By Guy Benson – Re-Blogged From Prager University
By Stephen Hicks – Re-Blogged From Savvy Street
Nothing can come into our minds as knowledge and nothing can become a skill except that we choose to make it so. So the real cost of education is the effort each individual has to put into it.
Higher education can be a path to a successful life. Yet many successful people did not graduate from college and many unsuccessful people have impressive degrees.
So who should go to college? And who should pay for it?
Let’s start by imagining an average student who wants to go to college but has no money and compare that student’s options in socialized and free-market education systems.
In a socialized system, the government pays for it. The student eventually graduates, goes to work, and starts to pay taxes.
[Fiat Money(paper money) can allow Trade Deficits to continue indefinitely, while under a Gold Standard, the imbalance is corrected automatically. In either case, Trade is good, while restrictions are bad. – Bob]
By Steve Saville – Re-Blogged From http://www.Silver-Phoenix500.com
It’s not just Donald Trump. Many political leaders around the world operate under the misconception that a trade deficit is a problem to be reckoned with. This misconception has been the root of countless bad policies over the centuries.
Trade, by definition, is not an adversarial situation resulting in a winner and a loser. Rather, both parties believe that they are benefiting, otherwise the trade would not take place. Most of the time, both parties do benefit. In general, one side wants a particular product more than a certain quantity of money and the other side wants the quantity of money more than the product. When the exchange takes place, both sides get the thing to which they assign the higher value at the time.
All the hand-wringing about international trade deficits is based on the ridiculous notion that the side receiving the money is the winner and the side receiving the product is the loser, but how could this be? If the side receiving the product was losing-out then it wouldn’t enter into the trade. Furthermore, given that today’s money is created out of nothing, if a trade were to be viewed as a win-lose situation then surely it’s the side receiving the product that should be viewed as the winner.
By Dale Netherton – Re-Blogged From iPatriot
The politicians mutter the word “jobs” as if they understood where jobs come from and what conditions are necessary to sustain jobs.
First, without revenue to pay wages no job can exist or if created continue to exist. The question then becomes, where will the revenue come from? There are two sources of revenue for jobs. One is the direct granting of revenue by the government which funds government jobs. If there is funding available the job can continue until the funding disappears. The other source of revenue is profit. If a job is created to supply a good or service and it is sustained by paying for itself, this job is sustainable as long as it is competitive. This is the only job that can exist that doesn’t rely on confiscation and redistribution. Jobs that rely on “government funding” are not self sustaining since they must have confiscation and redistribution. Government cannot create wealth, it has nothing it doesn’t confiscate or borrow.
All government created jobs are necessarily temporary. Debt and eventual inflation destroys the foundation for government funding of jobs as the private sector that supports sustainable jobs shrinks under the regulation and taxes that eventually destroys the profit motive and therefore the only source of self sustaining jobs. The CCC camps could not have been retained as permanent jobs. The demise of the Post Office and Amtrak are examples of where government “jobs” must eventually falter. The source of these two government jobs comes from the government subsidies. Neither is self sustaining based on the income they generate. This means a private sector is being taxed and the confiscation of their earnings is being channeled to the subsidy the government is supplying.
By Dale Netherton – Re-Blogged From http://www.iPatriot.com
Unemployment is at 4.9% if you believe government figures. Some have placed it as high as 17%. Like the fudged figures of global warming and inflation they are probably not only inaccurate but distorted.
When the first jobs came into being they were the result of a businessperson seeking labor to increase his production rate to meet the demand of his customers. These laborers were hired and paid from the profits the businessperson was able to make. Anything before this phenomena took place was the result of plunder and confiscation. The method of confiscation is the way of government and criminals. Government takes and redistributes but it neither creates wealth or trades for its revenues. The government could trade if it were confident it could raise revenues voluntarily but it prefers to use the method of the criminal by way of taxation.
In the scheme of things government is a limited agency that is created to protect the individual rights of the citizens. It cannot be created for anything else without introducing a method of confiscation. When that occurs its reason for being is negated by the injustice it promotes and enforces. Eventually all government that ignores this fundamental ingredient of its reason for being evolves from a free society to a slave pen where the government rules by regulation and taxation, eventual deficit spending and hyperinflation which destroys the currency and demolishes the fiscal integrity of the nation which leads to chaos, rioting, revolution and unless a limited government is created, the scenario repeats itself.
By Doug Casey – Re-Blogged From International Man
It appears there are two candidates running from the left wing of the Demopublican Party (Hillary and Bernie), and two and a half from the right wing (Trump, Cruz, and Kasich). Note: The media identifies the Lefties by their first names, a friendly and personal thing, unlike the Righties.
I find it distasteful discussing current political figures. But since somebody new is going to be president come November, it makes sense to figure out who that might be, in order to insulate yourself as much as possible from the damage they’ll do.
Let me start by saying that this is not just the most entertaining election I’ve ever witnessed. But after the 1860 election, which Lincoln won with 40% of the popular vote (the remainder split between Stephen Douglas and two other candidates), I suspect it will also be the most divisive, hostile, and critical to the future of the country. Ever.
Why do I say that? Because the U.S. hasn’t been this unstable since the unpleasantness of 1861–1865.
Interview conducted by Thilo Thielke – Translated from the German by Patrick Kessler
Re-Blogged From Spiegel Online
Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…
Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.
SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.
SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?
Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.