Two weeks after the presidential election here in the United States, nothing has changed. The stage was set to have a big change at the national level by a sweeping republican victory - after all they had more money vis a vis the citizens united case. The republicans fell flat on their face even though a president had overseen a bad downturn in the economy, an uptick in interventionist foreign policy, and things just got worse.
Moving forward, i think all the money spent on the elections were put to a completely wasteful activity that will ultimately produce nothing. After all, the government doesn't have money, they can only confiscate money through taxes (force). The country has the exact same president, the majority in the senate and the majority in the house that it had on November 1 as it will on February 1 (after everyone new is sworn in).
All this being said, i think the country is still heading in the wrong direction as far as economics and foreign policy are concerned. the only bright spot from the election is the advancement (albeit slight advances) in civil liberties. Several states voted to change their stance on the war on drugs and same sex marriage. These cases are still keeping the state involved in people's lives because of their votes, but their votes to end prohibition and move in a liberty minded state is certainly better than nothing at all.
The country must address the issues facing us immediately. What is the state going to do about the debt? What are the actual consequences (at an individual level) if the government does nothing RE "the fiscal cliff?" Why are people still putting up with the state intervening in the lives of other people around the world in the name of national security (GAZA)? When will we stop sending the naive in this country (the soldiers that think they are fighting for a good cause) into a buzzsaw that is the unstable regions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Israel/Gaza, etc?
stand up, be heard, do something in order to make this place a more humane, less coercive, and loving place to live for everyone...
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Inflation
One of the biggest concerns that I have personally for the economy isn't really talked about in the media or newspapers. Most people, especially the politicians, are worried about jobs. More need to be pt back to work; if more people are working then their will be more tax revenue; if their is more tax revenue then we can spend more. A lot of people are worried about the debt and the consequences of that debt - most notably, how is it going to get repaid?My concern with the debt is something more close to home.
The fact that the state has ran up a debt, and will continue to run up a huge debt as long as politicians are in charge, is serious because of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve's answer to everything is to manipulate the market mostly by increasing the money supply, decrease it's borrowing rates, or, now, by directly injecting money into a certain sector of the economy through QE3 (mortgage backed securities/mortgage sector) for an indefinite amount of time. Because of these actions, we the individuals that happen to be forced to use this phony money by force, are subject to the great consequences that come with the imminent inflation due to intervention by the state apparatuses into the economy. I have noticed, personally, that cola is sold in smaller containers for the same price. Toilet paper on the roll is thinner and there is less of it on a roll. When I do splurge to get the name brand food item in the same old container, it is somehow more expensive.
These are not figments of our imagination. Inflation is a very real threat to all of our Liberty. Inflation has the biggest effect on the most responsible of individuals in society - the savers. The savers had a plan to be self-sufficient based on models that could illustrate or predict an average rate of return of a modest 5%. Nowhere will you find a return of 5% without a substantial risk associated with that investment. Working in insurance, inflation is very evident by policies that parents purchased on their children decades ago. The amounts of coverage on these policies were enough to cover final expenses at the time the policy was purchased (and priced for that matter). Even now and more recently, people purchased policies that would allow their loved ones to live comfortably in the event that they suffered a financial loss in the 80s and 90s that would barely cover many people's expenses and debts that the products were designed and intended to cover.
Inflation a state sponsored attack on all of us. The state and the Federal Reserve will only continue to maintain policies that destroy our savings, livelihoods, and legacies until the masses decide that trusting the government to take care of you is less rewarding than doing it yourself.
The fact that the state has ran up a debt, and will continue to run up a huge debt as long as politicians are in charge, is serious because of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve's answer to everything is to manipulate the market mostly by increasing the money supply, decrease it's borrowing rates, or, now, by directly injecting money into a certain sector of the economy through QE3 (mortgage backed securities/mortgage sector) for an indefinite amount of time. Because of these actions, we the individuals that happen to be forced to use this phony money by force, are subject to the great consequences that come with the imminent inflation due to intervention by the state apparatuses into the economy. I have noticed, personally, that cola is sold in smaller containers for the same price. Toilet paper on the roll is thinner and there is less of it on a roll. When I do splurge to get the name brand food item in the same old container, it is somehow more expensive.
These are not figments of our imagination. Inflation is a very real threat to all of our Liberty. Inflation has the biggest effect on the most responsible of individuals in society - the savers. The savers had a plan to be self-sufficient based on models that could illustrate or predict an average rate of return of a modest 5%. Nowhere will you find a return of 5% without a substantial risk associated with that investment. Working in insurance, inflation is very evident by policies that parents purchased on their children decades ago. The amounts of coverage on these policies were enough to cover final expenses at the time the policy was purchased (and priced for that matter). Even now and more recently, people purchased policies that would allow their loved ones to live comfortably in the event that they suffered a financial loss in the 80s and 90s that would barely cover many people's expenses and debts that the products were designed and intended to cover.
Inflation a state sponsored attack on all of us. The state and the Federal Reserve will only continue to maintain policies that destroy our savings, livelihoods, and legacies until the masses decide that trusting the government to take care of you is less rewarding than doing it yourself.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Positive Obligations
One of the bigger concerns most have expressed to me about a voluntaryist society has to deal with positive obligations. Ultimately the whole issue boils down to there would be no positive obligations without cause in a voluntaryist society.
If you we're walking down the street and got mugged (not unlike living in the statist police state of today), there is no requirement for anyone to intervene on your behalf - not even for employees of protective service organizations. There is certainly an incentive to the protective service to intervene - even if pro bono - to build a relationship for future service.
Only some occasions prevent you from exercising your property rights absolutely (a positive obligation to respect their rights). For example, no one could invite someone up on a private plane take them to 10,000 ft and ten say their guest is not welcome. Pushing someone out of a plane - regardless of if your property rights - is a violation of someone's personal property rights. Furthermore, because of these positive obligations' nonexistence does not preclude someone acting voluntary to stop the mugger. Just like you would do now in a situation where you saw someone being aggressed upon, you have the choice to intervene or not.
The difference would be, in a voluntaryist society... Everyone's packing heat and muggings would be few and far between because of it.
If you we're walking down the street and got mugged (not unlike living in the statist police state of today), there is no requirement for anyone to intervene on your behalf - not even for employees of protective service organizations. There is certainly an incentive to the protective service to intervene - even if pro bono - to build a relationship for future service.
Only some occasions prevent you from exercising your property rights absolutely (a positive obligation to respect their rights). For example, no one could invite someone up on a private plane take them to 10,000 ft and ten say their guest is not welcome. Pushing someone out of a plane - regardless of if your property rights - is a violation of someone's personal property rights. Furthermore, because of these positive obligations' nonexistence does not preclude someone acting voluntary to stop the mugger. Just like you would do now in a situation where you saw someone being aggressed upon, you have the choice to intervene or not.
The difference would be, in a voluntaryist society... Everyone's packing heat and muggings would be few and far between because of it.
Monday, October 1, 2012
anarcho-capitalism
One of the main rebuttals that I hear from individuals about an "anarchist" or "anarcho-capitalist" society is that eventually there will either be mob-rule or that the market will become a government to itself. My initial response is: "Anything is better than what we have now..."
In all reality, the market does allow for voluntary exchange in everything - including ideas. For example, if a community/subdivision/city block decides that they are all going to help each other out in a way that some would consider mutualist or socialist this is fine. The difference between this "socialism" and the socialism of today's existence is that there is no coercive state that says you have to be a socialist or, at least, if you're not a socialist then your going to jail. This "voluntaryism" allows for individual communites to come up with and put in place their own guidelines to how people can contribute... but they dont have to. Not every subdivision is going to have a codified set of customs/traditions/rules/"laws" that everyone has to abide by.
Also, the market will pick out what the accepting norms are as far as interpersonal exchanges are concerned. Some may consider a type of rule by the mob to be better than what we currently have because of the market theme behind it. When the market is behind a system of governance, there is an option for real change. Competition is key. Under the state, the key difference is there is a monopoly on force.
So, in a sense, there is no opposition to government as long as government is voluntary and there is no force coercing you to follow discriminatory laws both economically and socially.
In all reality, the market does allow for voluntary exchange in everything - including ideas. For example, if a community/subdivision/city block decides that they are all going to help each other out in a way that some would consider mutualist or socialist this is fine. The difference between this "socialism" and the socialism of today's existence is that there is no coercive state that says you have to be a socialist or, at least, if you're not a socialist then your going to jail. This "voluntaryism" allows for individual communites to come up with and put in place their own guidelines to how people can contribute... but they dont have to. Not every subdivision is going to have a codified set of customs/traditions/rules/"laws" that everyone has to abide by.
Also, the market will pick out what the accepting norms are as far as interpersonal exchanges are concerned. Some may consider a type of rule by the mob to be better than what we currently have because of the market theme behind it. When the market is behind a system of governance, there is an option for real change. Competition is key. Under the state, the key difference is there is a monopoly on force.
So, in a sense, there is no opposition to government as long as government is voluntary and there is no force coercing you to follow discriminatory laws both economically and socially.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
war
...what is it good for?
I recently had a day where I had to respond to several tweets on my twitter account (@2NeCeDeMalis). After watching "This Week with George Stefanopolous" for the purpose of seeing KY Sen. Rand Paul debate NYT Economist/Columnist Paul Krugman, the host invited viewers to continue the debate on twitter between the two politicians on he deus - the aforementioned Paul and Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker.
I decided to tweet both politicians in an attempt to challenge them on their parties' candidate for President - Republican Governor Mitt Romney and Democrat incumbent President Barack Obama. I tweeted both Cory Booker (here) and Rand Paul (here) about issues I thought are pretty devastating to their candidate with independents and (most importnat to me) libertarians. I did not get a response from Sen. Paul, but...
Cory Booker responded to my tweet by retweeting and offering "clear choice" response. Almost immediately after giving his response, I had a load of Obama supporters start responding on how I could possibly challenge the President on his positions in war, and how dare I say that the president is worse than former President George W. Bush. The problem with this type of argument is the simple fact that Barack Obama has escalated all of the worse policies that liberals and progressives alike came out in strong force against while Bush was in office.
The tweet I made to Cory Booker was geared specifically towards the President's use of drone warfare and the escalation of those drones in countries like Yemen and Pakistan - currently outside the defined theaters of war. The President has been denounced heavily by strong antiwar advocates like Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and the website dedicated to the cause AntiWar.com. How can so many of these Democrats be so enthusiastically supportive of a president that has escalated the same policies they were so strongly against just a few years before.
You tell me... I think it's a crying shame. Furthermore, it has only made the country less safe than it was before this President took office.
I recently had a day where I had to respond to several tweets on my twitter account (@2NeCeDeMalis). After watching "This Week with George Stefanopolous" for the purpose of seeing KY Sen. Rand Paul debate NYT Economist/Columnist Paul Krugman, the host invited viewers to continue the debate on twitter between the two politicians on he deus - the aforementioned Paul and Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker.
I decided to tweet both politicians in an attempt to challenge them on their parties' candidate for President - Republican Governor Mitt Romney and Democrat incumbent President Barack Obama. I tweeted both Cory Booker (here) and Rand Paul (here) about issues I thought are pretty devastating to their candidate with independents and (most importnat to me) libertarians. I did not get a response from Sen. Paul, but...
Cory Booker responded to my tweet by retweeting and offering "clear choice" response. Almost immediately after giving his response, I had a load of Obama supporters start responding on how I could possibly challenge the President on his positions in war, and how dare I say that the president is worse than former President George W. Bush. The problem with this type of argument is the simple fact that Barack Obama has escalated all of the worse policies that liberals and progressives alike came out in strong force against while Bush was in office.
The tweet I made to Cory Booker was geared specifically towards the President's use of drone warfare and the escalation of those drones in countries like Yemen and Pakistan - currently outside the defined theaters of war. The President has been denounced heavily by strong antiwar advocates like Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and the website dedicated to the cause AntiWar.com. How can so many of these Democrats be so enthusiastically supportive of a president that has escalated the same policies they were so strongly against just a few years before.
You tell me... I think it's a crying shame. Furthermore, it has only made the country less safe than it was before this President took office.
Economics
I was listening to some podcasts earlier this week and truly got to thinking about the modern day student. In today's day and age, no one - I mean no one - is taught economics.
Its a sad day when you realize that everything around you is falling apart and no one else can see it. As a 25 year old, fully employed, breadwinner I am deeply concerned of the ignorance writ large known as society. People walk around everyday with several thousands of dollars in credit card debt/student loan debt/car debt/home debt and have no real grasp of the consequences of those debt. The debt has to be paid off and until then is an incredible liability on the part of the holder of that debt. For example, most would argue that if someone used card to pay for gas once a month and paid it off at the end of the month would be acting responsible vis a vis the individual's personal debt situation. This is not how our modern society approaches this aspect of financial life.
Instead of the gas in your car, imagine it is now thousands of dollars in Student loan debt for a degree that, on the aggregate, is not fit for the skills one needs in order to pay of that debt in a timely manner. For example, my own personal degree choice - Criminal Justice - gave me several options after graduation to pursue a plethora of career options that are specific to that field. Careers in Law, Law Enforcement, Public Service, Corrections offer salaries that would allow an individual that would pay off student loan debt in that field in a relatively short amount of time. However, the personal responsibility of the individual to pay off that debt is the biggest factor in whether or not that individual will succeed financially in life.
At no point should someone take out $100,000 in student loan debt to enter the education sector (especially the public education sector) of the economy and then spend every last earning dollar they make to pay for rent, gas and food. If your outstanding debt liability is only getting paid by the minimum payment factor of your net take home salary then you will be a debt slave for the rest of your life This is exactly how most of the country is living and it will ultimately be the downfall of society in this country when the "student loan" bubble pops and deflates quickly.
This is exactly what goes on today in many young people's financial lives and it is difficult for them to do anything about it when there is no consequence for these actions. The federal government treats debt the same way and continues to foster an environment that encourages malinvestment with little to no consequence. The moral hazard of companies to continue with terrible business practices has fallen to blame at the heels of the federal government and the Federal Reserve. But for the Fed's loose monetary/injection heavy policies, the economy would experience appropriate corrections in sectors that have had bad investments - including but not limited to education.
I am all for people pursuing their dreams when it comes to their career. Every individual that wants to be a dancer, an artist, a social worker, a police officer, a teacher, a mechanic, et al. should go for it. However, there are consequences for every action individuals make in their lives. Not everyone can be a dancer. Not everyone can play in the NFL. Not everyone can be a teacher. Have something to fall back on and learn economics for your own sake, because if you don't the government wont be there to save you - you're not connected like the banks are.
Its a sad day when you realize that everything around you is falling apart and no one else can see it. As a 25 year old, fully employed, breadwinner I am deeply concerned of the ignorance writ large known as society. People walk around everyday with several thousands of dollars in credit card debt/student loan debt/car debt/home debt and have no real grasp of the consequences of those debt. The debt has to be paid off and until then is an incredible liability on the part of the holder of that debt. For example, most would argue that if someone used card to pay for gas once a month and paid it off at the end of the month would be acting responsible vis a vis the individual's personal debt situation. This is not how our modern society approaches this aspect of financial life.
Instead of the gas in your car, imagine it is now thousands of dollars in Student loan debt for a degree that, on the aggregate, is not fit for the skills one needs in order to pay of that debt in a timely manner. For example, my own personal degree choice - Criminal Justice - gave me several options after graduation to pursue a plethora of career options that are specific to that field. Careers in Law, Law Enforcement, Public Service, Corrections offer salaries that would allow an individual that would pay off student loan debt in that field in a relatively short amount of time. However, the personal responsibility of the individual to pay off that debt is the biggest factor in whether or not that individual will succeed financially in life.
At no point should someone take out $100,000 in student loan debt to enter the education sector (especially the public education sector) of the economy and then spend every last earning dollar they make to pay for rent, gas and food. If your outstanding debt liability is only getting paid by the minimum payment factor of your net take home salary then you will be a debt slave for the rest of your life This is exactly how most of the country is living and it will ultimately be the downfall of society in this country when the "student loan" bubble pops and deflates quickly.
This is exactly what goes on today in many young people's financial lives and it is difficult for them to do anything about it when there is no consequence for these actions. The federal government treats debt the same way and continues to foster an environment that encourages malinvestment with little to no consequence. The moral hazard of companies to continue with terrible business practices has fallen to blame at the heels of the federal government and the Federal Reserve. But for the Fed's loose monetary/injection heavy policies, the economy would experience appropriate corrections in sectors that have had bad investments - including but not limited to education.
I am all for people pursuing their dreams when it comes to their career. Every individual that wants to be a dancer, an artist, a social worker, a police officer, a teacher, a mechanic, et al. should go for it. However, there are consequences for every action individuals make in their lives. Not everyone can be a dancer. Not everyone can play in the NFL. Not everyone can be a teacher. Have something to fall back on and learn economics for your own sake, because if you don't the government wont be there to save you - you're not connected like the banks are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)