tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85969645666280144102024-03-13T15:32:32.208-05:00Conservative EconomicsFree markets and the pursuit of happiness.Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-81673303465131878312011-04-05T10:17:00.004-05:002011-04-05T10:21:47.332-05:00My Favorite Month would be April if...<br /><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=yogahabits-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0471162493&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=F3E4BF&f=ifr" style="align: right; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>...the Feds abolished the Internal Revenue Service. I love April. It's a time of renewal, not only in nature, but in my spirit. Then the IRS comes along and ruins my seasonal jubilation. I noticed that <i>Scream 4</i> is coming out on April 15th. Somebody has a sense of humor. <br />
<br />
When you're surrendering your hard earned money, the best you can do is keep a sense of humor about it. I play games in the for section of my payment check. This year I decided to write in "for: <u>confiscation</u>." It seems appropriate. After all, Merriam-Webster's first definition for confiscation states: <i>to seize as forfeited to the public treasury</i>.<br />
<br />
The best I can do is stay upbeat facing the evils of usurpation as I try to spread the idea of freedom by <i>voluntary</i> allocation and its benefits to society.<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-81778134511996297142011-02-13T13:08:00.002-06:002011-02-13T13:11:28.250-06:00American Origins: From the Colonies to the Constitution<br />I just signed up for a history course taught by Thomas Woods. <a href="http://academy.mises.org/courses/american-origins-from-the-colonies-to-the-constitution/">American Origins: From the Colonies to the Constitution</a> which begins on March 5th. I am really looking forward to it.<br />
<br />
I am currently in the middle of my first Mises Academy course <a href="http://academy.mises.org/courses/logic/">How to Think: An Introduction to Logic</a> taught by David Gordon. I must say it is exceptional. If you haven't taken a course from the Mises Academy yet, I highly recommend it. The price is cheaper and the content is better than most brick and mortar university courses.<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-69968996316617607372011-01-09T09:51:00.000-06:002011-01-09T09:51:48.588-06:00Why I Recommend and Respect Tom Woods<br /><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=yogahabits-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0895260476&fc1=000000&IS2=1<1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=F3E4BF&f=ifr" style="align:left;padding-top:5px;width:131px;height:245px;padding-right:10px;"align="left" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>I am a huge fan of well-known people that take the time to respond thoughtfully to a seemingly unimportant stranger. So, I had a question about a source in Thomas Woods book <i>The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History</i>. I obtained his email and asked the following question:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>On page 50 of the book there is a box that says "What the Press Said." In it there is a quote as following:<br />
<br />
"[It was] merely an incident of the real controversy...[for] possession of the Federal Government is what both North and South are striving for."<br />
-The New York Times in its description of slavery, 1854<br />
<br />
When I try to find this source online, all I get is this page: http://www.nytimes.com/1860/07/04/news/the-slavery-question.html<br />
<br />
If you read it, there is no mention of the first part of the quote in the article only the second part followed by "and the leading motive of the South is a determination to regard Slavery as their paramount interest, and its protection and perpetuation as their settled policy."<br />
<br />
Something is definitely fishy. I tend to trust you far more than I do the New York Times, so I am wondering if I have not found the source you were referring to or if the NYT changed it? </blockquote><br />
He then graciously responded with:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mr. Morr:<br />
<br />
Grr. This just calls to mind the struggles I had with the publisher during the editing of that book. They wanted to substitute a different box for the one I had, so they chose this. I did not catch that they actually got the date partially wrong; I was referring to three NYT columns, one from 1854 and two from 1860 (May 30 and July 4). It is Eric Foner himself, an extremely pro-Lincoln and pro-Union historian, who notes the significance of the Times' concession: "The New York Times went so far as to claim that slavery itself was 'merely an incident of the real controversy,' since 'possession of the Federal Government is what both North and South are striving for.' In this it was only echoing the views of Webster and other northern Whigs of the 1840s who had opposed the annexation of Texas and the Mexican <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=yogahabits-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1596981490&fc1=000000&IS2=1<1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=F3E4BF&f=ifr" style="align:left;padding-top:5px;width:131px;height:245px;padding-right:10px;"align="left" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>War on the grounds that any addition of slavery territory and subsequent admission of slave states would upset the balance of sectional power in the South's favor." (Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War, p. 192.)<br />
<br />
Tom</blockquote>For your service to me Tom, I will recommend your latest book <i><a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490?ie=UTF8&tag=yogahabits-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Nullification</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=yogahabits-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1596981490" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" /></i> to everyone I know.<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-10396671872643283262010-12-21T18:50:00.000-06:002010-12-21T18:50:04.455-06:00Love Song for F.A. Hayek<br />This gets me excited about the recent growth in popularity of under appreciated individuals such as Hayek.<br />
<br />
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/psosLpDALuA&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/psosLpDALuA&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
Courtesy of <a href="http://www.myspace.com/electraandtheexperiments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" class="postlink">Dorian Electra</a><br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-79972480826852535792010-11-18T08:54:00.000-06:002010-11-18T08:54:55.468-06:00QE2 = Bank Bailout?<br />You have got to be kidding. The hits just keep on coming for an economy that is suffering and a government that won't let it recover. <a href="http://pragcap.com/fed-confirm-qe2-bank-bailout">Read more</a><br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-34265561296610534482010-08-24T17:59:00.002-05:002010-08-24T17:59:39.456-05:00On Bailouts<br />Is it more efficient to keep fixing a rusty pipe that is incapable of holding water on its own or let someone install a new one that you don't have to keep fixing?<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-25499182752752283702010-07-25T14:41:00.002-05:002010-08-30T13:17:59.829-05:00Zeitgeist Movement = Marxist Futurism?<br />Perhaps. After a barrage of irrelevant comments from supporters of the Zeitgeist Movement on <a href="http://conservativeeconomics.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-capitalism-is-best-economics-system.html">this blog</a>, I did a little research into what they are all about. After reading a good bit of bantering over at the <a href="http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/17833.aspx?PageIndex=1">Mises forum</a>, I can say that I am really unimpressed with the Zeitgeist position and their idea of what is called resource based economy. I have a general distrust of anything or anyone that has a disregard for logic and evidence-based argumentation. As indicated by one individual on the Mises forum, logic has been replaced with a sort of mystic hubris:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"lol. I will not debate this, because it is senseless to argue, considering those who argue seldom change their minds. lol. I doubt many will be able to understand the ZM concepts from where they are now. That's ok... it's not a matter of superiority or inferiority... it's all about cultural conditioning, which our present culture is expert at... And that will change anyway because of continuing information flow."</blockquote><br />
What a ridiculous string of words. It would be nice if these people were as open-minded as they claim to be. A little research and inquiry into the minds of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard et al might glean some understanding on economics and praxeology. They might come to the realization that resource based economy backed by a super computer that will bring <i>superabundance</i> to society is a fantasy that might be fitting for a Marxist science fiction, but not reality. The same poster on Mises forum later said:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And since I am putting in question the very foundation of this forum, I'm not surprised you would find my words useless. But I didn't come here to argue about this stuff, so I am bowing out. I do not wish to step upon your 'religion'. (which is another conceptual system people mistake for reality...)</blockquote><br />
That is an interesting assertion considering that is exactly what this "movement" appears to be - a religion.<br />
<br />
Update (8/30/10): Robert Murphy <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4636">took a stab at RBE</a> over at Mises today. We share the same concerns.<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-67064672311531850912010-06-29T07:56:00.045-05:002010-06-29T19:46:31.375-05:007 Things the Government is Teaching Our Children About Money<br />Congress handles our federal budget about as poorly as one could ever imagine handling a personal budget. The government is teaching our children the worst possible way to handle money and budgets. Here is a list of some of the lessons children might learn from government:<br />
<ul><li>1. Spending money you don't have is stimulating.</li>
<li>2. Paying off debt is not important.</li>
<li>3. Managing money poorly will get you a raise.</li>
<li>4. Prudent shopping is unnecessary. </li>
<li>5. Work is optional for income. </li>
<li>6. Stealing is okay as long as the ends are deemed worthy.</li>
<li>7. Long term goals have no worth.</li>
</ul><br /><br />
At face value, these lessons seem absolutely absurd. However, some (especially governments) seem to think it is the quintessential recipe for successful economy. I tend to think that what is <i>actually </i>good for my household economy is also good for the economy as a whole. When I <i>economize</i>, it is a good thing.<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-73068961948356992032010-05-23T17:01:00.002-05:002010-05-23T17:03:03.328-05:00Mises Academy: New Way of Learning<br /><br />
<object width="480" height="260"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KWdCP1O_yas&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KWdCP1O_yas&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="260"></embed></object><br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-53750898602769589222010-05-18T14:31:00.003-05:002010-05-18T14:33:34.743-05:00Recommended Reading: 5/18/2010<br />Here are just a few articles recently written by various economists that I think are beneficial to read:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/is-capitalism-something-good/" target="_blank">Is Capitalism Something Good?</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/consumer-spending/" target="_blank">Consumer Spending Doesn't Drive the Economy </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/evil-incompetent/" target="_blank">Neither Evil Nor Incompetent</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://mises.org/daily/4327" target="_blank">Thank Goodness for Capitalism</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://mises.org/daily/4275" target="_blank">Some Social Aspects of Medical Socialism</a><br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-76856011918230635512010-04-10T10:33:00.005-05:002010-04-18T17:21:55.743-05:00Absurdity of the State: Child Labor Violations<br />Current laws forbid children from earning wages from their expertise. It doesn't matter if they are using the money to save for their future education or to live out their dreams such as Tallan "T-Man" Latz who loves to play his guitar as evidenced in the video below. He is seven years old, so he cannot legally be compensated for playing the guitar or even play in traditional establishments of business. He has a gift that people wish to compensate him for, therefore his talents have become an enemy of the State. When you factor in all the various levels of federal, state, and local laws it is a complex web of absurdity. It is about time we <a href="http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2339&Itemid=48">repeal these ridiculous laws</a>. <br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfjTrrBE_eI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfjTrrBE_eI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-68257693132418692882010-04-05T21:32:00.004-05:002010-04-09T19:58:01.978-05:00Health Care Reform?<br /><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=yogahabits-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0742541517&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=F3E4BF&f=ifr" style="height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>H.L. Mencken once said that “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” The majority of the political process is deciding which favored groups get what. It is important to understand that with all spending bills, some people undoubtedly benefit whether they be a Wall Street CEO, a mid-western farmer, or an inner-city homeless person. This is the visible effect on which most people, even renowned economists, focus and rely to determine their opinion of the efficacy of a policy. This focus is also what makes for a poor economist – renowned or not. Henry Hazlitt wrote in his great book Economics in One Lesson, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Hazlitt further wrote, “Nine-tenths of the economic fallacies that are working such dreadful harm in the world today are the result of ignoring this lesson.”<br />
<br />
There are definitely a lot of misconceptions about health care. The bigger picture should be explored in regards to health care intervention so we might attain a better grasp of where we stand. First, the current system is mixed with a large regulatory apparatus including subsidies, licenses, controls, patents, monopolies, and outright welfare. Government makes up 42% of all health services and supplies spending.[1] 75% of all citizens over the age of 65 are provided for by the government. Conservatives are wrong – we already have government health care. This bill just increases what we already have. A common misconception about our current system is probably epitomized in the town-hall exchange between Congressman Bob Inglis (R) and one of his constituents in South Carolina. The man charged that Inglis should “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”<br />
<br />
The current legislation is basically a continued effort to repair a failed system that has been fiddled with for nearly a century. The first national conference that declared for universal health and social insurance was in the 1910s. It has taken 100 years to get where we are today and Obamacare isn’t even proposing anything that is close to total socialism of medical services regardless of purported intentions by opponents. The problem with socializing even just a bit more of health care is that it will produce exactly the <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4224">same results</a> here that it has everywhere else. We will increase over-consumption, rationing, and stagnation. The problem is that without freedom of exchange and market pricing, economic sense disappears and the system becomes entangling and impoverishing. <br />
<br />
There is another component rarely mentioned beyond casual concern. How do we pay for this sublime utopia of health parity? The government can’t pay for this by taxing everyone because citizens wouldn’t allow for it over the long term. The national debt is already enormous. We should look no further than the Federal Reserve. They will run the presses to pay for these foolish dreams. The Fed makes something like this possible – without it - no politician would make such bold promises. The real problem may not be the impossible visions of politicians. It may be the institution that allows for such foolery, and it comes at our own expense. Inflation through fiat currency is one of the most insidious mechanisms ever introduced to an economy. <br />
<br />
We should be mindful that worsening the system of medical purveyance is only part of the defect of universal health insurance. The unseen costs will include worsening business cycles, depletion of the dollar, and destruction of private wealth via inflation which will be spread equally (ironic?) among all individuals whether rich or poor. I’ll close with the wisdom of Frederic Bastiat, the French economist of the 19th century:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference – the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”</blockquote><br />
Note:<br />
1. Health Expenditures by Sponsers. <a href="http://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/bhg08.pdf">http://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/bhg08.pdf</a> (PDF)<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-44079209062257564402010-03-03T16:03:00.010-06:002010-03-03T22:44:29.252-06:00Should Government Subsidize Education?<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/That-Which-Seen-Not-Consequences/dp/160096706X?ie=UTF8&tag=yogahabits-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen: The Unintended Consequences of Government Spending" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=160096706X&tag=yogahabits-20" style="height: 160px; width: 106px;" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=yogahabits-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=160096706X" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />Staunch fiscal conservatives sometimes entertain or even fervently support the idea of subsidizing higher education. I do not entertain such ideas and neither does education expert James Stanfield from E.G. West Centre in the School of Education at Newcastle University located in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. The Adam Smith Institute <a href="http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/education/the-broken-university/">published a paper</a> today by Stanfield that makes a very strong case against university subsidies. Stanfield steals a page right out of Frederic Bastiat's playbook. In the book <i>That Which is Seen & That Which is Not Seen</i>, Bastiat asserted that public policy via government intervention tended to result in not just one immediate and <i>visible </i> effect, but a whole host of <i>hidden</i> effects which accrue over time. Stanfield makes his case from this framework. <br />
<br />
The case for government subsidies is based entirely on the assumption that it will not only benefit every individual student, but the society as a whole. Stanfield vitiates this writing,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"While it is claimed that the taxpayer will benefit indirectly from his so-called £400 investment, <i>what is not seen</i> is that the taxpayer would still enjoy the indirect benefits of higher education if students funded themselves."</blockquote><br />
The argument against public education is nothing new. Albert Jay Nock lectured about the ills of government interference in education circa 1930. His talks were compiled into a brilliant work known as <a href="http://mises.org/books/education-nock.pdf">The Theory of Education in the United States</a>. The book is made up of a string of lectures given by Nock at the University of Virginia which makes the style interesting and direct. Nock took the issue of education seriously believing it to be a matter that greatly affected the welfare of our republic. <br />
<br />
If you have any interest in education, I highly recommend reading both the current and vintage works by Stanfield and Nock. Picking up a copy of Bastiat's classic to read wouldn't hurt either.<br />
<br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-76584495259186065062010-01-18T14:18:00.018-06:002010-02-15T09:36:58.422-06:00Was the Wild West Really that "Wild?"<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/S1TUhdPQuvI/AAAAAAAAAF8/cNxR7jv8uYw/s1600-h/wild-west.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 126px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/S1TUhdPQuvI/AAAAAAAAAF8/cNxR7jv8uYw/s200/wild-west.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428197122137701106" /></a>The later half of the 19th century in the Western United States is often known as the period of the "Wild West." It is nearly always exaggerated by historians and Hollywood. The implication of this presentation is that, without government, society becomes disordered and out of control. Areas without a State become hotbeds for crime, exploitation, and inestimable rises in price. The Wild West is often cited as an example of such anarchic conditions. In their book <a href="http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0883" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier</a>, Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill provide a <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4108" target="_blank">solid exposition</a> of the period and dispel many of these myths. Thomas Woods describes how the "Wild West" was more peaceful and much safer than most modern cities in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307346692?ie=UTF8&tag=yogahabits-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0307346692" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask</a>.<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=yogahabits-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0307346692" alt="" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" height="1" width="1" border="0" /><br /><br />Among the most interesting aspects of this period in U.S. history were the innovations in property rights that occurred far from government enforcement. The pioneers themselves created and enforced contracts and, as Anderson and Hill describe, the result was a large relocation of population to the West relatively free of conflict. One problem arose from defining and defending property rights concerning cattle in large expanses of land. Several entrepreneurial solutions resolved these problems as they ensued. These solutions were gradually introduced, and included cattle branding, constant supervision by armed cowboys on horseback, and the invention of <a href="http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/barbwire.htm" target="_blank">barbed wire</a>. Barbed wire permitted for the first time an effective separation of vast stretches of land at an affordable price. <br /><br />In a recent essay addressing conventional propaganda in regard to the period, Ryan McMaken described the American West as a "<a href="http://mises.org/daily/1449" target="_blank">heritage of peace</a>." It is important to understand that proponents of laissez-faire aren't subsequently forced to renounce all rules and forms of regulation. By definition, supporters of laissez-faire economics renounce rules and regulations enforced by coercive bureaucracies that can't go out of business. Don't fall for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" target="_blank">straw man</a> argument postured by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism" target="_blank">statists</a> that free-market supporters believe in a "no rules" system or that the "Wild West" was a period of excessive violence, severe injustice, and predominantly unsuitable for civilized human habitation.<br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-85546630975526325122009-11-24T09:56:00.009-06:002009-11-25T10:52:05.208-06:00Credibility Meltdown for Leading Climate Scientists<br />The recent climate scandal involving the <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/" target="_blank">Climate Research Unit hack</a> will likely prove to be a devastating blow to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates. Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun suggests: <br /><br /><blockquote>"The 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - <b>emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will 'peer review' be used to shout down skeptics.</b>"</blockquote>One of the documents released is a five-page document titled <span style="font-style:italic;">The Rules of the Game</span>. A primer for propagating the AGW message to average people, the document is an abridgment of a longer document contained at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. One of its sections is entitled <i>Blowing Away Myths</i>. The document proposes that AGW supporters should <br /><br /><blockquote>"forget the climate change detractors - those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about <i>if</i> we should deal with climate change, but <i>how</i> we should deal with climate change."</blockquote>I find it risible that they think ignoring their opponents is equivalent to "blowing away myths." This appears to be typical behavior from <a href="http://conservativeeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/07/anthropomorphic-global-warming.html">AGW proponents</a>; it screams <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">intellectual dishonesty</a>. <br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-49419749321023886962009-10-01T11:48:00.020-05:002009-10-06T10:31:09.297-05:00Corporate Nationalism: A Love Story<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SsULTbSwWhI/AAAAAAAAAFw/YRsenymrc5o/s1600-h/michael-moore.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 144px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SsULTbSwWhI/AAAAAAAAAFw/YRsenymrc5o/s200/michael-moore.jpg" border="1" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387724957590510098" /></a><a href="http://mises.org/story/3529" target="_blank">Capitalism sure is unpopular</a> these days. When I first saw the preview of Michael Moore's new documentary, <i>Capitalism: A Love Story</i>, I noticed that Moore is either ignorant of or disingenuous towards what <a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5652" target="_blank">actually constitutes capitalism</a>. Watching just the preview, I saw Moore present our current system of corporate nationalism as if it were capitalism. This is strange coming from someone who supports <a href="http://newsrealblog.com/2009/09/27/newsreal-sunday-michael-moore-uses-democracy-and-finds-jesus-for-socialism-propaganda/" target="_blank">government control of business</a>. <br /><br />Conveniently omitting better solutions, Michael Moore's documentaries instead give us plenty of emotionalism, some form of conspiracy, and a lack of real supporting evidence. <a href="http://www.michaelcovel.com/" target="_blank">Michael W. Covel</a> confirms this in his candid movie review <i><a href="http://mises.org/story/3751" target="_blank">Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid</a></I>. One thing is for certain, our current system has allowed Moore to make millions from his propaganda and enjoy a more opulent lifestyle than most people in all of history. In fact, the movie industry is one of the least regulated industries in our country and more exemplary of a free market arena. Producers create a product and consumers can either take it or leave it. You would think Moore, whose net worth has been estimated to <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=899" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">exceed $50 million</a>, might at least acknowledge an economic system that provided the opportunity for such prosperity. <br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-34733753375660903162009-09-11T11:46:00.010-05:002009-09-11T12:05:11.896-05:00"Stimulus" Not So Stimulating<br />Remember when the Obama administration was sounding alarms that we <span style="font-style:italic;">have</span> to pass a stimulus package <span style="font-style:italic;">now</span> or unemployment would soar? Check out the following <a href="http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/august-unemployment-data/" target="_blank">chart</a> that shows actual data plotted next to the unemployment forecasts with and without the stimulus package via Obama's economic team:<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SqqAD97hxiI/AAAAAAAAAFg/p5or7s4HR_8/s1600-h/augustunempdata.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 244px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SqqAD97hxiI/AAAAAAAAAFg/p5or7s4HR_8/s400/augustunempdata.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380253510499681826" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Post hoc ergo propter hoc</a> informs us that the chart doesn't <span style="font-style:italic;">prove</span> that the stimulus package caused the rise in unemployment, however, it doesn't bode well for the Keynesians.<br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-52094372573457251232009-08-24T22:16:00.010-05:002009-09-15T18:43:04.962-05:00Medicare Has Been Bankrupt For Some Time<br />In March 2008, the U.S. government's Department of Health and Human Services published a press release stating:<br /><br /><blockquote>This year the HI Trust Fund will spend more than its income, and from 2009 through 2017, about $342 billion will need to be transferred from the Federal treasury to cover beneficiaries' hospital insurance costs.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.garynorth.com/public/5298.cfm" target="_blank">Medicare's Hospital Program Went Broke in 2008. Nobody Noticed.</a><br /><br />In light of this, who in their right mind would want government to get <i>more</i> involved in health care? As one doctor <a href="http://matthewdipaolamd.com/post/169191444" target="_blank">noted</a>, our current system is anything but a free market. Another doctor <a href="http://blog.mises.org/archives/010466.asp" target="_blank">candidly said</a> the government is the problem in health care. <br /><br />Paul Krugman thinks that the free market cannot cure health care. Find out why he is <a href="http://blog.mises.org/archives/010358.asp" target="_blank">dead wrong</a>. We cannot afford to have government screw up our health care system even further than it already has; please write your Senators and Congressmen to voice your opinion.<br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-87661423668707298322009-07-24T17:59:00.007-05:002009-07-24T19:15:42.233-05:00Why Pay with Two-Dollar Bills?<br />Today I was browsing through one of my favorite economic sites <a href="http://mises.org">mises.org</a> and I noticed a title that really grabbed my attention - <i>Why I Pay with Two-Dollar Bills</i>. What on earth could this article be about? After reading the article, I would describe it as <i>creative awareness</i>. Briggs Armstrong, a student at Auburn University, devised an ingenious plan to raise awareness for Austrian economics and the maladies of The Fed's monetary policies. I thought I would throw him a keyword anchored link to solidify his plan by helping move his article to the top of Google's search results for the phrase he is telling curious people to look up. If you have a blog or website, I suggest you help Briggs out and do the same. To learn what Briggs is up to, click <a href="http://mises.org/story/3584">why pay with two-dollar bills</a>.<br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-42111404694414290482009-07-21T20:59:00.007-05:002009-07-22T21:39:14.302-05:00The Keynesian Magic Trick<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SmZ_cMXeodI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/1dgkvJ8keyI/s1600-h/magician.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 119px; height: 200px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SmZ_cMXeodI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/1dgkvJ8keyI/s200/magician.jpg" hspace="8" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5361112528763920850" /></a>The key to a good magic trick is the art of misdirection. If I can get you to focus on this hand over here, then I can perform something else over here - a sleight of hand, if you will. A clever Keynesian will give you what seems to be a correct premise and then try to pull the wool over your eyes in the conclusion. <br /><br />This sleight of hand emerges, for instance, when Paul Krugman argues that consumer spending <i>causes</i> the economy to grow. If you read Krugman for very long, you will notice that consumer (or government) spending is his holy grail. Spending is always in the back of his mind. Keynesians begin their argument with the definition of gross domestic product (GDP), which is in the form of an equation:<br /><br /><p>GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Expenditures + Net Exports</p><br /><br />What is the Keynesian conclusion based on this equation? "If you increase consumer consumption or maybe even government expenditures from an 800 billion dollar spending bill, you will increase GDP." That makes sense, right? If you add to one side of the equation, then the other side must increase equally.<br /><br />So you are probably thinking that Keynesians have discovered the secret to economic prosperity, right? Not so fast. What if one of the variables on the right side (such as investment) decreased in equal proportion to the increase in spending? The equation would still hold true without an increase in GDP on the left side. Here's another scenario: What if investment decreases more than the other variables increase? Then you have negative growth, and a decrease in GDP. That would be counter-productive. <br /><br />Maybe one day, even in the mainstream, the Keynesian fallacy will be put to rest for good.<br /><br />Further Reading:<br /><br /><a href="http://mises.org/story/3583">The Second Coming of Keynes</a><br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-32591775306122831432009-07-01T21:22:00.013-05:002009-07-02T21:58:04.773-05:00Anthropomorphic Global Warming Supporters Challenge Conservative Economics<br />We are not exactly sure how a debate like this gets started on Facebook, but somehow Conservative Economics managed to ruffle the feathers of two AGW supporters. It all started when we posted a joke about global warming:<br /><br />"Caveman Guide to Global Warming - Great ball of fire in sky heat small rock. Smaller creatures on small rock no heat rock."<br /><br />Within a few hours, Conservative Economics was slammed with <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html" target="_blank">ad hominem</a> attacks insulting all skeptics of Anthropomorphic Global Warming not to mention cavemen:<br /><blockquote><br />AGW Supporter #1:<br />Cavemen are notoriously retarded.</blockquote><blockquote>AGW Supporter #2:<br />Sounds like the mentality of people who don't "believe" in global warming. Caveman is perfectly appropriate.</blockquote><br />Conservative Economics:<br />Surely you can do better than argumentum ad hominem.<br /><a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432&kw=warming" target="_blank">http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432&kw=warming</a><br /><br /><blockquote>AGW Supporter #2:<br />From an actual scientific article (not a newspaper): "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."<br /><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.sciencemag.org/</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>cgi/content/full/306/5702/</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>1686</a><br /><br />It's hardly worth it to argue this point. Refusing to believe in 20 years of research and evidence because of a few funded studies here and there is a perfectly good basis for an ad hominem comment -- because if you still aren't getting it, facts clearly aren't going to change anything.<br /><br />As for IBD, it is definitely in the best interest of business for climate change to be out of our hands -- then business doesn't have to account for pollution and poor environmental practices.</blockquote><br />Conservative Economics:<br />Yes, let's move the ad hominem to the news source – because clearly a scientific magazine is more able to link to scientific studies than a news magazine. The IPCC report did not conclusively link greenhouse gases to observed temperature rises. The 2007 report says that there is a 90 percent chance that a one-degree increase in temperature during the 20th century was caused by man's greenhouse gas emissions. That is a large uncertainty in scientific terms, since a 95% confidence interval is usually regarded as convincing. Your article correctly states that, "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong."<br /><br />Of course it is hardly worth arguing the point, when you can successfully preempt the debate with rhetoric. It is especially convenient to do so when the "consensus" is reversing direction: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html</a><br /><br />There is never a good basis for an ad hominem attack, unless you plan to subvert debate using a fallacy that may go unnoticed.<br /><br />You discuss the consensus, as if "consensus" were the be-all end-all of scientific debate. What exactly is this scientific consensus? Three main points:<br /><br />1. We have had some global mean warming – approximately 0.6 degrees centigrade.<br />2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming.<br />3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2.<br /><br />Richard S. Lindzen says these are all trivial points in his paper Understanding Common Climate Claims, "While these claims may be contested, they are indeed widely accepted. The only problem is that these claims do not suggest alarm."<a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf" target="_blank"><br /><br />http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf</a><br /><br />I guess this scientific consensus also means that we should simply ignore the 700 International scientists (and growing) that dissent over man-made global warming claims?<br /><br /><a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3" target="_blank">http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3</a><br /><br />Two issues that I have yet to see addressed are (1) why the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001 and (2) how humans are responsible for big increases in greenhouse gases when they only represent 3.4% of the 3.62% of greenhouse gases that are CO2 as was candidly charted at the end of the IBD article. If these points aren't addressed, then "20 years of research and evidence" doesn't mean much.<br /><br />Actually, carbon trading stands to be great business for big players like Goldman Sachs. Indeed, the big business lobby is in a great position to gain from government-mandated climate control. I know it is easier to create a vacuum or conspiracy theory like "funded" studies or business "interest", but it doesn't hold any real weight for the debate. The economic reality is that small business and the American people will be losers from the higher costs of government intervention – not to mention all the corruption that is likely to surface.<br /><br /><blockquote>AGW Supporter #2:<br />1. 700 scientists? Who are they? Do they study climate change? I'm a scientist. Do I count? Learn to recognize propaganda.<br /><br />2. Carbon dioxide is one of six greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Learn the science.<br /><br />3. Your original post was insulting and demeaning to the THOUSANDS of scientists world-wide who do believe in climate change, and to people like myself who have read about climate change for years. I am now finished with this discussion.</blockquote><br />Conservative Economics:<br />1. If you weren't emotionally invested in it, you might actually read the report to find out who they are if that concerns you so much. Ever think of the IPCC and EPA being propaganda machines? I mean it is in their "best interest" to have a problem like this to "solve" is it not? This couldn't be why they suppressed the EPA scientist's recent study that had findings contrary to AGW? Regardless, I just assumed they had good intentions and read their findings. By the way, do you know how many scientists participated in the latest IPCC report? 52. Clearly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" target="_blank">Tolstoy syndrome</a> has set in fully for the believers. Here are just a few of the comments by skeptical scientists:<br /><br /><b>“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”</b><br />- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.<br /><br /><b>“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” </b><br />- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”<br /><br /><b>Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” </b><br />- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.<br /><br />You are free to read the rest of the 700+ in the report I linked.<br /><br />2. Yes, you are right. The EPA says that motor vehicles contribute to 4 out of the 6 including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons. Since you are the expert on science (and clearly I don't know science), perhaps you can answer for me why there is no correlation between hydrocarbon use (gas, oil, and coal) and temperature? Why does solar irradiance correlate well with temperature? How are the AWG supporting scientists addressing the fact that correlation is not causation in their findings? Why do these scientists focus much more on CO2 than the other greenhouse gases? Good science involves welcoming and answering questions – not avoiding them.<br /><br />3. Right. So, restating your source and pointing out the uncertainty is insulting, but characterizing skeptics as "cavemen" isn't insulting and demeaning? Give me a break.<br /><br />I agree with Lindzen's conclusion:<br /><br /><b>"A question rarely asked, but nonetheless important, is whether the promotion of alarmism is really good for science? The situation may not be so remote from the impact of Lysenkoism on Soviet genetics. However, personally, I think the future will view the response of contemporary society to 'global warming' as simply another example of the appropriateness of the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. For the sake of the science, I hope that future arrives soon."</b><br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-51834871724519649292009-06-11T15:44:00.008-05:002009-06-15T10:37:19.672-05:00What is Economics?<br />Lionel Robbins, a British economist, said that "Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses." This might be the best definition of economics I have come across. Resources are scarce which means that people want more than is available to them. Another way of saying it is that our wants are unlimited and the resources to fulfill our wants are limited. Scarcity required us to economize, therefore the need for economics was born. <br /><br />Scarcity has also required us to study trade-offs or the various uses of resources. Thomas Sowell states in his brilliant book <i><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBasic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy%2Fdp%2F0465002609%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1245080091%26sr%3D8-1&tag=yogahabits-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank">Basic Economics</a></i>:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Not only scarcity but also "alternative uses" are at the heart of economics. If each resource had only one use, economics would be much simpler. But water can be used to produce ice or steam by itself or innumerable other mixtures and compounds in combination with other things. A virtually limitless number of products can also be produce from wood or from petroleum, iron ore, etc. How much of each resource should be allocated to each of its many uses? Every economy has to answer that question, and each one does, in one way or another, efficiently or inefficiently. Doing so efficiently is what economics is all about."</blockquote><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fallacy of Economics</span><br /><br />You may have heard the saying that an economist thinks he knows more about money than the people who have it. This comes from a misunderstanding of economics and what it entails. Decisions don't even have to involve money to be economic. Economics is not about how to make money or how to run a business. It is about the study of relationships between items such as prices, commerce, wages, and international trade from the viewpoint of how it affects the distribution of scarce resources to society. Even more broadly defined, Economics is the inquiry of praxeology - the study of human action or conduct. Ludwig von Mises championed the inclusion of all human action into the study of economics and anything less was incomplete.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Benefit of Economics</span><br /><br />How can we benefit from economics? Economics helps us determine how well the various uses of resources affects our society. More specifically, we can determine what particular actions or policies do to either increase poverty or wealth. This can be very valuable indeed.<br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-23509486261688125392009-06-01T00:19:00.000-05:002009-05-31T21:41:31.902-05:00Why Does Government Often Fail?<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SiM-MwHxTBI/AAAAAAAAAFI/TXbYUSOoMns/s1600-h/headupass.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 178px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/SiM-MwHxTBI/AAAAAAAAAFI/TXbYUSOoMns/s200/headupass.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5342181971788385298" /></a>Government often fails not because of the people in it, but because of the nature of government itself. Government takes whatever individual brilliance exists and turns it into collective incompetence. Most activities of the government are to "solve" problems. However, once an agency or program is setup to "solve" the problem, it is in its best interest to simply "manage" the problem. Ronald Reagan said it well, <br /><br /><blockquote>"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."</blockquote>Let's look closer at why government fails. If a government agency solves a "problem", it gets less money as its funds are funneled elsewhere. If a government agency fails to solve its "problem", it complains of underfunding and gets more money.<br /><br />If a business solves a problem for customers, it gets more customers and more money. If a business fails to help customers solve their problems, the customers go elsewhere and the business loses money. <br /><br />As you can see, the incentives are backwards with government which explains its high rate of failure.<br /><br />Can you imagine a business that paid employees more if they did less work and paid them less if they did more work? The idea is clearly foolish; anyone can see that if you pay people more for doing a poor job, it won't be long before all the employees are doing as little work as possible to increase their pay. Doing a good job is challenging, but any boob can do a poor job.<br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-45913946114708560282009-05-20T08:20:00.007-05:002009-05-20T09:20:14.329-05:00Ron Paul Predicted Housing Crisis<br />Why am I not surprised that Ron Paul predicted the housing crisis back in September of 2003?<br /><br /><blockquote>"Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.<br /><br />Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."</blockquote><br />It is too bad government didn't listen to him then, but how often do they really ever take heed to sound advice?<br /><br />Check out the full text of the hearing at <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html</a><br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-47096899974647921252009-05-15T10:19:00.006-05:002009-05-15T10:45:04.291-05:00Discrimination From The Bench<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/Sg2J2eIQi9I/AAAAAAAAAFA/Vx7hqetC-80/s1600-h/empathy.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 277px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xfRX5VfMybw/Sg2J2eIQi9I/AAAAAAAAAFA/Vx7hqetC-80/s400/empathy.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5336072702397549522" border="0" /></a><br /><p>President Obama has decided to usher in a new era of "social justice" through empathy which gives judges the right to discriminate in order to prevent discrimination. Wait....HUH?</p><br /><br />*Cartoon by Michael Ramirez<br /><br />Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.com0