I just received an e-mail from Ron Holland concerning a petition to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank. I have signed it and have forwarded Ron's e-mail to several friends. Ron's e-mail reads:
>"The Federal Reserve Has Created the Risk of a Global Depression!
>"Please sign, publish or forward our Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html
to all your pro-freedom friends and associates. The collapsing dollar, exploding oil and food prices, falling housing market, the subprime mortgage and growing credit crisis and stock market weakness are all a result of earlier Federal Reserve actions designed to maximize Wall Street and banking profits at the expense of productive, working people around the world."
http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html
Monday, June 9, 2008
The New York Sun's Home Run
The New York Sun has hit a home run. I had previously blogged about my concern that the Sun's and Fox's coverage of the recent upsurge in prices has omitted the underlying cause: monetary expansion. This is of concern because economists have come up with many nonsensical explanations for inflation such as "cost push" inflation, "demand pull" inflation, unions cause inflation, oil prices cause inflation, consumer expectations cause inflation, speculators cause inflation, ad infinitum and ad nauseum. In the 1970s such spurious explanations reached a crescendo when President Ford wore a button that said "Win" if I recall, and argued that "jaw boning" would stop inflation. Worse, President Nixon had implemented price controls and controls on gasoline prices led to endless lines.
It doesn't take much to expose an unclothed Emperor. The Sun has come out and forthrightly said that the Fed has caused inflation. It will be hard for the mainstream media to spin the kind of fabrications that it spun in the 1970s. The Sun deserves a Pulitzer Prize for this editorial. Perhaps single handedly it will stop the establishment's reluctance to take the necessary steps to end the inflationary cycle and the mainstream media's eagerness to blow smoke in support of inflation.
The media have every reason to fabricate nonsense explanations for inflation. As I have previously blogged, there are special interests that demand inflation: the commercial banks, Wall Street, the real estate business and stock investors. The working man, the conservative saver and the entrepreneur who looks to build a business over the long term are harmed. Thus, in exchange for short term heating of the economy, the public loses entrepreneurial vision, the withdrawal of competent labor (as honest workers are diverted into less productive activities like stock investing), and there are dramatic increases in uncertainty for people on fixed incomes. It is also true that demand for labor is stimulated, but the jobs so created are temporary because the businesses that are created are of insufficient quality to survive the inevitable economic downturn that occurs when the Fed tightens interest rates because it has become politically impossible to continue printing money. By then, fortunes have been extracted from the public by those who had first access to the new money, namely hedge fund managers, and the public pays through higher prices and increased poverty.
Let us applaud the New York Sun and be thankful that at least one firm in lower Manhattan has clear vision and integrity.
It doesn't take much to expose an unclothed Emperor. The Sun has come out and forthrightly said that the Fed has caused inflation. It will be hard for the mainstream media to spin the kind of fabrications that it spun in the 1970s. The Sun deserves a Pulitzer Prize for this editorial. Perhaps single handedly it will stop the establishment's reluctance to take the necessary steps to end the inflationary cycle and the mainstream media's eagerness to blow smoke in support of inflation.
The media have every reason to fabricate nonsense explanations for inflation. As I have previously blogged, there are special interests that demand inflation: the commercial banks, Wall Street, the real estate business and stock investors. The working man, the conservative saver and the entrepreneur who looks to build a business over the long term are harmed. Thus, in exchange for short term heating of the economy, the public loses entrepreneurial vision, the withdrawal of competent labor (as honest workers are diverted into less productive activities like stock investing), and there are dramatic increases in uncertainty for people on fixed incomes. It is also true that demand for labor is stimulated, but the jobs so created are temporary because the businesses that are created are of insufficient quality to survive the inevitable economic downturn that occurs when the Fed tightens interest rates because it has become politically impossible to continue printing money. By then, fortunes have been extracted from the public by those who had first access to the new money, namely hedge fund managers, and the public pays through higher prices and increased poverty.
Let us applaud the New York Sun and be thankful that at least one firm in lower Manhattan has clear vision and integrity.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Richard Viguerie's "Obama Is Not the Problem"
Richard Viguerie has posted an interesting article criticizing John McCain's lack of ideological focus. He notes that:
"The problem is that McCain doesn’t have a coherent set of ideas with which he can simultaneously fire up the conservative base and attract independents. He’s a part-time liberal in conservative clothing. Conservatives aren’t fooled by that, and liberals aren’t going to vote for a part-time liberal when they have a very persuasive full-time liberal to vote for."
He adds:
"'The lesser of two evils' is not a governing philosophy. Yet Republicans repeatedly try to seduce conservatives with it. That strategy didn’t work in 1948, 1960, 1974, 1976, 1992 or 2006 — and it won’t work in 2008."
Perhaps Mr. Viguerie is right. America should move to a four-party as opposed to a two-party system. Two parties worked fine in an age of congruence, in the 19th century when the Republicans and Democrats mostly disagreed about who should get the spoils and whether tariffs should be reduced. The congruence continued through the first twenty years of the twentieth century, when Progressivism was adopted by both parties. By 1920 the public had tired of political change, and some of the Republicans became known as conservatives, which really just meant that they were a wee bit less radical than they had been a decade earlier under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps the most left-wing president of the twentieth century. In the 1930s Franklin D. Roosevelt identified the Democratic Party with social democracy. Although they fought social democracy, the Republicans never aimed to repudiate their earlier Progressivism nor did they aim to repudiate the New Deal. Rather, they became the "lesser of two evils" or the "wee bit less social democracy" party. The Republicans have never questioned the elements of Democratic Party social democracy. Rather, they have been content to argue for "a wee bit less". When elected, they have never attempted to repeal the most extreme Democratic policies. Warren G. Harding did not aim to repeal the Hepburn Act and Dwight Eisenhower did not aim to repeal the New Deal, even a bit of it.
Because there are two parties, there is a strong incentive for both candidates to locate as close to the center as possible. Those to the "right" of the Republican, i.e., those who are more libertarian on economics or conservative on social issues are forced to vote for the Republican unless the Republican goes so far to the left that the Democrat becomes more attractive. The Republicans go as far to the center as possible to attract the undecided voters. The conservatives and libertarians are forced to vote Republican even though the Republican's views are closer to social democratic than they would like. The reverse is true for the Democrat. The Democratic candidates are pushed as close to the "right", to the least radical position, as possible to attract the undecided. Thus, the Democratic candidate cannot seem as left wing or as social democratic as activist members would like.
This results in not, in my opinion, a move to the center. America has not arrived at a "centrist" solution. Rather, it has arrived at a liberal/free market conservative solution that has been radically modified by progressive/social democratic programs. This results in stability and much less change than would result in a four party system, but it also results in much less experimentation and competition. The result is a system that does not reward new ideas and that has foreclosed (a) the possibility of reductions in the extent of government as well as (b) the possibility of socialism. I am happy about (b), unhappy about (a), but the reverse is true for most Democrats. They would like to see a world where the crank ideas of the New York Times, William Ayers and Jimmy Carter are applied without restraint.
I do not think that Mr. Viguerie is right about the 2008 election. I do not think that Mr. Obama will win because he is too far to the left to attract centrists. His associations with Chicago radicals make clear Mr. Obama's left wing orientation. As a result, centrist voters will prefer McCain and McCain will win. McCain does not need to convince conservatives to vote for him. Rather, he needs to convince "centrists" to vote for him. Unless conservatives want Bill Ayers's and Reverend Wright's associate to run the country, they will have to support McCain. If they stay home or vote for Bob Barr, then we can welcome a new emphasis on extending centralized planning, intellectuals' planning projects and attacks on personal freedom.
While the Republicans' performance has been dismal, the way to change this is at the local level. The president is in many ways a symbol. An Obama victory will create a national mindset that America is turning to the left. A McCain victory will say that the nation has rejected left-wing ideology even if the Bush administration's and Republican Congress's performance has been dismal.
I live in Congressman Maurice Hinchey's political district. Mr. Hinchey made national news last week because he advocated price controls on gasoline. Mr. Hinchey has run unopposed for a number of elections. Tonight, I met a young man, a teacher from Binghamton, NY, who may run for Congress against Mr. Hinchey. The young man, George K. Phillips, is a conservative who has many good ideas. He is a political novice. I invite Mr. Viguerie to assist Mr. Phillips in his Congressional run. Rather than complain about McCain, let's think about how to assist Mr. Phillips and other conservatives like him at the local level.
As far as big ideas, perhaps it is time to think about a four-party system. But much ground work would need to be done before this idea has any practical political importance. A four-party system would better represent the ideological diversity that exists in America. It would lead to less stability but more experimentation.
"The problem is that McCain doesn’t have a coherent set of ideas with which he can simultaneously fire up the conservative base and attract independents. He’s a part-time liberal in conservative clothing. Conservatives aren’t fooled by that, and liberals aren’t going to vote for a part-time liberal when they have a very persuasive full-time liberal to vote for."
He adds:
"'The lesser of two evils' is not a governing philosophy. Yet Republicans repeatedly try to seduce conservatives with it. That strategy didn’t work in 1948, 1960, 1974, 1976, 1992 or 2006 — and it won’t work in 2008."
Perhaps Mr. Viguerie is right. America should move to a four-party as opposed to a two-party system. Two parties worked fine in an age of congruence, in the 19th century when the Republicans and Democrats mostly disagreed about who should get the spoils and whether tariffs should be reduced. The congruence continued through the first twenty years of the twentieth century, when Progressivism was adopted by both parties. By 1920 the public had tired of political change, and some of the Republicans became known as conservatives, which really just meant that they were a wee bit less radical than they had been a decade earlier under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps the most left-wing president of the twentieth century. In the 1930s Franklin D. Roosevelt identified the Democratic Party with social democracy. Although they fought social democracy, the Republicans never aimed to repudiate their earlier Progressivism nor did they aim to repudiate the New Deal. Rather, they became the "lesser of two evils" or the "wee bit less social democracy" party. The Republicans have never questioned the elements of Democratic Party social democracy. Rather, they have been content to argue for "a wee bit less". When elected, they have never attempted to repeal the most extreme Democratic policies. Warren G. Harding did not aim to repeal the Hepburn Act and Dwight Eisenhower did not aim to repeal the New Deal, even a bit of it.
Because there are two parties, there is a strong incentive for both candidates to locate as close to the center as possible. Those to the "right" of the Republican, i.e., those who are more libertarian on economics or conservative on social issues are forced to vote for the Republican unless the Republican goes so far to the left that the Democrat becomes more attractive. The Republicans go as far to the center as possible to attract the undecided voters. The conservatives and libertarians are forced to vote Republican even though the Republican's views are closer to social democratic than they would like. The reverse is true for the Democrat. The Democratic candidates are pushed as close to the "right", to the least radical position, as possible to attract the undecided. Thus, the Democratic candidate cannot seem as left wing or as social democratic as activist members would like.
This results in not, in my opinion, a move to the center. America has not arrived at a "centrist" solution. Rather, it has arrived at a liberal/free market conservative solution that has been radically modified by progressive/social democratic programs. This results in stability and much less change than would result in a four party system, but it also results in much less experimentation and competition. The result is a system that does not reward new ideas and that has foreclosed (a) the possibility of reductions in the extent of government as well as (b) the possibility of socialism. I am happy about (b), unhappy about (a), but the reverse is true for most Democrats. They would like to see a world where the crank ideas of the New York Times, William Ayers and Jimmy Carter are applied without restraint.
I do not think that Mr. Viguerie is right about the 2008 election. I do not think that Mr. Obama will win because he is too far to the left to attract centrists. His associations with Chicago radicals make clear Mr. Obama's left wing orientation. As a result, centrist voters will prefer McCain and McCain will win. McCain does not need to convince conservatives to vote for him. Rather, he needs to convince "centrists" to vote for him. Unless conservatives want Bill Ayers's and Reverend Wright's associate to run the country, they will have to support McCain. If they stay home or vote for Bob Barr, then we can welcome a new emphasis on extending centralized planning, intellectuals' planning projects and attacks on personal freedom.
While the Republicans' performance has been dismal, the way to change this is at the local level. The president is in many ways a symbol. An Obama victory will create a national mindset that America is turning to the left. A McCain victory will say that the nation has rejected left-wing ideology even if the Bush administration's and Republican Congress's performance has been dismal.
I live in Congressman Maurice Hinchey's political district. Mr. Hinchey made national news last week because he advocated price controls on gasoline. Mr. Hinchey has run unopposed for a number of elections. Tonight, I met a young man, a teacher from Binghamton, NY, who may run for Congress against Mr. Hinchey. The young man, George K. Phillips, is a conservative who has many good ideas. He is a political novice. I invite Mr. Viguerie to assist Mr. Phillips in his Congressional run. Rather than complain about McCain, let's think about how to assist Mr. Phillips and other conservatives like him at the local level.
As far as big ideas, perhaps it is time to think about a four-party system. But much ground work would need to be done before this idea has any practical political importance. A four-party system would better represent the ideological diversity that exists in America. It would lead to less stability but more experimentation.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Fundraising Message from Susette Kelo (Yes, That Kelo)
My name is Susette Kelo. On Monday, June 23, 2008, I need your help in making a little bit of history.
June 23 is the third anniversary of the infamous Kelo eminent domain case, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed perfectly well-maintained private homes like mine to be taken by the government and handed over for someone else’s private use. Under that ruling, any home could be taken and destroyed to make way for high-end condos. Any small business could be bulldozed to make way for a big box store. And, tragically, that is what is happening in too many parts of our country.
I’d like your help to put an end to that abuse of eminent domain once and for all.
Please go to www.ij.org/keloday today and pledge to give some small contribution to the Institute for Justice (IJ) on June 23. (Pledge today and we will email you on June 23 reminding you to donate on that day.)
IJ helped defend my home and my neighbors’ homes when they were threatened by eminent domain for private gain.
IJ continues to defend other homeowners and small property owners in similar fights.
One hundred percent of the money raised on this site (www.ij.org/keloday) on that day will be used to fight eminent domain abuse--the use of eminent domain for private development projects. We recognize that under the Constitution eminent domain can be used for genuine “public use” projects, such as for a courthouse or to build a highway, but when government power is used to take land from one private property owner only to hand that land over to another private person for their private profit, that is an abuse of government’s power.
Our goal is to earn 10,000 donations for IJ on that one day, Monday, June 23.
Leading up to the Kelo argument, the Institute for Justice documented that 10,000 American property owners had their property threatened or actually taken by eminent domain for private use in just a 5-year period. That 10,000 figure inspired IJ and me to seek 10,000 donations from across the country to send a message to those in power that we care about our homes and that the abuse of eminent domain must be stopped.
We are not seeking large contributions on this day: just $25, $50 or $100. Even a $5 contribution will make a difference and add greatly to the ambitious numbers we’re trying to achieve on that day.
And, if you feel strongly enough about this effort and would be willing to forward this to friends who will join us in the fight to end eminent domain abuse, that too would be greatly appreciated.
Together, we can convince policymakers that eminent domain abuse is un-American and must be stopped.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susette Kelo
June 23 is the third anniversary of the infamous Kelo eminent domain case, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed perfectly well-maintained private homes like mine to be taken by the government and handed over for someone else’s private use. Under that ruling, any home could be taken and destroyed to make way for high-end condos. Any small business could be bulldozed to make way for a big box store. And, tragically, that is what is happening in too many parts of our country.
I’d like your help to put an end to that abuse of eminent domain once and for all.
Please go to www.ij.org/keloday today and pledge to give some small contribution to the Institute for Justice (IJ) on June 23. (Pledge today and we will email you on June 23 reminding you to donate on that day.)
IJ helped defend my home and my neighbors’ homes when they were threatened by eminent domain for private gain.
IJ continues to defend other homeowners and small property owners in similar fights.
One hundred percent of the money raised on this site (www.ij.org/keloday) on that day will be used to fight eminent domain abuse--the use of eminent domain for private development projects. We recognize that under the Constitution eminent domain can be used for genuine “public use” projects, such as for a courthouse or to build a highway, but when government power is used to take land from one private property owner only to hand that land over to another private person for their private profit, that is an abuse of government’s power.
Our goal is to earn 10,000 donations for IJ on that one day, Monday, June 23.
Leading up to the Kelo argument, the Institute for Justice documented that 10,000 American property owners had their property threatened or actually taken by eminent domain for private use in just a 5-year period. That 10,000 figure inspired IJ and me to seek 10,000 donations from across the country to send a message to those in power that we care about our homes and that the abuse of eminent domain must be stopped.
We are not seeking large contributions on this day: just $25, $50 or $100. Even a $5 contribution will make a difference and add greatly to the ambitious numbers we’re trying to achieve on that day.
And, if you feel strongly enough about this effort and would be willing to forward this to friends who will join us in the fight to end eminent domain abuse, that too would be greatly appreciated.
Together, we can convince policymakers that eminent domain abuse is un-American and must be stopped.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susette Kelo
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
