where the establishment is trying to scupper the freely expressed will of the people in a referendum.
By Mac Slavo – Re-Blogged From Freedom Outpost
An initiative to split the state of California into three different states has gathered enough support via signatures to qualify as a ballot measure in November.
This is one important milestone for those who want to break away from the harsh Communist policies of much of the Golden State.
Venture capitalist Tim Draper said backers of what he has dubbed “CAL 3” would submit petitions with more than 600,000 signatures to election officials next week.
The initiative needs signatures from 365,880 registered voters – five percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2014 election – to qualify for the ballot.
By Keith Weiner – Re-Blogged From http://www.Gold-Eagle.com
Let’s tie two topics we have treated, one in exhaustive depth and the other in an ongoing series. They are bitcoin and capital consumption. By now, everyone knows that the price of bitcoin crashed. Barrels of electrons are being spilled discussing and debating why, and if/when the price will go back to what it ought to be ($1,000,000 we are told).
As an aside, in what other market is there a sense of entitlement of what the price ought to be, and a sense of anger at the only conceivable cause for why the price is not what it ought?
By Matthew Bey – Re-Blogged From https://worldview.stratfor.com
China is in a bind. The heavy industry that propelled the country’s economy through three decades of dizzying growth has reached its limits. To escape the dreaded middle-income trap, China will need to shift its focus from low-end manufacturing to other economic industries, namely the technology sector. Beijing has put tech at the center of its long-term economic strategy through campaigns such as Made in China 2025 and Internet Plus. But these initiatives alone won’t push the Chinese economy past its current plateau. The tech sector is notorious for relentless innovation. And innovation requires flexibility.
By Breitbart – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
István Markó (1956 – 2017) was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université catholique de Louvain. Prof. Dr. Marko was an outspoken defender of the skeptical view on the issue of human-caused/anthropogenic global warming, appearing in numerous French-language media on the Internet, in public debates and diverse English-language blog postings. He also joined with Anglo-Saxon climate skeptics, publishing several articles together on Breitbart News.
Grégoire Canlorbe: Climate activism is thought of as Marxism’s Trojan horse, a way for its followers to proceed with their face masked, in the never-ending holy war that Marxism claims will be necessary to establish communist totalitarianism. Yet it was actually Margaret Thatcher, the muse of conservative libertarianism, who kick-started the IPCC. How do you make sense of this?
István Markó: More precisely, Margaret Thatcher, although a trained chemist and therefore aware of the mendacious character of such an allegation about carbon dioxide (CO2), was the first proponent to use the excuse of climate implications posed by CO2 to achieve her political ends. At the time, that is, in the mid-1980s, Thatcher was waging war with the almighty coal union. In those days, the UK coal unions were remunerating themselves with public monies and by lobbying via the Labour Party had managed to pass an enormous number of laws and subsidies to keep an industry afloat that was no longer profitable on its own.
By Cheadleg – Re-Blogged From iPatriot
Do the words above sound familiar? They are a take-off of the slogan that has motivated the socialist, Leftist movement since WWII.
The Long March refers to Mao Zedong’s grueling year-long march in 1934/35 with his Peoples’ Liberation Army around the rocky periphery of China to eventually overcome the Nationalist forces and establish the current Chinese Communist state. “Long March” has become a metaphor for long-lasting struggle through many hardships, resulting in final victory.
By Bill Broderick – Re-Blogged From iPatriot
Communist China: Saves the Regime by Total Surrender to Capitalism!
It was the summer of 2016, my first trip to Europe. Our group spent the first day touring Prague, a city with a long and colorful history. After visiting three or four sites, it was apparent that our tours included large numbers of Asian tourists. On day two, I went to the Marriott desk, said: “the economies of Asia must be doing really well, since there are so many tourists from Asia. Can you tell where they are from?” I expected to hear South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, maybe Indonesia. He said: “Mainland China.”
Hmmm. The economic history of China for 4000+ years is one of six degrees of poverty, right? China has no tradition or history of a middle class of people and families with discretionary income able to afford to travel. So what has happened to China that enabled tens of thousands of its citizens to travel to Europe and elsewhere? In a word, Capitalism!
In the early 1990’s, the Communist regime of China witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of the great events of human history, 500+ millions of people liberated without a single shot being fired. While the collapse of the Soviet Union had primary causes (deeply flawed economic policies, moral and cultural bankruptcy) one of the major drivers of the collapse was external pressures due to the collaborative leadership of Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. As the Soviet Union headed to the “ash heap of history,” the Communist regime of China had to find a path forward that would enable them to retain power and survive pressures for regime change.
When the Communist regime gained control of China in 1949, its first initiatives in state planning were centralized, top down driven efforts designed to take a largely agrarian economy and build industrial capacity. The regime introduced collective farming, spent 20+ years forcing peasants to stop growing crops on private land. The policy was a total disaster, with an estimated 40 million lives lost due to famine. In the 1980’s, the regime abandoned collective farming and allowed private farming, which today accounts for almost all food production in China.
In the 1970s and 80’s, the regime sought to create and grow state owned enterprises (SOEs) that could engage in market based activities and retain profits. In addition, economic zones were created that could operate with little to no control by government, with the intent to empower such efforts to create jobs, produce products for China and world markets. Under this umbrella, private farming, township and village enterprises and private businesses emerged in the spaces between government run operations. In the 1990’s, private sector entrepreneurs started companies outside of the state run businesses, growing and expanding rapidly to market and sell to the global marketplace. Many “mom and pop” businesses have become the lifeblood of society in China.
So where is the economy of China today?
- Private farming (plots of land assigned to families) was authorized by the regime in 1982. It has steadily grown into the primary source of food resources for the country, now accounting for almost all food production. Today, 300 million workers produce food for a population of 1.3 billion
- In 1990, there were no Chinese households that qualify as middle class (incomes above subsistence, with disposable spending for travel, culture, education). Today over 60MM households qualify as middle class in China, on a par with living standards of the US or EU. In the 1980’s, 64% of the population lived on a $1 a day, today 10% do so, a massive reduction in poverty rates.
- In 2015, China had 54 million self-employed enterprises, which created 163M jobs and 19 million private companies, which created 116M jobs
- In the cities of China, almost all of the job growth since 1978, an estimated 250 million jobs, has been generated in the private sector. For example, in 1978 almost 99% of the urban work-force we’re employed by SOEs, but by 2011 only 18%. Today, the workforce of China is about 900M, with about 25% working for the SOEs, the rest in the private sector.
- With regard to exports, state run enterprises accounted for 65% of exports in 1995. As of 2014, state run enterprises (SOEs) accounted for 8% of China’s exports, versus 92% from the private sector . In 2014, China accounted for 18% of all global exports, with about 90% of products from the private sector.
- As of mid-2017, the private sector contributed 60% of the growth in GDP and created 80% of the jobs
To recap the options of forms of government:
- Socialism is ownership of the means of production and abolition of private property
- Communism is ownership of the means of production and abolition of private property
- Fascism is control of the means of production, with ownership in private hands
- Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production
The regime in China owns the “property,” the land that is farmed by the people, but allows them to reap the benefits of their work, so they virtually act as “owners” of the land. Is this still communism?
The private sector of enterprises, small businesses and “mom and pop” operations, representing about 80% of the economy, own their “means of production” such as equipment, retail store sites, and more, and can manage such resources in behalf of their enterprises. Is this still communism?
The Communist regime of China, by enabling the growth of the private sector, now oversees a farm sector that functions as if in “private hands,’ and an overall economy that is 75-80% in private hands, has survived! Is it time for the regime to do a “high five” to Capitalism? No “ash heap of history” in sight for the regime, thanks to total abandonment of Communism!
By Lloyd Marcus – Re-Blogged From iPatriot
Though we have never met, I smiled recently seeing my favorite Walmart employee. For over ten years, I witnessed him gathering shopping carts in the parking lot. He is a white millennial who only has the use of one arm, walks with a severe limp and appears slightly mentally challenged. I once saw him leaving work driving a new looking compact car. My wife Mary prepared his taxes when she worked for a tax preparation company. I thought, “Hey, this brother has got it goin’ on — doin’ his thing.”
The Walmart guy could easily qualify for disability; sit home on his butt allowing taxpayers to take care of him. Far too many able-bodied millennials feel entitled, believing government should provide them free everything.
The Walmart guy’s work-ethic, self-reliance and pride in earning his own way is truly refreshing. The Obama Administration practically begged Americans, even non-citizens http://bit.ly/1ixsqOm, to get on food stamps and to apply for as many government freebies as possible. This addicts voters to government handouts and keeps them voting for their Democrat dealers. Disability claims skyrocketed under Obama. http://bit.ly/1ts1LYs
Disturbingly, polls say a majority of millennials reject Capitalism. http://wapo.st/2mINyo7 They believe Socialism is fair and compassionate and Capitalism is selfish and cruel. This explains “yutes” hero worship of socialist/democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Millennials love Sanders’ promise to take the hard earned wealth of achievers to redistribute to lazy pot-smoking losers. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Socialism always ends up spreading mediocrity and misery equally among the masses while the rulers live high on the hog. Have you noticed that Hollywood Leftists and socialist politicians want government to force us to drive tiny tin-can cars, surrender our guns and lower our carbon footprint? Meanwhile, they travel in gas-guzzling limos and private jets with armed guards.
Capitalism gives everyone a shot at achieving their American dream. I will slap the next fellow black person who whines to me about how whitey has stacked the deck again us. Capitalism birthed America’s first female millionaire, a black woman born in 1867. Madam C. J. Walker was an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and a political and social activist. http://bit.ly/2byUBOr Socialism would have enslaved Madam Walker to the government system, giving her just enough free stuff to get by. Okay, I promise not to slap anyone.
It was depressing hearing it reported that a large number of Americans support taxing income over a million dollars at 100%. First of all, confiscating that money would generate around $616 billion which only covers a third of our annual deficit. http://bit.ly/2tGS3CR
But what is most troubling is the disgusting class envy loser mindset of those who believe it is right for government to take people’s hard earned money. They do not realize that such financial tyranny would kill jobs and the incentive to be all one can be. How dare government place limits on success. Such thinking is un-American, counter to our God inspired founding.
We allowed Leftists’ silent-coup-takeover of public education decades ago. Consequently, Leftists have produced an army of stealth Leftist sleeper-cell operatives against their parents. Remember when Leftists instructed kids to steal their parent’s guns and turn them in to their teaches? http://bit.ly/2vgZ3bj Remember Michele Obama instructing students to report politically incorrect speech at the dinner table? http://bit.ly/1qL62Dz
Outrageously, white students are taught beginning in kindergarten that they were born racist. http://dailym.ai/29AwJVZ In essence, white students are taught to feel ashamed and hate themselves for their unfair white privilege. The Walmart guy is on Leftists’ excrement list simply for being a working class white male. http://bit.ly/2tfHN58 It angers me envisioning Leftist bullies getting into the grill of my Walmart guy, scolding him about his evil white privilege.
Students support black college student’s demand for free tuition and housing. http://fxn.ws/2kPQEWP
Black students also expect academic and behavioral standards lowered for them. I’m a 68 year old black man. I would be highly offended having standards lowered for me. Millennials quickly embrace Leftists twisting everything into evidence of unfairness and white American racism.
Years ago, a white friend shared that her son came home from middle-school in tears about how white men abused everyone; blacks, women, native Americans and so on. Today her son is an America hating Communist who still believes European white men are the greatest source of evil in the world.
Folks, we much turn this mess around regarding Leftists’ indoctrination of our kids. Trump appointing Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education is a major step in the right direction. DeVos favors restoring power back to parents regarding the education of their children.
Oh, we’re out of milk. I’m confident I will see my Walmart guy diligently working.
240 years ago, Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations.” Largely, he described what he observed in the Economy, and provided a reasonable explanation. For example, Pigs.
He observed that the production of pigs fluctuated, as did the price of pork. His explanation – the Pig Cycle – was that, if the production was low, the relative shortage caused prices to rise, which encouraged greater production. The higher production eventually might cause prices to fall, which led to reduced production.
All this unfolded irregularly over a 3-5 year period, and repeated. Prices for any individual product (or service) do not remain the same over time – they fluctuate.
But there are other forces which affect prices. A pig farmer may develop better methods or adopt some new technology. All else being equal, he will produce more over time, meaning that pig prices will tend to decline over time – even though those prices will continue to fluctuate according to the Pig Cycle.
The farmer may choose to work longer hours (or shorter hours) causing increased (or decreased) production, and the changed supply will lower (raise) prices. Of course, this is self-limiting as the farmer has to sleep sometime.
The demand for pigs may go up (or down) as population and food preferences change. Demand also may appear to go up if more new money is printed. If the money supply change is a one shot deal, then any change to demand and prices is akin to the farmer working longer hours – but of course the result is opposite.
The greater demand will cause prices to rise, stimulating greater production. As the money supply increase works its way through the Economy, pushing prices for each and every product and service up somewhat, then the higher general Cost of Living will equalize the apparent demand, although at a higher nominal level. “Adjusted for Inflation,” the Pig Cycle will be back where it started before the money printing.
In today’s world, money printing certainly is NOT a one shot deal. The FED and other world Central Banks (and other banks through the fractional reserve banking system) continue printing indefinitely. Eventually, the expectation of future price increases due to the money printing will nullify the effects of the monetary inflation, and production will settle back in where it would have been without the money printing.
All the while, the FED et al benefit from getting the new money out of thin air, while everyone else is penalized from the increase in the general price level. As Keynes said, “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
Many times, the deliberate debasement of the country’s money leads to general price rises so high that the public demands that inflation be controlled. In response, the money supply increases are slowed (or even stopped!).
But the reduced apparent demand within the Economy then causes prices to fall, leading to a reduction in production – a Recession or a Depression. Yes there are natural price and production fluctuations within any Economy, and better methods and technology will lower prices continuously – but this money supply normalization is another animal altogether.
The Recession or Depression caused by a halt to money supply increases is totally artificial – totally outside the normal fluctuations of any dynamic Economy. The bad times are caused directly by the previous theft of purchasing power through money printing. Central banks benefit when they print, but when they stop printing, the rest of us suffer – sometimes mightily.
Another factor affecting our Economy wide Pig Cycle is taxes. There is an old saw which says, “If you want more of something subsidize it, and if you want less of it then tax it.”
Taxes take some of the price that the producer receives. His apparent lower price leads to lower production. The lower production leads to higher prices which restore the production level. Producer taxes – regardless of whether they are sales taxes, income taxes, or whatever, wind up being passed partly onto consumers. And with less revenue available, the employees also receive a smaller share of what’s generated by the private, productive sector of the Economy.
The price level reaches a new equilibrium, where profits, wages, and consumer prices all reflect what’s left after taxes. It makes no difference what the tax money goes to buy. That tax money is used to buy something other than what each one of us would have bought if we had been able to keep our money. The Economy is reduced by taxation.
The natural fluctuations of the Pig Cycle can’t be undone. They are… natural. They are part of Capitalism. The natural reductions to prices over time, through innovation and invention, also are part of Capitalism. All of us benefit by the efforts of others.
Money Supply manipulation and Taxation are not natural – they are man-made. They are part of Socialism, and they hurt everyone in the Economy except the favored few. You may want some of what Socialism offers, but still you should recognize that it is Socialism, and your benefit comes at someone else’s greater loss.
What if we could have an experiment to compare the two systems? Wait – we already did.
By David R. Legates – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Experimentation is a major tool in the scientist’s arsenal. We can put the same strain of bacteria into two Petri dishes, for example, and compare the relative effects of two different antibiotics.
What if we could do the same with economic systems? We could take a country and destroy its political and economic fabric through, say, a natural disaster or widespread pestilence – or a war. War is the ultimate political and economic cleansing agent. Its full devastation can send a country back almost to the beginning of civilization.
We could then take this war-torn country and divide it into two parts. It would have similar people, similar climate, similar potential trading partners, similar geography – but one part is rebuilt using capitalism as its base, while the other rebuilds using socialism and its principles. We’d let the virtues of each system play out and see where these two new countries would be after, say, fifty years.
By Larry Kudlow – Re-Blogged From http://www.NewsMax.com
Famed investor Wilbur Ross recently told CNBC that “Trump represents a more radical new approach to government that the nation’s economy desperately needs.” He’s right.
Trump seeks an overthrow of the establishment. He’s a disrupter. Just what we need to fix the economy.
The situation is that desperate.
The last 15 years of economic policy, especially the last eight years, represent a relapse that harks back to the 1970s. Now like then, we have a high-tax, high-spend, high-regulation, Fed-pump-priming, standard-less dollar-manipulation policy mix. In general, it’s a government-planning approach in the U.S. and around the world.
By Martin Durkin – Re-Blogged From http://www.martindurkin.com
Picture the scene. At the edge of a forest, German soldiers point their guns at rows of naked people who follow the Jewish religion. Among them are young mothers clutching their babies. The shots echo through the woods and the dead bodies fall into the ground. Down the road, while this is happening, their German army comrades are busy establishing nature walks and bird sanctuaries and planting trees. The Nazis conducted horrific experiments on children (I have seen footage so upsetting it can’t be shown on TV) but at the same time they banned medical experiments on animals. The same Nazi monsters who committed crimes of unimaginable barbarity also advocated vegetarianism, organic agriculture, forest preservation and homeopathic healthcare. How can we possibly explain this? What was the connection between the inhuman brutality of the Nazis and their gushing idealization of ‘Nature’?
The purpose of exploring Nazi environmentalism is not just to upset the greens. If environmentalism were a curious but peripheral aspect of National Socialism, it would be of no real historical interest. Environmentalists could be forgiven for saying, Ah well, it just goes to show, there’s a little bit of good in the worst of us. But environmentalist ideology was not an accidental, optional-extra to National Socialism. As we shall see, green ideas were at the core of Nazi thinking. The German Volk and Nazi movements marched beneath the banners of ‘Nature’ and the ‘organic’. However, what follows here is not simply a potted history of Nazi environmentalism. It is, at the same time, a brief history of early environmentalism writ large. As will become clear, it is not so easy to draw a line between two types of green thinking.
After WWII, with the advent of the jet engine, a race was on to see who could break the Sound Barrier first.
To pick up the final burst of speed in order to get past Mach I, just over 760 mph, test pilots would go up to 45,000 feet, and then point the nose down and fall to earth. At the last moment, they would “pull up” on the stick, expecting for that to pull the plane up and out of the dive.
Several pilots killed themselves in crashes, until in October, 1947, one pilot, Chuck Yeager, realized that pulling up on the stick was making the plane go down even more.
By Frank Holmes – Re-Blogged From http://www.Silver-Phoenix500.com
Many of us are aware that 400 billionaires appear on Forbes’ list of the wealthiest Americans. But if you had to guess what percentage of them is self-made, what would you say? A quarter? A third?
Before I give you the answer, let me posit which way Thomas Piketty might lean.
If you’re unfamiliar with the name, Piketty is the socialist economist whose book Capital in the Twenty-First Century was published a little over a year ago. It was an instant bestseller and elicited much debate not just in academic circles but also the popular media.
By Michael J Hurd – Re-Blogged From Capitalism Magaine
Socialist and Democratic candidate for President Bernie Sanders:
You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don’t think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on. [Source: cnbc.com 5/26/15]
Do you like Sanders’ statement, or do you find it foolish and absurd? If you find it foolish and absurd, can you say why?
By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
A regular green claim is that, for the sake of the planet, we can’t afford any more economic growth. How many times have you heard something like the following:
The other tough reality demanding more honest business reflection is the incompatibility of further, orthodox economic growth in the OECD with the 2C target. The structure of markets relying on the shareholder model also demands that companies must grow. But the best analysis available suggests that growth in OECD countries cannot be squared with halting warming at 2C, 3C or even 4C.
Where are the companies brave enough to even ask the question of what the optimal size of a company might be, after which it should grow no further, and how that company should be governed and function with regard to investors?
The workings of the Free Market hasn’t been taught in our schools for generations. That being the case, many (most?) Americans lack the background to understand just what the Free Market is capable of achieving – or even understanding that what the US Economy is, is not a Free Market Economy in the true sense.
Lip service is paid, with various socialist economists saying such foolish things as, “We have a mixed economy – a partnership between the private and the public sector.” But in reality, when one partner has the ability to control the activity of the other, then it’s not really a partnership – it’s a command economy.
One problem for most Americans may be summed up in a statement I’ve heard several times: “If the government didn’t do such and such, it just wouldn’t get done. Nobody else has the strength of purpose and the resources to do that function.”
So, let’s imagine for a moment that all the computer gear in the United States – all the CPUs, the screens, the routers and modems – everything, was made by a single manufacturer, and that organization was owned and run by the US government. Prices might be the same as today, with the higher costs being subsidized by taxpayers. I expect that the wide variety of choices simply would never have been created, and the technology would advance little or not at all.
If some “nutcase” were to suggest privatizing this business, he would be laughed off the stage. “It’s too complex for private companies to do.” “There would be duplication of effort on a massive scale.” “Nobody could afford the capital investment.” “Prices would skyrocket since taxpayer subsidies also would end.” “The profit motive will hurt consumers as greedy owners will put out stripped down products at exorbitant prices.”
Does all that sound familiar?
As we know with the benefit of what actually has happened in the computer industry, it not only is possible – is has offered amazing innovation at a breakneck speed. Not every company has survived, which is another way of saying that the best have survived.
Could there be improvements? Of course. They’re happening all the time. If today’s leader doesn’t make those improvements, then it won’t be tomorrow’s leader.
Is innovation in the product or service, in the cost to provide it, and in developing alternatives, something which exists today only in the computer business? I suggest that this is exactly what the Free Market does if the government – the senior partner – will just step out of the way.
I’ve posted on getting rid of the US Department of Education recently. But how about just privatizing education completely? Could the Free Market do better than a couple of generations worth of a stagnant or falling level of educational achievement – and that poor performance at five times the real cost of a couple of generations ago?
“Greedy managers won’t care about the kids.” “They’ll provide one size fits all education.” “They won’t cater to the disadvantaged, the gifted, or the challenged students.”
These are the same fallacious arguments, using somewhat different words, that we heard when we looked at the computer industry. However, on closer inspection, we see that these arguments apply more to today’s dysfunctional education system than to the dynamic – if seemingly chaotic – choices which a Free Market would provide at lower cost.
I chose to look at privatizing education because this is where the workings of Free Markets – of Free Enterprise – are being hidden from our children.
Without an appreciation of the economic system which has provided the riches we now enjoy – riches which our leaders are squandering – the US will just continue down the road to being just another socialist, third world country.
Most Americans are greedy most of the time.
If we own a business, we want as much profit as we can generate. If we buy stocks, we want the price to go way up. If we work, we want to be paid as much as we can get. If we sell a house or a car, we want to get as much as we can. Of course, when we buy a house or a car, we want to pay as little as possible.
In every single transaction, we want to get the better of the deal compared to the person on the other side of the table. Is this a good thing – or an evil we should strive to stamp out?
A couple of commenters have made me aware that the terms I use may not have a standard definition. And, because my intellectual and emotional combination may differ from that of other people, sometimes the definitions are the least of the problem.
In this post, though I’ll touch on issues which certainly have both national and economic import, I’d like to do it from the perspective of gaining a better definition of a couple of terms and lessening the emotional content of our arguments.
In December 1620, a group of settlers (we know them as Pilgrims), originally bound for Virginia, arrived in Massachusetts. They found a suitable location for a settlement, which they named Plymouth.
Besides starting a new colony from scratch, these early Americans also had to deal with a pair of issues which still plague us today: “Foreign”
(Re-Blogged from Silver-Phoenix500.com, by Aubie Baltin)
At this time of the year when most of us have a lot more to be thankful for than we realize, (count your blessings) let us all say a small prayer for those among us who have not been so fortunate. I would also like to take this opportunity to examine that first THANKSGIVING and to reflect upon a few lessons that might be learned from a few little-known details about the Pilgrims who first