I am leaving everything that is published here to be found. There are some good ideas here even if they aren’t well described.

There is no historical evidence to suggest that money printing has ever done anything except destroy economies. Just ask the people of Zimbabwe.

We’ve already enacted bailouts in the tune of trillions with no upturn in the economy. Unemployment remains high. There is no recovery without employment. The idea that unemployment is a “lagging indicator” is ridiculous. It isn’t a lagging indicator, it’s the only indicator. The stock market can go as high as it wants. A high nominal value is meaningless. As much as the stock market has “recovered”, how stable is it? When the Dow Jones can drop 1000 points in a matter of minutes, we know we aren’t standing on solid ground.

This is volatility like we’ve never seen.

Bye Bye EU

There is an excellent chance the Euro won’t be around for much longer. It was an idiot’s idea to begin with. Who has it actually helped? No offense to any of the member nations of the EU but, the only really productive nation is Germany. The rest of you are–more or less–freeloaders. Ultimately, the EU has been great for the rest of you who do very little while Germany carries your asses.

That might be okay with you but, let’s not forget how the Euro has killed tourism. It is just too damn expensive for people to travel to Europe. Especially the big spenders from America. It’s lovely that you have a “stronger” currency–for now. But, what good has it done for your economy? Imposing a strong currency on a weak economy is economically unnatural. You become dependent on the entity that imposed this currency. Example: Greece.

The Greeks are rioting. They are burning buildings. Killing people. I do not support any of it but, the Greeks will do what they do. I am glad we haven’t resorted to that here in the United States. Force isn’t the answer. We can still accomplish what we need with peace.

But, can you blame the Greeks for rioting? The EU wants to impose austerity on Greece. Sounds like a nice word. But, what does it mean? It means the Greek people are going to suffer a drastically reduced standard of living. How happy would you be if some foreign entity forcefully made you poorer? I do mean foreign. The EU is not Greece.

None of this were the fault of the Greek people. It was the European Central Bank that kept interest rates too low for too long that allowed the bubble in the Eurozone to grow. This bubble is most devastating to weaker economies like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. This should be to no one’s surprise but, those same nations are all in trouble. At this point, it’s just a matter of time.

The EuroBubble

Anyone with any sense could have seen that this arrangement with the EU was only going to end terribly. With the ECB, the Greek government no longer had to raise taxes on the people to fund their idiotic projects. They just had to create bonds, sell it to the ECB, and voila! brand new spanking Euros! This is the same arrangement the US Treasury has with the Federal Reserve.

Low and behold, Greek never had the capacity to pay all the bonds they created! And now Greece is where they are now: about to default. But we can’t have that! Those holding Greek bonds would lose a boatload of money. And apparently, those holders have friends in high places. I have no idea who owns Greek bonds but, I would not be surprised if some of our financial wizards on Wall St owned some. These are the same geniuses that bet on mortgage-backed derivatives so, it isn’t a far stretch.

On Mother’s Day, May 9th, 2010, the Federal Reserve agreed to be one of the handful of central banks to provide for the almost $1 trillion EU bailout. Great. American taxpayers are going to be on the hook for economic crises in Europe too. We really must be rich!

But, no. We aren’t. Our economy is still in the toilet. There are now a record number of Americans on food stamps. Yea, shit hasn’t gotten better.

The Last Straw

Our involvement in the EU bailout isn’t going to implode what remains of our economy. In the bigger picture, our involvement in the EU is negligible. This doesn’t mean we should be involved. We surely should not be.

The implosion of our economy was ensured as we enacted our own bailouts and increased the national debt to over 90% of GDP. It is going to go over 100% of GDP in no time with the gigantic budget deficits–bigger than the GDP of Canada. But even that wouldn’t necessarily result in armageddon. Japan’s debt is 200% of GDP and they’re still around. Granted, they have a zombie economy. But even a zombie is still “alive”–reanimated, whatever.

The last straw is going to be when interest rates go up. They have to. Either interest rates stay low and we suffer from massive inflation or we raise interest rates, the interest payments on the national debt becomes sky high, so we print money to pay it, and suffer from massive inflation anyway. No matter what, inflation is coming. And it’s going to destroy what remains of the US economy.

I won’t even include the $60 trillion of unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare. No matter how slowly those unfunded liabilities become funded, inflation is unavoidable. It would take some magical free market ingenuity to create a bunch of Apple’s and Google’s for the economy to “grow” its way out of this.

This is highly unlikely. It would be more likely that you win the lottery tomorrow than it would be for a crippled and handicapped free market to create an army of companies like Apple and Google within the next decade. But, this is what the people in government are hoping for! Cross your fingers!

A Ray of Sunlight

This is a terribly dark future. But, there is some good to all of this. Granted, it would be much better if we never bailed out Wall St and we didn’t grow government to the size it has become but, too late for that. We have what we have and there’s no sign that we can change course in time.

If we can cut the size of government drastically and alleviate the tax burden drastically, there is some hope that the worse won’t happen. But again, this is about as likely as “growing” our way out of the problem.

The only likely ray of sunlight is the fresh start we all get when the US Dollar collapses. It won’t be fun to get there but, at least the end of the rainbow will be a pot of gold.

In February of 2009, there was only one country without any national debt: Zimbabwe. They had a fresh start. Super markets with empty shelves as price controls were enacted by the government are once again plentiful.

Ultimately, this is not going to be fun. The other bright side is that all the technology we have are still going to be here. Economic destruction doesn’t just make these leaps in civilization disappear. It will never be as bad as the Great Depression or the Dark Ages. We have better technology. Humanity has improved virtually everything we do. Even Kings never had air conditioners or computers.

No matter the shit storm, it could always be–and has been–worse.

However, this just means I’ve been making my case in shorter messages on social networks that I frequent. I’m convinced some people have blocked my updates on their Facebook feeds. I have been unfriended and blocked on Twitter for bashing the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration.

But, I will not give into terrorists! The message of Liberty is too important. Besides, those who block and unfriend me are obviously not real friends. So there is the unintended benefit of weeding out the fakes.

Of the five latest blog posts that show up here, one of them is about the right to be naked. It is entirely coincidental that I am again writing about that six months later. This time, I am prompted by a tweet from one of my favorite–and real–friends. The NY Times ran a story about a nude window display in Greenwich Village, NYC.

Reading Right to be Naked will explain why laws disallowing nudity violate Liberty so I won’t go into that.

The question that we need to answer is not which opinion we have is the right one. They are both right. Whether you believe people should be allowed to walk around naked or not is not the issue. We cannot make laws for an entire population based on the whims of a majority or minority in any given time period. The question to answer is whether or not we are a free people.

I will quote a paragraph from the article and then smash it to pieces:

“If you’re walking down a street in New York City and someone is naked in the window — and so children and whoever can see it — you’re depriving people of their choice,” said Daniel S. Connolly, a managing partner at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, and a former lawyer for the city who handled public nudity cases. “That’s where you butt up against other people’s rights.”

This sounds good and reasonable. We obviously shouldn’t deprive people of their right to free choice. Afterall, if we do that, we are violating another’s rights and that is a problem. I have no qualms with that idea: it is the fundamental principle of Liberty. The problem is the way this is framed.

It is completely rubbish.

Which right is being deprived when there is a naked person on the street? Is it the right to see people naked or clothed? That is not a right. We don’t have a right to see people clothed or naked. If we did, that would mean we can demand someone take off their clothes at any time. This is ridiculous and no one would agree to it.

For argument’s sake, let’s replace naked people with clowns. Some people have a fear of clowns or, for whatever reason, do not like clowns. So a clown walks down the street and there are people around who do not want to see a clown. By the logic of Connolly at Bracewell & Giuliani, we should disallow clowns from walking down the street because it deprives people of their choice. How ludicrous is this?

Replace clowns with anything you want and it is all equally insane. No one is harmed, has their property stolen, or forced to do anything against their will. The choice we have is to walk away or look away. To demand that every clown or naked person be removed from the street because you have a problem with it is depriving people of their choice; not the other way around.

On a side note, the article continuously framed the right to be nude as something that is or is not protected by the first amendment. This is not a first amendment issue. This is an issue of property rights. Without property rights, every other right is moot. The right to free speech only makes sense if you have a right to yourself. You are the property of yourself.

Trying to make the case that the right to have your own body nude is not protected under the first amendment is meaningless. It is protected under property rights which underlies all other rights.

I am currently debating a friend of mine about the theory of natural monopolies. He has an economics degree from NYU. I have a degree in marketing but, I also study the works of the Austrian School of Economics. Clearly, his credentials are greater than mine on this topic but, in this case, natural monopolies is a myth taught at schools across the country.

In this video, Thomas DiLorenzo debunks the myth of the natural monopoly. You can find his written research paper here provided by the Mises Institute. The theory of natural monopoly does not logically fit with fundamental laws of economics.

First off, I am competely against the bill and the idea of universal health care. There is no such thing as a good bill that is thousand pages long and there is no such thing as a well run government system. Those are both fairytales.

It is entirely ineffective that those on the side of the bill resort to name calling in the form of the Bush Administration’s tactic of calling critics unpatriotic and the Obama Administration’s tactic of calling critics racists. Both are unproductive and not what a debate is about.

As expected, those who want the bill passed don’t want a debate; they just pay lip service to the idea. The real debate is not whether we should have reform or not. No one disagrees that the current system is imperfect and needs to be reformed. However, reform is a vague term.

There is no guarantee that any old reform will make things better. Things aren’t so bad that there is no way the government can make it worse. We aren’t at rock bottom.

The real debate should be what kind of reform we should have. The only way we can have an intelligent debate on is if we understand what the problems are and not how to solve the symtoms.

The problem is not that we have an estimated 45 million uninsured people in the United States. Having health insurance and having health care is not the same thing. For whatever reasons, we have become conditioned to believing that the two terms are interchangeable. It is how the media talks about it and it is how the politicians talk about it.

The underlying problem with health insurance is that we are insuring every medical procedure under the sun. It doesn’t matter if its a check up, a cold, cancer, or broken bones. The system insures it all. This is not the case in any other insurance industry. No one buys car insurance to cover oil changes and tune-ups. We don’t buy house insurance for carpet stains.

Insurance is to insure us from large, catastrophic events. If you break a bone, you could use insurance. If you want to insure against getting cancer, you should get insurance. If you have a cold, you should not be using insurance.

The only thing that happens when we insure everything is we increase costs with paperwork and allow doctors to charge the absolute maximum price because the consumer doesn’t pay for it out of pocket. When was the last time you went to the doctor and cared how much your visit cost? You only cared about the deductible because it comes directly out of your pocket at the time of the visit.

When you don’t know the price and don’t care what the price is, there is no reason for you to shop around for the best value. The system itself perpetuates higher prices indefinitely with no end in sight. Even while technological improvements should be reducing the price of medicine, costs are still increasing.

This doesn’t make any sense.

In every other field, technology brings prices down. How can it be that technology increases prices in medicine? How can streamlining the process cause prices to increase? If it weren’t for technological advances, prices would be even higher!

Now, why is it that health insurance companies don’t operate more like auto and home insurance companies? It is certainly not because the consumer is demanding that health care operate this way. Once upon a time, people did go visit doctors and knew what they were paying per visit.

Insurance didn’t always cover everything under the sun. The culprit is the government. They have created an environment where it is better for the insurance companies to cover everything. They have made it so that it is more expensive for individuals to buy insuranace and given companies tax breaks for providing employees with insurance. So, if you lose or switch your job, you lose your insurance. What sense does that make?

If there was no cost benefit for getting our health insurance from our jobs, we wouldn’t do it that way! It isn’t more convenient and doesn’t provide us with more freedom.

They have disallowed us from buying insurance across State lines. If an insurance company two States over offers a better plan for you and they are willing to serve you, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? I’m not saying it will be cheaper or better but, why don’t we have the option? The only ones who knows what’s best for us, is us.

It is economic law that competition drives down prices and creates greater value for consumers. Politically creating monopolies for local insurance companies do not benefit us.

While a group of people have decided to boycott Whole Foods‘ for John Mackey’s OpEd in the WSJ, he brings up very good points as to what the real health care debate should be. Not all of his recommendations may be right. His system at Whole Foods might not work everywhere–which should tell you that any national system would also fail–but, at least he is presenting real debate points.

Instead of just towing party lines.

There is no doubt we need health care reform. I don’t believe we need Obama’s reform. I would go as far as to say that it will make things worse. Until we are willing to have a real debate on the issue, we will never have reform that doesn’t need to be forced down the throats of Americans.

Unbeknownst to me, women were marching topless in Central Park on Sunday, August 23rd, 2009. I support their cause because this is an issue of Liberty. I like breasts as much as the next guy and I hardly believe any man would be too opposed to women walking around topless. Now, not all women are equal and there are breasts that we want to look at that those that we’d rather not. Different people like different things. But, the point isn’t whether men like breasts or not.

This is an issue of Liberty.

Because of that, it doesn’t matter if your breasts or young and perky or old and saggy. There should be no reason why women or men should not be allowed to walk around topless or even bare naked. As long one is out in a public place, there is no legitimate reason to disallow anyone from presenting themselves in any way they wish.

If one is on private property and the owner of the property doesn’t want it, they can ask that you be clothed and in the same light, if they allow you to be naked, you can be naked within their property.

There are some who believe this is wrong as the Daily News article quoted:

“This is extreme liberalism and why America’s in decline,” shouted one woman, who said she was a doctor but declined to give her name. “It’s degrading to women to tell them to expose their breasts publicly.”

America is in decline for many reasons–none of which is due to excess Liberty. The women’s opinion is as valid as anyone else’s opinion. Other women might say its degrading to tell them to hide their breasts in public! Is there something wrong with breasts? Why should women be forced to hide them? All such opinions are valid. The beauty of Liberty is that nothing is judged on opinions. It is a matter of property rights. We own our bodies and if we want to put clothes on it, we can; if not, we should also be allowed to do so.

The opinions of the majority change with the times. Natural rights do not.

France has a law that specifically states women are allowed to be topless. While I agree with the idea of the law, I do not support having a law that tells us what we can do. A system of governance that starts writing laws for what we are allowed to do is a bad precedence. We should be allowed to do whatever we want as long as no one else’s Liberty is violated.

While I have no intention of telling my mother, sister, cousins, girlfriend, or friends to go walk around topless–nor do I want to see all of that, it doesn’t give me the right to tell them they can’t do it. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. We have no right to control another person’s Liberty.

That’s what this issue should be about. It isn’t about whether women should bare their breasts in public or not. It is about whether we live in a nation founded on Liberty or not.

The disconnect is that while the government says they want to do all those good things, they will end up accomplishing the opposite.

I’ve talked plenty about how the government’s attempts at rescuing the economy is the equivalent of giving a drug addict more drugs, how man-made climate change is a load of crap, and how the problem with healthcare is the excessive amount of government involvement. So, I won’t beat a dead horse. I will instead tackle another unpopular topic: the minimum wage.

If it was up to me, the minimum wage would be $0. The minimum wage is promoted as a means to create wealth equality and provide all Americans with a livable income but, the reality is nothing that is promoted. A minimum wage keeps more workers out of work.

The government is essentially saying that if you do not have the skills to warrant whatever the minimum wage is, you should not work. Sound backwards? It’s not. There is no reason for a company to hire you for $7.25 to do a job that is worth much less. So where there was a chance for people without skills to take a lower wage to learn the skills so that they can get ahead in life, the government takes it away.

If you made some wrong decisions or life just threw you a bad hand, you no longer have the means to work your way up. The government eliminated the steps at the bottom of the ladder and if you can’t jump high enough to reach the new bottom, you are screwed. To fix this unemployment problem, the government puts a band-aid over it by offering welfare for the people the government put out of work! How grand.

To compound the problem, the government via the Federal Reserve inflates the money supply to fund all their welfare/warfare projects and our cost of living goes up. To solve this problem, the government raises the minimum wage because it is now more expensive to live. The increased minimum wage puts more workers out of work and the government needs to offer more welfare by printing, borrowing, or taxing and the cost of living goes up more! This is the vicious cycle created by government and further made worse by more government intervention.

No one in Congress is going to vote no to the increase in the minimum wage because it is politically unpopular–except Ron Paul and a few others who understand economics and unintended consequences.

No one wants to see the actual picture of what the minimum wage does. When people criticize the minimum wage and call for its abolition–like myself–we are labeled as monsters who do not care about the poor. I am not multi-millionaire and I don’t make that much money. I just understand economics. I don’t care about the poor as much as I care about myself–I won’t lie about it.

I find little wrong with putting yourself, family, and friends first before random strangers. It is terrible that people are living in poverty but I am not so far away that the policies I support will benefit me at the expense of the poor. It will benefit everyone.

It is an economic lie that the minimum wage is good for the economy. If the minimum wage can solve our poverty problems, why not just make it $100/hr and everyone would be rich! Obviously, we can see that it would be disastrous and practically everyone will be out of a job or prices will be sky high for everything.

So as usual, the government is kicking the economy while it is down with this minimum wage increase.

Image via Wikipedia

Honestly, I don’t know much about Chuck Norris outside of the Chuck Norrisisms and the movies that I’ve seen. It was a very pleasant surprise when I found this. Chuck Norris writes an intelligent piece advocating the abolition of the Federal Reserve or at least the passing of HR 1207–Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill.

Last week, the Senate blocked the bill even before it was introduced on the floor under “procedural grounds”. What the hell is that?

The truth of the matter is that the leaders in the Senate do not want the Federal Reserve audited. It is their “cash cow” so to speak. The Federal Reserve doesn’t make money the way the rest of us do, they make money by literally “making” it with paper and printing presses. This is good for the politicians who want their programs funded, bad for the rest of us.

Norris quotes Henry Ford on the banking and monetary system–controlled by the Fed–of the United States:

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

I believe that the nation would be in revolution if we all knew the reality of the Federal Reserve and how they manipulate our monetary system. So let’s inform the people!

Why do wine and liquor stores get a monopoly? We know that monopolies are bad. The more competition there is in the market, the better it will be for the end consumer–us.

I’ve seen little flyers at my local supermarket in support of this and I’ve heard the arguments against it. Those against the freeing of wine sales have a weak case at best.

“In addition to charging grocery stores franchise fees of varying amounts for the right to sell wine, it would nearly triple the excise tax on wine sales and eliminate financing for the New York Wine and Grape Foundation, a trade group.”

An increase in excise taxes is a bad thing but the elimination or reduction of government financing for the New York Wine and Grape Foundation is perfectly fine. Why do they need subsidies in the first place? If the foundation cannot exist without government aid then it shouldn’t exist at all. The active participants in the wine industry can maintain their own foundation.

As a consumer, I would love it if I could buy wine at my local supermarket. However, I wouldn’t expect any specialty wines at a supermarket. There will always be a market for specialty wine and liquor stores. It will likely be a smaller market and their business models may have to change but, that is how business is. There is never a guarantee that your market will stay the same forever nor a guarantee that you will stay in business forever.

The mere fact that the government grants wine stores a monopoly on the sale of wine makes consumers worse off. The availability of wine will increase and the price will decrease. This is better for the wine industry as a whole as the market will expand.

“A coalition known as the Last Store on Main Street, representing 2,742 New York wine sellers and liquor store owners, says the move would force more than 1,000 such stores out of business and lead to a loss of more than 4,000 jobs.”

Those who lose their jobs due to this can find jobs elsewhere. There is no reason why millions should suffer just because thousands will lose their jobs. The benefit to society is greater than the loss.

“I’m a parent,” he said. “For the 25 years I’ve been in business, I’ve been extremely conscious of people who try to buy liquor when they’re not legally entitled to it. So I’m concerned kids might be able to get alcohol more easily. I don’t want those kids on the road.”

The argument of an increased sale of alcohol to minors is asinine. Supermarkets already sell beer and card their patrons. The process of the sale of beer can just as easily be applied to the sale wine. This is clearly a moot point. Ideally, there would be no age restriction on the purchase of alcohol but, this is the society we live in.

“And are more people going to drink more wine just because it’s in a grocery store? I don’t think so,” Mr. Massoud said. “I think the demand is finite.”

That is just a gross misunderstanding of economics. Demand is always infinite. It is supply and price that keeps demand in check. We always want more things. If prices are lowered, demand will go up. It is an absolute certainty that more people will drink wine if it was more widely available and cheaper.

It is about time NY got rid of the wine monopoly. It will be better for all of us.