There's been some talk about how the US taxpayer now owns GM, banks, etc. The logic is something like: the government owns X, and since the government is for and by the people, the people own X. BS. The people used to own these institutions through stocks and bonds, which they were able to sell on the open market if they chose - but in many cases these people have been wiped out. The only people, now, who can sell your stake in these institutions are people who work for the government.
There is, of course, a way out of this - issue stock to the taxpayers whose money you stole to fund the bailouts. This won't happen, of course, because our government is now fascist.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
New World Currency - Mark One for the Conspiracy Theorists
We're starting to hear calls for the IMF to create a new reserve currency. Imo, this is bad for the US, US allies, and the world, in that order.
People have been talking about hyper-inflation for a while, but it hasn't hit yet. Between Washington's proposed social programs, wars, bailouts, and money creation, our paper money should be worthless at this point. If China, India, and other debt holders drop the dollar, it will hit. A new reserve currency would help accomplish this.
But what's really going on? I think (international) bankers are jumping ship. The Fed audit has them scared, they've drained the dollar of its value, and now they want to move on to something bigger and better without accountability and traditional US morality hindering them.
Stealing through money creation only works when there are a lot of people holding that currency. At first it was all US citizens, then other countries started pegging to the dollar and holding the dollar. In the current situation, where the US in in debt and the rest of the world holds dollars; when we create money we're stealing from the Chinese and guys stuffing dollar bills under their mattresses in Mexico.
Oh, and before I forget - all the foreclosures we've had are basically a way to steal from the international community who bought our securitized debt obligations (mortgages). Though the bailouts reduced that theft.
So, the world's pretty mad at the US right now. And they should be. But a new reserve currency is a bad idea for everyone. The new currency would give bankers more opportunity for abuse, not less. In the US there are still folks like Ron Paul who are trying to hold the bankers responsible. He's getting a lot of support domestically and, I believe, internationally. As soon as you move to the new currency, it becomes much more difficult to hold the bankers responsible. Which is what they want, and is probably why there are so many otherwise bad ideas coming out of Washington right now: they're trying to scare world leaders into a new currency that will be easy to abuse. Don't do it. Help the US keep the banksters honest - don't play into their hands. My advice is to dump some of your dollars, which will cause inflation and force the US to work instead of steal; buy durable goods and commodities; and diversify your currency holdings - but you're already doing that, aren't you?
People have been talking about hyper-inflation for a while, but it hasn't hit yet. Between Washington's proposed social programs, wars, bailouts, and money creation, our paper money should be worthless at this point. If China, India, and other debt holders drop the dollar, it will hit. A new reserve currency would help accomplish this.
But what's really going on? I think (international) bankers are jumping ship. The Fed audit has them scared, they've drained the dollar of its value, and now they want to move on to something bigger and better without accountability and traditional US morality hindering them.
Stealing through money creation only works when there are a lot of people holding that currency. At first it was all US citizens, then other countries started pegging to the dollar and holding the dollar. In the current situation, where the US in in debt and the rest of the world holds dollars; when we create money we're stealing from the Chinese and guys stuffing dollar bills under their mattresses in Mexico.
Oh, and before I forget - all the foreclosures we've had are basically a way to steal from the international community who bought our securitized debt obligations (mortgages). Though the bailouts reduced that theft.
So, the world's pretty mad at the US right now. And they should be. But a new reserve currency is a bad idea for everyone. The new currency would give bankers more opportunity for abuse, not less. In the US there are still folks like Ron Paul who are trying to hold the bankers responsible. He's getting a lot of support domestically and, I believe, internationally. As soon as you move to the new currency, it becomes much more difficult to hold the bankers responsible. Which is what they want, and is probably why there are so many otherwise bad ideas coming out of Washington right now: they're trying to scare world leaders into a new currency that will be easy to abuse. Don't do it. Help the US keep the banksters honest - don't play into their hands. My advice is to dump some of your dollars, which will cause inflation and force the US to work instead of steal; buy durable goods and commodities; and diversify your currency holdings - but you're already doing that, aren't you?
Going the Wrong Way? - On Prohibition and Tobacco
Some are pushing for legalization of ganja. BHO just broke a pen record signing a tobaccy prohib res. My friend once failed a drug test and had to go to rehab or loose his job. Hint, hint.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Why N. Korea - Why now?
Been thinking about this N. Korea thing. Last time we fought them it was a cold war proxy fight with "communism" aka China (maybe Russia, too). China's kinda peeved at us for inflating the currency (remember the Geithner trip?). So, methinks this is about holding the US accountable for trade shenanigans; notably money creation and protectionism.
People have been saying it for years, but China (and India to a lesser extent), is about to start making waves. I see Russia aligning with the US, Europe, and Australia in a very dirty new war. It may be carried out covertly through spies, economics, and sabotage but it may escalate to widespread, but contained, battles including limited nuclear warfare.
But what's new about that?
People have been saying it for years, but China (and India to a lesser extent), is about to start making waves. I see Russia aligning with the US, Europe, and Australia in a very dirty new war. It may be carried out covertly through spies, economics, and sabotage but it may escalate to widespread, but contained, battles including limited nuclear warfare.
But what's new about that?
Free Market Caveats
I want to rant a bit on some of the edge cases of capitalism. Socialist politicians love this stuff, because they can say, "see, see - capitalism doesn't work here". But capitalism is still the best system I know of for the real world, and hopefully this will help you argue around the edge cases.
List of Problems:
Monopolies
- natural monopolies
- competition
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
Charity
Monopolies
Natural Monopolies
There are two main problems with monopolies: natural monopolies and competition. I define natural monopolies as: any industry that is impractical to reproduce. These are things like streets, gas, electric and water infrastructure, security (police, military). It's just silly to think that there should be at least two roads between every two destinations, two or more power lines going from an electric power plant to your home, etc. Imo, these rare industries need to be wholly owned by the government, but maintain a close parallel to a competitive market (no "free" electricity). I also think those industries should be owned at smallest appropriate level: town streets owned by the town, inter-city highways owned by the state, no roads owned by the national government (though interstate air travel should be run at the national level). The inefficiencies and corruption that occur in government run enterprises are offset by the impracticality of duplication, though border case industries might continually cross the line when managed by very inefficient or very corrupt governments.
Competition
Most goods and services do not fall under the above "natural monopoly" definition. Think clothing, cars, food; and yes, even medical services. The best way to serve the population here is through regulated competition. If you're in the market for a new car, you read up on several different models, take a few for test drives, figure out your cost/benefit estimations, and pick a car that fits your needs. Regulation is in place to keep the car companies honest: they don't display false advertising, they don't employ child or slave labor, they don't sabotage other companies, etc. If a company becomes very successful they may drive their competition out of business (think WalMart) - and this also becomes a problem for capitalism. Unfortunately, the government should also step in, in these situations, to re-introduce competition in the market. So long as there are at least two competing companies (who have not formed a cartel), the government should not intervene.
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
The tragedy of the commons, briefly, is the problem where, if no one owns a resource all will abuse and waste it until it is drained. Think global warming and air pollution. If you had to pay for the air you pollute when you drive your car you might drive less. This is the general goal of cap and trade: charge the polluters so they don't waste/abuse the resource. Unfortunately, the implementation of these tragedy of the commons solutions are prone to corruption, and even perfectly executed solutions usually have at least a short term negative impact on the economy. I don't have a better solution than fines/taxation for solving the tragedy of the commons problem, however, I do recommend using it sparingly and making sure the cost/benefit ratio is well on the benefit side of things. You probably won't see many complaints about cap and trade on this blog - even if it turns out to be a bad idea, there are bigger fish to fry.
Charity
Ah, the heartless capitalist. Liberals love this argument, and it gets them a lot of votes. Take hurricane Katrina. Everyone complained that GWB didn't do enough soon enough; or that he hates black people; or the poor; or Jazz music. BS. I don't want Washington involved in state matters. Those guys lived in a hurricane zone and had many warnings that their levy system was vulnerable: you reap what you sew. But, the American people are very forgiving and loving: I know people who went down there, people who volunteered their time and money. That's when America is at its best - not when we're guilted into something, not when the people of California have their taxes increased to pay for the sins of Louisiana, but when we volunteer and donate our labor and savings towards causes we believe in - that's when America shines. We can't do that, though, when our government steals our productive potential from us by interfering in the free market.
List of Problems:
Monopolies
- natural monopolies
- competition
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
Charity
Monopolies
Natural Monopolies
There are two main problems with monopolies: natural monopolies and competition. I define natural monopolies as: any industry that is impractical to reproduce. These are things like streets, gas, electric and water infrastructure, security (police, military). It's just silly to think that there should be at least two roads between every two destinations, two or more power lines going from an electric power plant to your home, etc. Imo, these rare industries need to be wholly owned by the government, but maintain a close parallel to a competitive market (no "free" electricity). I also think those industries should be owned at smallest appropriate level: town streets owned by the town, inter-city highways owned by the state, no roads owned by the national government (though interstate air travel should be run at the national level). The inefficiencies and corruption that occur in government run enterprises are offset by the impracticality of duplication, though border case industries might continually cross the line when managed by very inefficient or very corrupt governments.
Competition
Most goods and services do not fall under the above "natural monopoly" definition. Think clothing, cars, food; and yes, even medical services. The best way to serve the population here is through regulated competition. If you're in the market for a new car, you read up on several different models, take a few for test drives, figure out your cost/benefit estimations, and pick a car that fits your needs. Regulation is in place to keep the car companies honest: they don't display false advertising, they don't employ child or slave labor, they don't sabotage other companies, etc. If a company becomes very successful they may drive their competition out of business (think WalMart) - and this also becomes a problem for capitalism. Unfortunately, the government should also step in, in these situations, to re-introduce competition in the market. So long as there are at least two competing companies (who have not formed a cartel), the government should not intervene.
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
The tragedy of the commons, briefly, is the problem where, if no one owns a resource all will abuse and waste it until it is drained. Think global warming and air pollution. If you had to pay for the air you pollute when you drive your car you might drive less. This is the general goal of cap and trade: charge the polluters so they don't waste/abuse the resource. Unfortunately, the implementation of these tragedy of the commons solutions are prone to corruption, and even perfectly executed solutions usually have at least a short term negative impact on the economy. I don't have a better solution than fines/taxation for solving the tragedy of the commons problem, however, I do recommend using it sparingly and making sure the cost/benefit ratio is well on the benefit side of things. You probably won't see many complaints about cap and trade on this blog - even if it turns out to be a bad idea, there are bigger fish to fry.
Charity
Ah, the heartless capitalist. Liberals love this argument, and it gets them a lot of votes. Take hurricane Katrina. Everyone complained that GWB didn't do enough soon enough; or that he hates black people; or the poor; or Jazz music. BS. I don't want Washington involved in state matters. Those guys lived in a hurricane zone and had many warnings that their levy system was vulnerable: you reap what you sew. But, the American people are very forgiving and loving: I know people who went down there, people who volunteered their time and money. That's when America is at its best - not when we're guilted into something, not when the people of California have their taxes increased to pay for the sins of Louisiana, but when we volunteer and donate our labor and savings towards causes we believe in - that's when America shines. We can't do that, though, when our government steals our productive potential from us by interfering in the free market.
My Email to Senator Boxer - Opposing Fed Powers
I recently wrote Senator Boxer (D - CA) asking her to oppose the newly proposed regulatory powers for the Federal Reserve. Here's the response I got (slightly modified):
Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent Senate hearing with Brigadier General Michael Walsh. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
Shortly after the hearing, I called General Walsh, and we had a friendly and productive conversation. We expressed our respect for one another and our determination to work together to protect our nation and communities from natural disasters.
Thank you again for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
The Disingenuous Left: Public Option Intellectual Dishonesty
The argument from the left, that the private insurance industry can compete with a "public option" is intellectually if not blatantly dishonest. Here's an analogy for you: A guy from the government comes up to you with a gun and says, "You can spend a year in jail, pay a $10000 fine, or pay $100 which is good towards our insurance which costs $150". "But I already have insurance, it only costs me $100, and I'm happy with it". "That's fine, you can keep your old insurance, but you still have to pay us $100". "So I have to pay $100 regardless, which makes your insurance (which I'm not happy with) only cost $50 vs. my current plan which will still cost me $100". "Yep". "Gee, thanks for robbing me of $100 and giving me something I already have". "That's what we do at the government, you're welcome".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
