Surveillance Self-Defense
https://ssd.eff.org/
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has created this Surveillance Self-Defense site to educate the American public about the law and technology of government surveillance in the United States, providing the information and tools necessary to evaluate the threat of surveillance and take appropriate steps to defend against it."
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
haven't the feds got enough other stuff on their plate than to mess with this?
http://www.dnainfo.com/20110214/manhattan/sightseeing-bus-company-declared-monopoly#ixzz1G2OYBw10bi
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The U.S. Surveillance State: Big Brother on Steroids
The U.S. Surveillance State: Big Brother on Steroids
By Mary Theroux
http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=9580
"The DHS is also now testing the roll-out of scanners and video cameras that could be tacked on to mobile vans that could scan city streets and intelligent tracking devices could be mounted on buildings and poles. This technology will not only allow them to x-ray your moving car at-will, but would be a part of a 'covert inspection of moving subjects' — that’s 'innocent people' to you and me — 'to monitor pedestrian body and eye movement.'"
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
By Mary Theroux
http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=9580
"The DHS is also now testing the roll-out of scanners and video cameras that could be tacked on to mobile vans that could scan city streets and intelligent tracking devices could be mounted on buildings and poles. This technology will not only allow them to x-ray your moving car at-will, but would be a part of a 'covert inspection of moving subjects' — that’s 'innocent people' to you and me — 'to monitor pedestrian body and eye movement.'"
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Arresting Your Assets - Part 1 Of 4
Arresting Your Assets - Part 1 Of 4
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon336.htm
"Today, the police, the district attorneys and judges we elect whose job it is to make sure that justice is meted fairly and in an unbiased manner, are increasingly viewed by a growing segment of the population as a bigger threat to the people of the United States than all of the killers, rapists, drug dealers and petty thugs who prowl the streets of America put together—because the people themselves have become the new profit center for the bureaucracy we call 'law enforcement.'"
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon336.htm
"Today, the police, the district attorneys and judges we elect whose job it is to make sure that justice is meted fairly and in an unbiased manner, are increasingly viewed by a growing segment of the population as a bigger threat to the people of the United States than all of the killers, rapists, drug dealers and petty thugs who prowl the streets of America put together—because the people themselves have become the new profit center for the bureaucracy we call 'law enforcement.'"
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Blame the Empire, Not Muslims
Wednesday, March 9, 2010
Blame the Empire, Not Muslims
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Yesterday, I appeared on the Glenn Beck Show (at 27:40), with Judge Andrew Napolitano as substitute host, to discuss U.S. Rep. Peter King's upcoming congressional hearings on the "radicalization of Muslims."
Let me tell you what's going on here.
If U.S. statists can convince Americans that the terrorist problem lies with Muslims and Islam -- in other words, a religious problem, then that will provide the justification for continuing all the bad things that the U.S. government has been doing to people in the Middle East (and elsewhere around the world, such as in Latin America with its deadly and destructive war on drugs).
Even better, from the standpoint of government officials such as Peter King, who serves as chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, it will enable the U.S. government to continue maintaining and expanding its massive and ever-growing anti-terrorist powers over the American people, such as the Patriot Act, warrantless searches, indefinite detention, NSA spying, torture, TSA porn-scanning, terrorism color codes, and other such anti-freedom nonsense.
Isn't it interesting that Rep. King is scheduling his much-hyped hearings on Muslims and Islam at the same time that some mainstream commentators are finally focusing on the U.S. government's longtime support of and partnership with the brutal dictators of the Middle East as well as the rendition-torture agreements that were entered into between the U.S. government and such dictatorships?
Focusing on Muslims and Islam provides a convenient smokescreen to cover up what the U.S. government has been doing to people in the Middle East, including Muslims. Of course, that's the motivation behind the sudden "we love the Middle East protestors" attitude among President Obama and other U.S. statists. The last thing they want Americans to focus on is the U.S. government support of -- with cash, weaponry, guidance, and training -- the Middle East dictators that the protestors are now risking their lives to oust from power.
The fact is that the radicalization-of-Muslims issue is nothing more than a red herring, one that American statists are using to justify the continuation of the U.S. government's imperialist activities in the Middle East (and around the world), along with the ever-increasing control over the American people with anti-terrorist powers that also happen to be the hallmark of the Middle East dictatorships.
Think about it: How many times did you ever hear statists complaining about the Muslim threat during the Cold War? None! Back then, it was the "communist threat" that was used to continue the ever-increasing expansion of the garrison state. In fact, statists like to forget that the U.S. government was actually partnering with radical Muslims when it was U.S. government trying to bring an end to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Then, when the Berlin Wall fell, and the U.S. military and military-industrial complex went into a panic over the possibility that Americans might end their dominant and privileged position in society, how many times did statists decry Islam as a problem? None! Throughout the 1990s, the official enemy was Saddam Hussein, who had previously been a partner of the U.S. government during the 1980s.
During the 1990s, the U.S. government was also killing Iraqis almost non-stop, with the Persian Gulf War, the brutal sanctions, and the deadly no-fly zones. It was stationing troops near Islamic holy lands. The U.S. government's attitude was that the value of Iraqi life was essentially worthless, given U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright's declaration that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it." The U.S. government was providing unconditional financial and military aid to the Israeli government while, at the same time, supporting, partnering, and helping the brutal Middle East dictators who were terrorizing, torturing, and killing their own people -- the same regimes that the demonstrators are now trying to oust.
What do statists say about all this? They imply that the people of the Middle East either loved it or were indifferent to it. Oh, sure, people were being arrested, tortured, raped, starved, and killed, but their love for the U.S. government, which was funding and guiding their oppressors, say the statists, was boundless.
But it wasn't. Throughout it all, the anger and rage against the United States was simmering and then boiling. It erupted in terrorist retaliation in the WTC bombing in 1993, the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks.
The retaliators have always made it clear as to what motivated them to retaliate with terrorist attacks: U.S. foreign policy that is, the horrific things the U.S. Empire was doing to people in the Middle East.
As Ron Paul put it in that famous presidential debate, the terrorists came over here to kill Americans because the U.S. government was over in the Middle East killing people.
Not so, said the statists. They claimed that the terrorists are lying. The truth, the statist claimed, is that people in the Middle East love the U.S. government's foreign policy but that a small group of "radicalized" Muslims just hate the United States for its "freedom and values."
That position enabled the U.S. government to continue its imperialist activities after 9/11, including the undeclared wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, which simply poured more fuel on the fire that had already engendered so much anti-American anger and rage. As each new torture, imprisonment, and killing in those countries produced 10 more potential terrorists, American statists steadfastly maintained, "The fact that our government is killing their families and friends has nothing to do with their anger; they just hate us for our freedom and values."
Equally important, the U.S. government used the 9/11 attacks to level an enormous and ever-growing attack on the civil liberties of the American people. That's what the enemy-combatant doctrine, the Patriot Act, the torture, the indefinite detention, the denial of due process, the denial of trial by jury, and the denial of speedy trial were all about.
U.S. statists know that if the American people decide to stop the evil in which the U.S. government has engaged in the Middle East, including the ardent support of the dictators that people are now ousting, then the threat of terrorist retaliation evaporates, which means no more "war on terrorism" and no more excuses for such things as TSA porn-scanning machines, lawless Patriot Act searches, financial privacy intrusions, Gitmo, torture, kangaroo tribunals, and suspension of constitutional guarantees.
In other words, if the American people finally recognize the truth about what our nation has become with a government as empire, they just might decide to dismantle the U.S. government's entire imperialist and militarist apparatus, along with the ever-growing taxes, spending, and debt needed to fund it.
That's what scares government officials like Peter King to death.
That's why it's so important for statists to create a distraction, which is precisely what Congressman King is going with his ridiculous hearings. "It's Islam. It's the Muslims," the statists will cry during those hearings. "Don't even think about looking at what your government has been doing to people in the Middle East for decades. Continue to defer to the authority of your public officials. They would never mislead you. They would never lie to you. They are here to help you."
If enough Americans can finally break through the lies and deception, then we can put our nation back on the right road the road envisioned by the Founding Fathers the road to peace, prosperity, freedom, and a constitutional republic.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-03-09.asp
Re: Oil will go up 'ballistically' if unrest shifts to Saudi Arabia, says Marc Faber
In October 2010, Lindsey Williams predicted crude oil prices would be between $150-200 per barrel by June of 2011 based on information he had from "insiders." Others provided real market evidence of crude oil hoarding in the futures market at that time. The unrest in the Middle East is just "show time" for the manipulation of crude oil prices.
On 03/09/2011 07:27 AM, MJ wrote:
On 03/09/2011 07:27 AM, MJ wrote:
Oil will go up 'ballistically' if unrest shifts to Saudi Arabia, says Marc Faber
Source: BI-ME , Author: Posted by BI-ME staff
Posted: Tue March 8, 2011 10:09 pm
INTERNATIONAL. Marc Faber the Swiss fund manager and Gloom Boom & Doom editor sees oil prices extending their bull run despite the 15% run-up this year alone.
In an optimistic scenario demand for oil will rise as the global recovery takes hold, and in a pessimistic scenario prices still go up if the Middle East unrest spreads and crude production is curtailed. In both cases, he says, you should be long energy and energy related shares.
Speaking to CNBC today, Faber said: " I think long term you should be exposed to energy in either scenario....if you are extra bearish and believe that War World III is going to start soon, as I believe, or in an optimistic scenario".
Addressing the fundamentals of the oil market, Faber said: "What we had over the last couple of years is essentially a reduction in demand from the developed world, the US, Western Europe and Japan, and continued growth in emerging economies.
"So, if you take a very optimistic view of the world, namely a global economic recovery, demand in the Western World will pick up and demand in the Emerging World will continue to rise strongly, so from a very optimistic point of view you should be long oil," he recommended.
On the flip side, "in a very pessimistic scenario you have to assume that unrest will shift to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the gulf and at that stage the production is curtailed and in that case obviously oil will go up ballistically."
Brent crude futures could hit US$200 a barrel if political unrest spreads into Saudi Arabia, Societe Generale said on Monday.
Under what the bank called Geopolitical Scenario 3, "unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia and threatens Saudi crude exports and any remaining spare capacity. Brent price range of US$150-US$200 a barrel," it said in a research note.
"In this most extreme, worst-case scenario for the oil markets, serious unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia. In this case, it does not really matter if Libya or any other producers are shut down or not. Saudi Arabia is OPEC's biggest producer and the world's biggest current holder of spare capacity," the bank added.
Saudi Arabia is the world's top exporter of crude oil, meeting about 10% of the global oil demand.
Oil prices dropped today, with North Sea Brent crude dipping briefly below US$113 per barrel, after Kuwait's oil minister said OPEC was considering boosting production for the first time in more than two years.
"You can increase production but to increase the reserves is very difficult and very costly and the fact is simply that the world is burning more oil than it is adding reserves every year," Faber told CNBC.
"So, the level of proven reserves or the existing oil fields, that production will go down, so you have to find new oil fields and develop new ones all the time and that is very costly," he said, adding I would estimate the marginal cost of new oil around US$80 per barrel.
Asked if prices can go up if US demand stays low, Faber said the importance of demand in the developed world is diminishing and the importance of very low per capita consumption countries such as China and India is increasing.
"For the first time in the history of Capitalism you now have essentially demand in emerging economies exceeding demand in the developed world," he said.
What is the best oil investment vehicle?
Faber said he doesn't favor investing in commodity ETFs given the high rollover costs. Investors in ETFs were bound to lose money in the long run given these costs, he suggested.
"In the commodities space, either you go long commodities yourself through the futures market or you buy companies that produce commodities," Faber advises.
http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=51517&t=1&cg=4 --
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.There are thousands of types of molds and yeasts in the fungus family. Yeasts
are single cells that divide to form clusters.
http://click.lavabit.com/ysoz5q6mtpg8jnsuyyykn7z3p9qyyei4x58n7p8dqcrbrb8b139b/
--
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
Re: An Illegal Poem
"It isn't 'illegals' who are ruining the country; it's 'legals' in the form of corporations (who aren't alive, can't be jailed, and have neither an ass to kick nor a neck to hang) and their minions in Congress."
- Author Unknown
On 03/09/2011 07:16 AM, Travis wrote:
- Author Unknown
On 03/09/2011 07:16 AM, Travis wrote:
AN ILLEGAL POEM
by Illegal Immigrants
I cross river,
poor and broke,
Take bus,
see employment folk.
Nice man
treat me good in there,
Say I need
go see Welfare.
Welfare say,
'You come no more,
We send cash
right to your door.'
Welfare checks,
they make you wealthy,
Medicaid
it keep you healthy!
By and by,
Got plenty money,
Thanks to you, TAXPAYER dummy.
Write to friends
in motherland,
Tell them
'come, fast as you can'
They come in buses
and Ford trucks,
I buy big house
with welfare bucks.
They come here,
we live together,
More welfare checks,
it gets better!
Fourteen families,
they moving in,
But neighbor's patience
wearing thin.
Finally, white guy
moves away,
..
I buy his house,
and then I say,
'Find more aliens
for house to rent.'
In my yard
I put a tent.
Send for family
they just trash,
...
But they, too,
draw welfare cash!
Everything is
very good,
Soon we own
whole neighborhood..
We have hobby
it called breeding,
Welfare pay
for baby feeding.
Kids need dentist?
Wife need pills?
We get free!
We got no bills!
TAXPAYER crazy!
He pay all year,
To keep welfare
running here.
We think America
darn good place!
Too darn good
for white man race.
If they no like us,
they can go,
Got lots of room
in Mexico .
SEND THIS TO EVERY TAXPAYER YOU KNOW
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Sometimes its hard to tell.
http://click.lavabit.com/eq79axgk4gozriukeq5966ijiiormnqbh74u1n57sybr18cp9rbb/
--
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
Re: Charlie Sheen's heroic stand against the tyrannical therapy police
He might be a self-promotion genius.
If it didn't all come with pictures.
On Mar 9, 3:17 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I too agree that Sheen should tell the psychobabbling assholes to stick it.
> Even though he is as nutty as a fruitcake.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:15 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > *Charlie Sheen's heroic stand against the tyrannical therapy police
> > *By Brendan O'Neill<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/brendanoneill2/> Health
> > and lifestyle<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/category/health-and-lifestyle/>Last updated: March 2nd, 2011
>
> > Charlie Sheen is my hero. Not because he goes on five-day benders, takes
> > binbags of drugs and cavorts with ladies of the night<http://www.entertainmedaily.com/2011/02/charlie-sheen-goes-on-a-charl...>.
> > That would be recklessly self-indulgent behaviour in anyone over the age of
> > 21, never mind in a 45-year-old actor with a primetime TV job and a wife and
> > children at home. No, he's my hero because he refuses to allow his behaviour
> > to be psychologised. He refuses to genuflect before the Oprahite altar of
> > psychobabble and blame his antics on his "inner demons". Instead he's
> > fighting like a terrier against experts' attempts to brand him as
> > "disordered" and in the process has made himself into a one-man army of
> > resistance to the tyranny of therapy that has the twenty-first-century in
> > its grip.
>
> > Easily the most shocking thing about the Charlie Sheen affair is not his
> > recent debauched behaviour – Stop the press: Hollywood actor behaves
> > hedonistically! – but rather the unstoppable march of a zombie-eyed army of
> > therapists who want to diagnose Sheen from a distance as "mentally ill".
> > Every cod-psychologist in search of a headline, and increased business, is
> > offering to write a prescription for Sheen. Under the headline "Addict or
> > Bipolar? Examining the 'Passion' of Charlie Sheen", Time magazine admits
> > "it isn't possible to diagnose patients at a distance"<http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/01/addiction-or-bipolar-examining-...>.
> > And yet it proceeds to do precisely that, employing two experts to discuss
> > whether Sheen is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, bipolar
> > mania, depression, anxiety or addiction.
>
> > In a TV interview, ABC's Andrea Canning asked Sheen if he was bipolar<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BZA5bOZ6To&feature=player_embedded>.
> > When he said "no", and hinted that some people claim to be bipolar simply to
> > excuse their erratic behaviour, she looked at him as if he was – in that
> > other favoured phrase of the therapeutic industry – in denial. Even the
> > brain-invaders at Psychology Today magazine have got involved, claiming
> > that "the life and times of Charlie Sheen are a serious issue for us all"<http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/two-takes-depression/201102/charl...>.
> > Why? Because apparently he is in the grip of a "Mood Disorder" (I think we
> > used to call this "being moody") and his failure to deal with it contains a
> > lesson for everyone: "When you're in the depths of a Mood Disorder, you
> > swirl in an ocean of mental, physical and spiritual chaos, [and] it's only
> > when you reach the safety of the shore that you realise just how dangerously
> > ill you were." How do we reach the "safety of the shore"? Through the
> > therapeutic intervention and guidance of psycho-experts, of course! On the
> > back of their pseudo-diagnoses of Mr Sheen's alleged various mental
> > illnesses, psychologists are cynically seeking to boost their own
> > professions.
>
> > To the fury of these overlords of therapy, Sheen is swatting aside all
> > suggestions that he is disordered. He has denounced Alcoholics Anonymous
> > for encouraging debilitating dependence on a Higher Power<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100077703/charlie-sh...>;
> > he has slated those who blame their behaviour on demons from their past
> > ("Like, 'Oh my God, it's all my mom's fault!' Shut up", he recently said);
> > and he has even challenged the very language the therapy police use. Asked
> > on ABC if he was still "using"<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BZA5bOZ6To&feature=player_embedded>– that annoying Oprahite word for "taking drugs" – he said: "Using a
> > blender? Using a vacuum cleaner? 'Use' is such an AA expression!" In his
> > refusal to speak their lingo, to play their game, to do what all celebs in
> > his situation must do these days – arrange to be interviewed by Hello! so
> > that they can be photographed weeping while confessing to having suffered a
> > mental breakdown – Sheen is rebelling against the super-conformist modern
> > narrative of weak individuals who need to be saved by psycho-priests. They
> > won't forgive him for this.
>
> > The most revealing thing about the Sheen affair is the way normal emotions
> > and failings are relentlessly psychologised today. Note how Time magazine
> > puts the word "passion" in quote marks; others say that Sheen's claim that
> > he is simply "angry" is really a denial of the fact that he is "Mood
> > Disordered"<http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/two-takes-depression/201102/charl...>.
> > Apparently everything we do and feel is really an expression of some inner
> > imbalance that urgently needs to be fixed by modern-day witch doctors with a
> > PhD in personality-policing. In refusing to go along with this nonsense,
> > Sheen nicely reminds us that we alone are responsible for our behaviour, and
> > that we alone can improve ourselves, when we're ready.
>
> >http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100078269/charlie-sh...
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: TSA
AKA "Assholes and Elbows".
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
44,000 TSA workers vote this week to unionize. Bend over.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: NPR -- bulldoze their building NOW
Pack them all up and give them to Hugo.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
Virginia Senate, Governor and House of Delegates fighting over
eliminating subsidies to NPR affiliates. If you know anyone there I
am told you should write to your delegate or the Governor now.
Apparently more NPR video will be released all week with the follow up
emails and phone calls between the pretend Moslem radicals and the NPR
Foundation honchos.
The next part contains NPR's answer to the question "You can hide our
donations from a government audit can't you?"
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Right Wing NPR Hit Piece Full of Fail
And they canned a chick by the same name (no relation).
Either they were canned because the f'd up, or because they let the
cat out of the bag.
Its a "pick 'em"
Juan Williams said essentially of Muslims on planes what Jesse Jackson
said of blacks on the street at night. Fire Juan.
Nina Totenberg wishes AIDS on the grand kids of a Senator. No prob at
all, promote her.
On Mar 9, 10:22 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That pos Shilling (?) CEO of NPR resigned this morning. Good riddance.
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > I saw that NPR is running like scared rabbits from that video this
> > morning.
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:58 pm, the daily search <thedailysea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Right Wing NPR Hit Piece Full of Fail
> > > First, I love how the introduction says they posed "as Muslims" not
> > "Muslim
> > > extremists", as if the term "Muslim" was enough information to set up the
> > > scenario.
>
> > > But I digress. Don't you just love how in every Right Wing hit piece the
> > > actors always have to play characters seedier than their targets? As if
> > just
> > > by exposing Acorn or NPR representatives to their presence will be enough
> > > for the pretend taint to rub off on them.
>
> > > I also love how, in this latest offering,
>
> > > Read the rest at TheDailySearch.com...<
> >http://www.thedailysearch.com/2011/03/right-wing-npr-hit-piece-full-o...>
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Fwd: NPR -- bulldoze their building NOW
Virginia Senate, Governor and House of Delegates fighting over
eliminating subsidies to NPR affiliates. If you know anyone there I
am told you should write to your delegate or the Governor now.
eliminating subsidies to NPR affiliates. If you know anyone there I
am told you should write to your delegate or the Governor now.
Apparently more NPR video will be released all week with the follow up
emails and phone calls between the pretend Moslem radicals and the NPR
Foundation honchos.
The next part contains NPR's answer to the question "You can hide our
donations from a government audit can't you?"
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Fannie Mae Still Inflicting Pain on Taxpayers
Fannie Mae Still Inflicting Pain on Taxpayers
by The Freeman on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 8:32am
"Investors who say they suffered massive losses because of an accounting fraud at Fannie are demanding billions of dollars in compensation. At the same time, Fannie is spending tens of millions of dollars to defend itself and its former executives, leading lawmakers to question the firm and its federal regulator about why they are not containing costs. Stuck in the middle are U.S. taxpayers. " ( Washington Post)
What was that about government being more responsible than the private sector?
A Crisis of Political Economy
We Need Structural Change to Overcome Record Budget Deficits and Boom-and-Bust Cycles
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
May 2009 • Volume: 59 • Issue: 4 •
One of the things that I have long admired about Austrian-school theorists, such as Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, is their understanding of political economy, a concept that conveys, by its very coupling, the inextricable tie between the political and the economic.
When Austrian-school theorists have examined the dynamics of market exchange, they have stressed the importance not only of the larger political context within which such exchanges take place, but also the ways in which politics influences and molds the shape and character of those exchanges. Indeed, with regard to financial institutions in particular, they have placed the state at the center of their economic theories on money and credit.
Throughout the modern history of the system that most people call "capitalism," banking institutions have had such a profoundly intimate relationship to the state that one can only refer to it as a "state-banking nexus." As I point out in Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism:
A nexus is, by definition, a dialectical unity of mutual implication. Aristotle . . . stresses that "the nexus must be reciprocal . . . [T]he necessary occurrence of this involves the necessary occurrence of something prior; and conversely . . . given the prior, it is also necessary for the posterior to come-to-be." For Aristotle, this constitutes a symbiotic "circular movement." As such, the benefits that are absorbed by the state-banking nexus are mutually reinforcing. Each institution becomes both a precondition and effect of the other.
The current state and the current banking sector require each other. They are so reciprocally intertwined that each is an extension of the other.
Remember this the next time somebody tells you, as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert did, that "free market madmen" caused the current financial crisis that is threatening to undermine the global economy. There is no free market. There is no "laissez-faire capitalism." The government has been deeply involved in setting the parameters for market relations for eons; in fact, genuine "laissez-faire capitalism" has never existed. Yes, trade may have been less regulated in the nineteenth century, but not even the so-called Gilded Age featured "unfettered" markets.
One reason I have come to dislike the term "capitalism" is that, historically, it has never manifested fully its so-called "unknown ideals." Real, actual, historically specific "capitalism" has always entailed the intervention of the state. And that intervention has always had a class character; that is, the actions of the state have always benefited and must always benefit some groups at the expense of others.
No Neutral Government Action
Mises understood this when he constructed his theory of money and credit. For Mises, there is no such thing as a "neutral" government action, just as surely as there is no such thing as "neutral" money. As he pointed out in The Theory of Money and Credit and other works, "Changes in the quantity of money and in the demand for money . . . never occur for all individuals at the same time and to the same degree and they therefore never affect their judgments of value to the same extent and at the same time." He traced how, with the erosion of a gold standard, an inflation of the money supply would diffuse slowly throughout the economy, benefiting those, such as banks and certain capital-intensive industries, who were among the early recipients of the new money.
One reason the gold standard was abandoned is its incompatibility with a structural policy of inflation and with a system heavily dependent on government intervention. (It should be pointed out that a free-banking system need not necessarily entail a 100 percent reserve gold standard, but I leave this discussion for another day.) The profiteers of systematic inflation are not difficult to pinpoint. Taking their lead from Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard and such New Left revisionist historians as Gabriel Kolko and James Weistein, Walter Grinder and John Hagel III point out:
Historically, state intervention in the banking system has been one of the earliest forms of intervention in the market system. In the U.S., this intervention initially involved sporadic measures, both at the federal and state level, which generated inflationary distortion in the monetary supply and cyclical disruptions of economic activity. The disruptions which accompanied the business cycle were a major factor in the transformation of the dominant ideology in the U.S. from a general adherence to laissez-faire doctrines to an ideology of political capitalism which viewed the state as a necessary instrument for the rationalization and stabilization of an inherently unstable economic order. This transformation in ideology paved the way for the full-scale cartellization [sic] of the banking sector through the Federal Reserve System. The pressure for systematic state intervention in the banking sector originated both among the banks themselves and from certain industries which, because of capital intensive production processes and long lead-times, sought the stability necessary for the long-term planning of their investment strategies. The historical evidence confirms that the Federal Reserve legislation and other forms of state intervention in the banking sector during the first decades of the twentieth century received active support from influential banking and industrial interests. . . . ["Toward a Theory of State Capitalism: Ultimate Decision-Making and Class Structure," Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1977.]
As Grinder and Hagel explain, "[C]artellization [sic] of banking activity permits banks to inflate their asset base systematically." This has the effect of strengthening the "ultimate decision-making authority" of banking institutions over "the activities of industrial corporations," and, by extension, "the capital market." These banking institutions serve as a key "intermediary between the leading economic interests and the state."
Thus one of the major consequences of inflation is a shift of wealth and income toward banks and their beneficiaries. But this financial interventionism also sets off a process that Hayek would have dubbed a "road to serfdom," for inflation introduces a host of distortions into the delicate structure of investment and production, setting off boom and bust and, in Grinder and Hagel's words, "a process of retrogression from a relatively free market to a system characterized by an increasingly fascistic set of economic relationships."
Just as the institution of central banking generates a "process of retrogression" at home, engendering additional domestic interventions that try to "correct" for the very distortions, conflicts, and contradictions it creates, so too does it make possible a structure of foreign interventions. In fact, it can be said that the very institution of central banking was born, as Rothbard argues in The Mystery of Banking, "as a crooked deal between a near bankrupt government and a corrupt clique of financial promoters" in an effort to sustain British colonialism. The reality is not much different today, but it is a bit more complex in terms of the insidious means by which government funds wars, and thereby undermines a productive economy.
So where does this leave us today?
Much has already been said about the most recent financial crisis, viewed from a radical libertarian and Austrian perspective, which helps to clarify its interventionist roots. (See, for example, Steven Horwitz's "An Open Letter to My Friends on the Left," and Sheldon Richman's "Bailing Out Statism"). The seeds for this particular crisis were planted some years ago. The origins of the housing bubble can be traced to the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that extended risky loans to low-income borrowers in the hopes of expanding the "ownership society." But the larger crisis must be understood within the wider political-economic context shaped by inflationary government and Federal Reserve policies that fueled a binge of reckless borrowing. Horwitz explains:
All of these interventions into the market created the incentive and the means for banks to profit by originating loans that never would have taken place in a genuinely free market. It is worth noting that these regulations, policies, and interventions were often gladly supported by the private interests involved. Fannie and Freddie made billions while home prices rose, and their CEOs got paid lavishly. The same was true of the various banks and other mortgage market intermediaries who helped spread and price the risk that was in play, including those who developed all kinds of fancy new financial instruments all designed to deal with the heightened risk of default the intervention brought with it. This was a wonderful game they were playing and the financial markets were happy to have Fannie and Freddie as voracious buyers of their risky loans, knowing that US taxpayer dollars were always there if needed. The history of business regulation in the US is the history of firms using regulation for their own purposes, regardless of the public interest patina over the top of them. This is precisely what happened in the housing market. And it's also why calls for more regulation and more intervention are so misguided: they have failed before and will fail again because those with the profits on the line are the ones who have the resources and access to power to ensure that the game is rigged in their favor.
This is precisely correct; indeed, there are those of a certain political bent who might seek to place blame for the current financial crisis on the recipients of subprime mortgages, particularly those in minority communities. But if elements of the current housing bubble can be traced to Clinton administration attempts to appeal to traditional Democratic voting blocs, it's not as if the banks were dragged kicking and screaming into lending those mortgages. This is, in a nutshell, the whole problem, the whole history, of government intervention, as Horwitz argues. Even if a case can be made that the road to this particular "housing bubble" hell was paved with the "good intentions" of those who wanted to nourish the "ownership society," their actions necessarily generated deleterious unintended consequences. When governments have the power to set off such a feeding frenzy, government power becomes the only power worth having, as Hayek observed so long ago.
We heard a lot about "change" during the last presidential campaign, and about the necessity to end the influence of Washington lobbyists on public policy. But that influence exists because Washington has the power to dispense privilege. And privileges will always be dispensed in ways that benefit "ultimate decision-makers." That's the way the system is rigged. It is not simply that intervention breeds corruption; it's that corruption is inherent in the process itself.
It is therefore no surprise that the loudest advocates for the effective nationalization of the finance industry are to be found on Wall Street; at this point, failing financiers welcome any government actions that will socialize their risks. But such actions that socialize losses while keeping profits private are a hallmark of fascist and neofascist economies. They are just another manifestation of "Horwitz's First Law of Political Economy" ("Capitalists, Capitalism, and the Siren's Song of Stability"): "No one hates capitalism more than capitalists."
It is the government's monetary, fiscal, and global policies that have created insurmountable debt and record budget deficits, speculative booms and bubble bursts. What is needed is genuine structural change. But the primary battle is an intellectual and cultural one. It requires that we question the fundamental basis of the current statist system.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/a-crisis-of-political-economy/
TSA
44,000 TSA workers vote this week to unionize. Bend over.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
‘Paulites’ vs. ‘Palinites’
'Paulites' vs. 'Palinites'
Walter Russell Mead, the Tea Party, and American foreign policy
by Justin Raimondo
March 09, 2011
Walter Russell Mead, the distinguished foreign policy analyst and editor of The American Interest, has taken on the subject of the so-called Tea Party – the populist American movement to cut the size of government – and its attitude toward foreign policy, a topic that has been much cause for speculation. A recent op ed in the New York Times summarizes a longer argument made in a piece for Foreign Affairs, but one needn't have access to the subscription-only Foreign Affairs piece to understand his basic mistake.
Mead's seminal book, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, gave us a useful prism through which to view the history of American foreign policy: in brief, he divided the various "schools" of thought regarding America's relation to the world into four categories: Hamiltonians, Wilsonians, Jeffersonians, and Jacksonians.
The first is a calculated elitism that sees US interests primarily in commercial terms: that is, terms most conducive to the interests of the financial and political elites. Hamiltonianism, in short, is little more than crass mercantilism with a thin cosmetic veneer of Anglophilia. The Wilsonians are self-styled "idealists" who believe the mission of the US is to spread democracy and enforce the concept of "self-determination" (the neoconservatives are a good example, although this messianism also exists on the ostensible left). The Jeffersonians, in Mead's book, are a small archaic minority, who cling to the view of the Founders that we should pursue a policy of entangling alliances with none and trade with all. Think Ron Paul. The Jacksonians – who, in Mead's view, have determined the course of contemporary American policy – are an inchoate lot, who mix an explosive belligerence with what Mead characterizes as a "populist and popular culture of honor, independence, courage, and military pride." His exemplars of the Jacksonian spirit span the spectrum, from John McCain to John F. Kennedy.
This last category gives him lots of elbow room to project his own views onto a wide swathe of the American public, and this is the chief weakness of what is otherwise an admirable attempt to analyze the history of US foreign policy in terms specific to the American experience. That weakness comes across loud and clear when he applies his theory to the question of the "tea party" and American foreign policy.
"In foreign policy," avers Mead, "Jacksonians embrace a set of strongly nationalist ideas. They combine a firm belief in American exceptionalism with deep skepticism about the nation's ability to create a liberal world order. The Obama administration is trying to steer U.S. foreign policy away from Jacksonian approaches just as a confluence of foreign and domestic developments are creating a Jacksonian moment."
Mead correctly points out that the two wings of the tea party – which he labels "Palinite" and "Paulite" (after Sarah Palin and Ron Paul) – both oppose "liberal internationalism": that is, they are suspicious of attempts by modern liberals to create a manageable "world order" and tie the fate of the rest of the world to our own. This is the much-vaunted "American exceptionalism" we hear so much talk about.
So far, so good, but when Mead gets down to specifics he gets it wrong. Because it looks like his "Jacksonian moment" has already passed: a clear majority of Americans want us out of Afghanistan in the next year, and, more broadly, a recent Pew poll concluded that, when it comes to overseas entanglements, most want the US government to " mind its own business." The militaristic fervor that swept public opinion immediately after 9/11 seems to have run its course. Chastened by the lessons learned in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, the Americans are wary of foreign intervention – and preoccupied with the economic crisis here at home.
Undeterred by such developments, however, Mead plows ever onward, trying to apply his theory to the "Jacksonian" tea party:
"The contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinites. The Palinite wing of the Tea Party (after Sarah Palin) wants a vigorous, proactive approach to the problem of terrorism in the Middle East, one that rests on a close alliance between the United States and Israel. The Paulite wing (Rand Paul) would rather distance the United States from Israel as part of a general reduction of the United States' profile in a part of the world from which little good can be expected.
"The Paulites are likely to lose this contest because the commonsense reasoning of the American people now generally takes as axiomatic that security at home cannot be protected without substantial engagement overseas.
"Terrorist attacks and events such as the Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons are likely to keep that sense of international danger alive (recent polls show that up to 64 percent of the U.S. public favors military strikes to end the Iranian nuclear program). Widespread public concern about perceived threats from a rising China will also strengthen public support for a strong military force and global American engagement."
Theories are fine, but in the foreign policy realm empirical evidence is the clincher. Mead cites some polls which supposedly show support for military action against Iran – but this is assuming Iran really is building nuclear weapons, and not just harnessing nuclear power for energy.
It's true the Obama administration is trying to steer the country away from a unilateralist (i.e. Jacksonian) approach to world affairs, but the course it is taking is not steering us away from interventionism: quite the contrary. Wars begun by the Bush administration (arguably ultra-Jacksonian in orientation) have been escalated and expanded by Obama, with no more success on the battlefield than his predecessor was able to show.
The same populist disdain for elites Mead cites as emblematic of the Jacksonians kicks in over skepticism of our foreign policy elites, who yesterday assured us Saddam really did have "weapons of mass destruction" – and today solemnly lecture us that, in Afghanistan, we must fulfill our alleged responsibilities as the world's policeman.
What Mead calls the Jacksonian tendency in American foreign policy thought is not averse to a quick victory, a crushing blow delivered to the enemy followed by an equally speedy withdrawal, but this is nearly always in response to some catalyzing event: the " sinking" of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, 9/11. It is not so much a considered view as an emotional spasm, an episodic condition rather than a school of thought.
Mead defines the Jacksonians as "nationalist," but nearly all American political tendencies – with the exception of orthodox Marxists, of which there are very few left – are nationalistic in the broad sense: that is, they take pride in and claim to be heirs to the legacy of the American revolution. They see their own views as rooted in our nation's history, and its logical extension into the present.
Furthermore, there are two possible interpretations of "nationalism," one an expansionist messianism that seeks to export some version of the "American system" overseas, and the other a more self-contained and introspective nationalism, which is mainly concerned with its own development. The latter sees in "American exceptionalism" the idea that America, unlike the old empires of Europe and Asia, is exceptional in that it does not seek to change the world except by example. It is a magnet, rather than aggressor, an inspirer of libertarian sentiments and not their enforcer.
Mead's view that the "Palinites" are winning out over anti-interventionists like Ron Paul is based on zero empirical evidence. After all, the two tendencies are just now squaring off, and it's too early to tell which side will win. There is some anecdotal evidence, however, starting with the political status of Sarah Palin herself. Polls show her coming in way behind the other likely GOP presidential wannabes, and certainly behind Paul, who regularly comes in second – or, in the case of the recent CPAC conference, first.
This conference, a gathering of conservative activists from around the country, registered a sea change in "Jacksonian" sentiment when it comes to foreign policy matters. There were several panels on the perils of interventionism, and the vote for Paul was significant in that it was largely due to the very vocal and visible youth crowd. Young people came out for Paul in very large numbers, and while the neocon mandarins sniffed that this was just a bunch of "college students," and therefore of no consequence, in reality this youthful chorus sounds the death knell of cold war era Jacksonianism of the sort Mead seems to favor. For the old Jacksonians are passing from the scene, to be replaced by another sort of populist, one skeptical of elites who glory in – and profit from – a foreign policy of constant war. These latter-day "Paulite" Jacksonians see war as the multiplier of government power – a power the tea party seeks to confront and cut down to size.
I would add that the original Jacksonians were galvanized and defined by President Andrew Jackson's heroic fight against central banking – the core of the "Paulite" ideology. From the idea that "banksters" control our economy and domestic politics it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to the idea that these same financial elites control our interventionist foreign policy from behind the scenes. In this important sense, Paul and his campaign to "End the Fed" are the true heirs and legatees of the Jacksonian tradition in American politics – and Paul's anti-interventionism is its logical foreign policy corollary.
I would also challenge the centrality Mead gives to US support for Israel in the Jacksonian mindset. This support is primarily a religious phenomenon: it is based on the pre-millennial dispensationalism of a large segment of the "born again" Christian movement. Yet these millennialists are a minority within a minority, and one that is, furthermore, increasingly isolated in American society – just as Israel is itself becoming more isolated in the international community. And while Israel's lobbyists continually point to polls purporting to show support for the Jewish state, as opposed to sympathy for the Palestinian cause, these same polls, as Daniel Larison points out, also reveal that most Americans don't want the US government taking sides.
In Special Providence, Mead himself notes that the four "schools" he defines are very broad generalizations, which tend to flow into one another, and that is precisely what is happening with the tea partiers, who combine characteristics associated with both Jacksonians and Jeffersonians. Mead says "the Jacksonians are unlikely to disappear," but doesn't see that they may be undergoing a transformation. Given what empirical evidence we have, it looks to me like they are morphing into a tendency combining a populist distrust of elites with a Jeffersonian commitment to militant anti-statism – and a temperamental aversion to overseas meddling.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/03/08/paulites-vs-palinites/
Orwellian World
Orwellian World
Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 9, 2011 09:34 AM
Writes Paul Mollon:
- Ron Paul, for his entire political career, spanning decades, has preached nothing but peace and freedom. He wants to limit government invasions of both. For this he is labeled "kooky", "crazy" and "dangerous".
- Meanwhile, what is Donald Rumsfeld up to? Would that be the same Donald Rumsfeld who was an integral part of the power elite that ordered the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq, while murdering and maiming innocent men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands; pathetically trying to justify it all with a mountain of half-truths, lies and outright BS? Yes, that's the very one. What keeps him busy these days? Why, he's touring the country, smiling that smarmy smile, waving cheerily to his fans and mealy-mouthed media flaks, making piles of money selling his memoirs, and of course continuing the half-truths, lies, and BS.
- Is this an Orwellian world or what?
- Meanwhile, what is Donald Rumsfeld up to? Would that be the same Donald Rumsfeld who was an integral part of the power elite that ordered the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq, while murdering and maiming innocent men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands; pathetically trying to justify it all with a mountain of half-truths, lies and outright BS? Yes, that's the very one. What keeps him busy these days? Why, he's touring the country, smiling that smarmy smile, waving cheerily to his fans and mealy-mouthed media flaks, making piles of money selling his memoirs, and of course continuing the half-truths, lies, and BS.
Oil will go up 'ballistically' if unrest shifts to Saudi Arabia, says Marc Faber
Oil will go up 'ballistically' if unrest shifts to Saudi Arabia, says Marc Faber
Source: BI-ME , Author: Posted by BI-ME staff
Posted: Tue March 8, 2011 10:09 pm
INTERNATIONAL. Marc Faber the Swiss fund manager and Gloom Boom & Doom editor sees oil prices extending their bull run despite the 15% run-up this year alone.
In an optimistic scenario demand for oil will rise as the global recovery takes hold, and in a pessimistic scenario prices still go up if the Middle East unrest spreads and crude production is curtailed. In both cases, he says, you should be long energy and energy related shares.
Speaking to CNBC today, Faber said: " I think long term you should be exposed to energy in either scenario....if you are extra bearish and believe that War World III is going to start soon, as I believe, or in an optimistic scenario".
Addressing the fundamentals of the oil market, Faber said: "What we had over the last couple of years is essentially a reduction in demand from the developed world, the US, Western Europe and Japan, and continued growth in emerging economies.
"So, if you take a very optimistic view of the world, namely a global economic recovery, demand in the Western World will pick up and demand in the Emerging World will continue to rise strongly, so from a very optimistic point of view you should be long oil," he recommended.
On the flip side, "in a very pessimistic scenario you have to assume that unrest will shift to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the gulf and at that stage the production is curtailed and in that case obviously oil will go up ballistically."
Brent crude futures could hit US$200 a barrel if political unrest spreads into Saudi Arabia, Societe Generale said on Monday.
Under what the bank called Geopolitical Scenario 3, "unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia and threatens Saudi crude exports and any remaining spare capacity. Brent price range of US$150-US$200 a barrel," it said in a research note.
"In this most extreme, worst-case scenario for the oil markets, serious unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia. In this case, it does not really matter if Libya or any other producers are shut down or not. Saudi Arabia is OPEC's biggest producer and the world's biggest current holder of spare capacity," the bank added.
Saudi Arabia is the world's top exporter of crude oil, meeting about 10% of the global oil demand.
Oil prices dropped today, with North Sea Brent crude dipping briefly below US$113 per barrel, after Kuwait's oil minister said OPEC was considering boosting production for the first time in more than two years.
"You can increase production but to increase the reserves is very difficult and very costly and the fact is simply that the world is burning more oil than it is adding reserves every year," Faber told CNBC.
"So, the level of proven reserves or the existing oil fields, that production will go down, so you have to find new oil fields and develop new ones all the time and that is very costly," he said, adding I would estimate the marginal cost of new oil around US$80 per barrel.
Asked if prices can go up if US demand stays low, Faber said the importance of demand in the developed world is diminishing and the importance of very low per capita consumption countries such as China and India is increasing.
"For the first time in the history of Capitalism you now have essentially demand in emerging economies exceeding demand in the developed world," he said.
What is the best oil investment vehicle?
Faber said he doesn't favor investing in commodity ETFs given the high rollover costs. Investors in ETFs were bound to lose money in the long run given these costs, he suggested.
"In the commodities space, either you go long commodities yourself through the futures market or you buy companies that produce commodities," Faber advises.
http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=51517&t=1&cg=4
Earth to New York Times: Governments Are Broke
Not So Fast!
Earth to New York Times: Governments Are Broke
It can't be ignored.
William L. Anderson
Posted March 09, 2011
During a recent interview on Russia Today about the end of NASA's space shuttle program, I said that the U.S. government was broke and Washington needed to curtail spending. However, I now stand corrected, at least according to the New York Times and the ubiquitous Michael Moore.
Declaring " broke" a "hollow cry," the Times says that recent statements to the contrary by prominent Republicans are false:
Filmmaker Moore recently agrees He told protesters in Madison, Wisconsin, that the only problem is that taxes on wealthy people are too low:
I suppose that both Moore and the Times are correct that if the government were to seize most or all of Americans' cash and property holdings, the federal budget most likely could be balanced. For now.
The problem here is obvious on its face. If people had all their earnings confiscated by the State, they would no longer be willing to work and the government then would have nothing or almost nothing to tax in the future.
Borrowing to Pay Debts
There also is a huge problem with the Times' mortgage analogy. The Treasury is borrowing money to make payments on previously borrowed money. If I were paying for my groceries with a credit card and borrowing money to make my mortgage payments, and it was clear my projected income over many years would not cover my expenses, that would be the very definition of "broke."
No doubt the Times editors and Moore would counter that the government can ramp up tax rates and also create money to pay its bills (unlike you and me since the law forbids us to steal and counterfeit). But by forcing up taxes government would consume even more wealth produced by private individuals, and creating new money to pay its bills is a fraud that steals purchasing power from the rest of us.
I suspect these things are lost on the Times and Moore, who declared that wealth is " a national resource" to be confiscated by the State.
The wealth Americans produce does not come from a bottomless well, and it is clear that the current fiscal crisis is not due to government's undertaxing the people. Rather the crisis exists because government spends too much, while taxation, regulatory, and monetary policy prevent economic recovery.
Any entity that has to borrow money to stay afloat because long-term income prospects are dismal is broke. True, government can temporarily hide the crisis by more borrowing and inflating, but in the end the bankruptcy cannot and will not be hidden.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/not-so-fast/earth-to-new-york-times-governments-are-broke/
Earth to New York Times: Governments Are Broke
It can't be ignored.
William L. Anderson
Posted March 09, 2011
During a recent interview on Russia Today about the end of NASA's space shuttle program, I said that the U.S. government was broke and Washington needed to curtail spending. However, I now stand corrected, at least according to the New York Times and the ubiquitous Michael Moore.
Declaring " broke" a "hollow cry," the Times says that recent statements to the contrary by prominent Republicans are false:
- It's all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends. A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more "broke" than a family with a mortgage or a college loan. And states have to balance their budgets. Though it may disappoint many conservatives, there will be no federal or state bankruptcies.
Filmmaker Moore recently agrees He told protesters in Madison, Wisconsin, that the only problem is that taxes on wealthy people are too low:
- America is not broke…. Wisconsin is not broke. The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers.
I suppose that both Moore and the Times are correct that if the government were to seize most or all of Americans' cash and property holdings, the federal budget most likely could be balanced. For now.
The problem here is obvious on its face. If people had all their earnings confiscated by the State, they would no longer be willing to work and the government then would have nothing or almost nothing to tax in the future.
Borrowing to Pay Debts
There also is a huge problem with the Times' mortgage analogy. The Treasury is borrowing money to make payments on previously borrowed money. If I were paying for my groceries with a credit card and borrowing money to make my mortgage payments, and it was clear my projected income over many years would not cover my expenses, that would be the very definition of "broke."
No doubt the Times editors and Moore would counter that the government can ramp up tax rates and also create money to pay its bills (unlike you and me since the law forbids us to steal and counterfeit). But by forcing up taxes government would consume even more wealth produced by private individuals, and creating new money to pay its bills is a fraud that steals purchasing power from the rest of us.
I suspect these things are lost on the Times and Moore, who declared that wealth is " a national resource" to be confiscated by the State.
The wealth Americans produce does not come from a bottomless well, and it is clear that the current fiscal crisis is not due to government's undertaxing the people. Rather the crisis exists because government spends too much, while taxation, regulatory, and monetary policy prevent economic recovery.
Any entity that has to borrow money to stay afloat because long-term income prospects are dismal is broke. True, government can temporarily hide the crisis by more borrowing and inflating, but in the end the bankruptcy cannot and will not be hidden.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/not-so-fast/earth-to-new-york-times-governments-are-broke/
Re: Right Wing NPR Hit Piece Full of Fail
That pos Shilling (?) CEO of NPR resigned this morning. Good riddance.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
I saw that NPR is running like scared rabbits from that video this
morning.
> Read the rest at TheDailySearch.com...<http://www.thedailysearch.com/2011/03/right-wing-npr-hit-piece-full-o...>
On Mar 8, 5:58 pm, the daily search <thedailysea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right Wing NPR Hit Piece Full of Fail
> First, I love how the introduction says they posed "as Muslims" not "Muslim
> extremists", as if the term "Muslim" was enough information to set up the
> scenario.
>
> But I digress. Don't you just love how in every Right Wing hit piece the
> actors always have to play characters seedier than their targets? As if just
> by exposing Acorn or NPR representatives to their presence will be enough
> for the pretend taint to rub off on them.
>
> I also love how, in this latest offering,
>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The Battle of Wisconsin
The Battle of Wisconsin
by Walter Block
Previously, I wrote this article about the brou-ha-ha concerning public sector unions in Wisconsin. The viewpoint I articulated then was that not one but both of these institutions, the public sector unions and the government of Wisconsin, were illegitimate, according the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP). I have had literally dozens of letters mostly in support of my thesis, but quite a few, also, criticizing me. I would like to share a selection of each of these types of reactions with you (I only include the polite ones in the latter category, since I believe in the importance of civil discourse), along with my responses to them.
Why do I do this? Why don't I, instead, respond, only, to each individual letter writer? If I reacted to each letter, separately, then all such authors would see, only, my reaction to their one letter. I'd prefer to keep this public, so that our entire community can listen in on this dialogue. I do this for several reasons. One, were Murray Rothbard alive today, it is my expectation that he would have conducted matters in this manner. He wanted to build a movement, a cadre, and I can think of no better way to do that than by going public in this manner. I want to practice inclusiveness: by keeping all interested parties abreast of the thinking of people in our intellectual community. I can do no better than to emulate my mentor Murray in this regard. Second, each of the commentators on my previous analysis would likely be interested in the thoughts of the others, and my reactions to all of them.
I oppose all of organized labor, since it violates the NAP. Unions need not do so. Instead, they could limit themselves to a mass quit, which would be entirely compatible with the libertarian philosophy. But none of them keep a tight rein on themselves in any such manner. They either themselves beat up those who compete with them for jobs, or they hide behind labor legislation that compels employers to deal with them, "fairly," when the firms wish to have nothing to do with them at all. Businesses are prohibited from hiring "scabs" instead. Public sector unionism has one additional flaw over and above their private sector counterparts. The supposed justification for labor organizations that plague private concerns was that the capitalist was greedy, and would thus exploit the workers. The state had to step in to right this power imbalance. But the government, surely, at least in this left wing perspective, was the "good guy." How, then, justify striking against it? In this sixth grade civics course understanding of the economic world, the state is like the referee in sports. But no one hits a home run off the umpire for goodness sakes.
As a free market anarchist libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist, I of course oppose the state, and for the very same reason. It, too, engages in NAP violations. In fact, in the view of Rothbard (in For a New Liberty, p. 49): "if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." Yes, indeedy do. So, libertarians must oppose both sides in this Wisconsin labor dispute.
When I first heard of the labor struggle in Wisconsin, it was clear that the left supported the unions, and the right was on the side of Governor Scott Walker. I admit it; I confess; mea culpa: my first thought was that we libertarians must engage in product differentiation. If the Democrats are on one side, and the Republicans on the other, then both of them must be wrong, and, there must be a third side, the libertarian side. Of course, I don't make a fetish of this. There are indeed some issues on which we libertarians support the conservatives (don't ask, there must be some), and other were we take up with the liberals (don't ask, there must be some). But, here, in the Wisconsin labor case, happily for product differentiation, the libertarian may indeed disagree with both, and set off on our own path. Namely, opposition to both sides.
Why, then, in my previous writing did I come out in favor of organized labor? This was purely strategic. I wanted each of them to weaken the other. But my empirical judgment was that the Wisconsin government as stronger than the unions arrayed against it. My thought was that if the latter could somehow be strengthened relatively to the former, the battle would continue longer, to the detriment of both of these evil institutions.
With this introduction, I now list, and respond to, II. Positive reactions to my previous publication on this subject, and then III. negative reactions to my previous publication on this subject. With but a few exceptions, all of these rejoinders will be listed anonymously. I have very slightly copy-edited many of them for ease of exposition. Those listed with an "A" are letters on this topic; my reactions are denoted as "B."
II. Positive reactions
1A. "Barack, you are Mr. Union (in several unfortunate senses). So let's unionize all the deadliest parts of the US government: the Army, the CIA, the NSA, the Drone Corps, the FBI, and all the rest. We, and the world, need your killer ops gummed up." This one is from Lew Rockwell.
1B. I wish I had the wit or wisdom of Lew Rockwell. This is a magnificent extrapolation of my analysis. Yes, unions are the quintessential gummer-upper of modern society par excellence. Should we, as libertarians, not wish that the government of Wisconsin be gummed up? To ask this is to answer it. And what of the (in some cases) mass murdering elements of the Federal government? To not go along with this would be, in the words of Murray Rothbard, "monstrous." On the other hand, what about unionized "gumming up" public libraries, post offices, schools, streets, welfare offices, the Fed, parks, museums? This is a ticklish question. I would vote yes for virtually all of these. But, we have to watch out for the bureaucratic trick of shutting down the bathrooms, and only the bathrooms, when any cut is made to their budgets.
2A. "For what it is worth, as a Rockwell reader, I agree with you. I hope both sides lose. They both stink."
2B. Yes, indeed, both are bad guys. A pox on both their houses.
3A. "Gridlock is good!"
3B. Ceteris paribus, other things equal, yes, certainly, let's all get into the gridlock column. However, as I stated above, this is a complicated issue. We wouldn't want, say, someone to shut down the highways, the bridges, etc., so that innocent people could no longer get around, unless, of course, this was a necessary step in the direction of freedom. On this issue, I think, the Catholic Just War theory has a lot of wisdom to contribute.
4A. "Thanks for the article on the public unions and their respective state governments. As always you are good for a fresh take on things. It does sort of remind me of America taking sides in WWII. When Hitler and Stalin are killing each other, why pick sides? Just let them have at it."
4B. And, if one were slightly stronger than the other, and there were a button we could push to strengthen the weaker one so that long may battle reign to the more complete destruction of both, then, yes, we should push that button. But not because we favor the weaker of these two; because we want both to hurt the other. That is because both are vile.
5A. "Great piece! Tweeted to 2300+. You understand tactics and I fear many of your detractors do not. As I guy who has been small all his life I thoroughly understand how great it is when two bullies are fighting each other! When fighting each other they are leaving me alone, and with any luck may take one another out. Keep kicking butt and taking names for Liberty! Yours In Truth and Liberty!"
5B. Thanks for your support. I, too, was bullied when I was a kid. I grew up Jewish in a mainly Catholic neighborhood. I'll say no more about that. Maybe, in order to see this point clearly, you have to have been victimized by bullies? Nah.
6A. "I too have considered the Wisconsin fight nothing more than a squabble over plunder, but your article has made me think about it a little more. If the government wins its employee unions will simply rebuild when and if another 'boom' phase occurs. If the unions win then the institution of the state government of Wisconsin could be severely damaged. This will further expose the farce that voting has become. The politicians were elected to do something about the cost of government employees. If they fail more people will have the illusion broken. As the battle goes on and on it becomes clearer to more people that it's just a bunch of parasites arguing over the spoils of taxation. But there is one thing that I didn't see covered. When the institution of government fails, those it employs will be out of work. The government employee unions may lose even if they win."
6B. It is ever so with parasites. When they kill the host, they, too, die.
7A. "I just finished reading your column on Lew Rockwell re Wisconsin vs. Public Labor Unions. I am only an observer, living up in Ontario, Canada, but you have swayed me from being in favor of the state action to having a neutral position on the affair. If the state gets its way, what's in it for the common man (taxpayer)? Just because the government finds a way to squeeze the public unions does that mean they will return tax dollars back to taxpayers? Will they repeal laws in order to increase individual freedom? Or will they start spending tax funds wisely? I think not. The state will continue to abuse the common man any way it can (as always). The problem with supporting the Wisconsin government in this kerfuffle is that it is only looking to exempt itself from the consequences of the plethora of rules and regulations that private individuals will still be bound to, regarding labor unions. After all, governments created the problem in the first place by creating laws that put union interests ahead of individual (private) interests. The state has now reaped some of the unintended consequences of their legislation and wants to change the rules, but only to benefit the state."
7B. I fully share your suspicions about the government acting in a freedom-oriented manner.
III. Negative reactions
1A. "It's refreshing to see someone so committed to honesty you don't hesitate to air your dirty laundry so to speak (criticisms). No one else seemed to address this aspect, so I thought I'd give it a shot and I sincerely hope you don't feel I'm piling on. Here's where I differ from your position: I'm not so sure the unions are the underdog and Scott Walker is the one in control. 99/100 out of times, these politicians kowtow to the unions, knowing that if they don't the unions (and the media) will launch such an ugly offensive against them that they will be lucky not to be considered child molesters when all is said and done. Most Democrats get elected due to union support, both with donations and votes. This is one of those rare moments when a politician is opposing the unions, even though this stand will undoubtedly hurt him. I personally think we should be cheering this Scott Walker guy. He's a dead man walking, but it seems like a courageous David vs. Goliath stand to me, something a Ron or Rand would do if in a similar position."
1B. Possibly, you are right: the unions are actually stronger than the government of the state of Wisconsin. This is an empirical question, not one of principle, my main concern. However, I still persist in my possibly erroneous viewpoint. If Scott Walker called out the Wisconsin state police, it is my expectation that they would obey him, and arrest the union leaders. I seriously doubt he would order them to shoot into the protesters crowd, and, that if he somehow did, they would obey him. So, in that very limited sense, the unions are stronger than the government. But, nevertheless, in any likely physical confrontation between the police and the unionist crowds, my bet is that the former would prevail.
2A. "… since both government and unions rely on force to get their way, I don't see one as being any less evil than the otherexcept unions rely on the guns of government, instead of having their own guns, to force employers to deal with them."
2B. Surely, there are gradations of guilt in the use of force. Mass murderers such as Stalin, Hitler, Truman (this last is not a typo) are certainly more guilty than a rapist, or someone who engages in assault and battery, yet both "rely on force to get their way." Of course, neither the government nor the unions of Wisconsin have engaged in murder. But, still, I think the former is guilty of a greater reliance on the use of initiatory violence. The latter does not tax as many people (compulsory union dues are a type of tax); it does not put people in jail for violating drug laws; it does not contribute soldiers from its National Guard who commit war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3A. "I admire your writing, agree with pretty much everything you say, absolutely loved Defending the Undefendable and Privatization of Roads and Highways, and think you have one of the sharpest minds in the anti-state movement. Yet your take on the Wisconsin situation leaves me uncertain. I have two concerns, related to each other, that still linger after reading your articles.
"First, isn't the state (though still entirely illegitimate) advocating, in this particular case, a reduction of its own size, through a decreased budget and decreased leverage for one of its parasites? If a gang decides to stop raping people (to only continue to kill, steal, and cripple), and one of its underbosses rises up in protest so as to change the mob policy back to including rape, would we really root for the smaller mob? More pertinently, what if Ron Paul became President and 434 Rand Pauls filled the rest of Congress, and they passed a budget that cut off funding to the military-industrial complex. Now Halliburton and their friends protest outside of Paul's office, demanding more taxpayer's money. Do we support Halliburton because they are the "underdog," (and the state is still illegitimate)?
"Second, I think your argument also rests on the premise that a battle between two illegitimate powers will weaken each, and I am hesitant to agree. If the unions, who we are supposed to root for, 'win,' then they will receive more money and power. The state will grow as a result (doesn't an increased budget pretty much epitomize the sort of state growth that we ought to oppose?). War, an ultimate example of conflict between illegitimate organizations, does not weaken the state; it is the health of the state. I would expect a more powerful state to emerge from this conflict, especially if the unions 'win.'"
3B. Thanks for your kind compliments. You offer serious challenges to my thesis, and it is pleasure and an honor to try to defend my views against them. Yes, you are quite right. In this particular case, the state of Wisconsin is on the side of the libertarian angels. But, let us stipulate that it is much worse, overall, than the unions against which it contends. Suppose that the Blood and the Crips are two illegitimate organizations, in that they violate the NAP, but that the former are 10 times bigger than the latter, and 100 times as bad in terms of the severity of their rights violations. However, in this one particular altercation between them, the Blood is relatively in the right, and the Crips are on the wrong side of the issue. I don't see why we can't look at the macro aspects of the situation, instead of looking at the micro ones, as you are inclined to do (I think it best to keep in mind all aspects, though). I think you are looking at one tree, and I am looking at the forest, and I think that at least in this case we get a better and more accurate assessment of the situation from my vantage point than from yours. I simply love your scenario about all those Rand Pauls running around (It is not so outlandish; Ron has been very productive not only in politics, and it is my understanding that others of his libertarian oriented children, and possibly grandchildren, will soon be seeking elective office; dynasty, here we come.) However, I cannot see my way clear to interpreting Walker as a Paulian, even though, as you correctly say, in this one particular instance he may well be the a relative good guy. Thus, I think your analogy fails.
As to your second argument, I really don't want the unions to "win." I tried to make that clear in my initial publication in this vein, but evidently I failed. I only want organized labor in Wisconsin to be stronger, so that it can be a better gummer-upper of the state apparatus. I have a long paper trail on this. My anti-union credentials, if I say so myself, are impeccable. I devote almost 100 pages of this book to bashing unions. I stand second to none in my hatred of organized labor.
4A. "Greetings, I'm a social sciences education major at the University of Milwaukee, not exactly a friendly place for a young libertarian. I greatly respect your work and I think I'm starting to get my head around your recent controversial article about supporting the public employee unions. As far as gridlock goes, I'm all for it. But what about actual liberty increasing actions the State congress and Scott Walker intend to do? I didn't vote in the recent elections but I was aware that both possible Republican candidates for governor planned on passing concealed carry laws (possibly "constitutional carry"?). Isn't this gridlock detrimental to gun rights or do we have to make some sacrifice in the bigger scheme in the sense of 'can't have it all'"?
4B. If Ron Paul were governor of Wisconsin, I confess, I would have an entirely different take on this situation. Then, as you imply, we libertarians should all line up on the side of the state. I know that Murray is up there, somewhere. I hope and trust his eyesight is still good, and he doesn't interpret this last phrase of mine, "we libertarians should all line up on the side of the state," too critically. Somehow, I feel he'll know exactly where I'm coming from, and that I haven't completely lost my mind, or, horrors!, sold out. Speaking of Murray, he was often condemned, for shame, even by some libertarians, for the alliances he made. Sometimes he did so on the side of the left (Progressive Labor, no less), sometimes on the side of the right (Randians, National Review). Who knows, he might have erred on occasion for all I know. But, cooperating with, or rooting for, people who are not 100% libertarians is always a difficult empirical undertaking. This is not a matter of principle, or praxeology. Yes, if Governor Walker is also a supporter of Second Amendment rights, plus a hater of unions, he goes up another notch or two or three in the libertarian lexicon. But, he is still no Ron Paul. Nor, even, a Rand Paul, in my admittedly imperfect assessment of these sorts of things.
5A. "I've been reading the articles in LewRockwell.com by you, Lew Rockwell and Robert Wenzel on the fight in Wisconsin, and I have to say I just don't get your argument. I really don't. Of course, both unions and governments are detestable, and it would be great if they both weaken each other in a long drawn out battle. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen, and in the end, one or other is going to win. So which is it? Do you secretly want the unions to win, or do you want them to lose? I hope they lose.
"The argument seems to be that whatever the outcome of this fight, there'll always be the same amount of looting, so any booty that doesn't go to the union will go to the governor, and his favored group, instead. Since the government is bigger, meaner, more evil, and the union is a thorn in its side, why not root for the union? But I don't see it that way. If the union were a 'private' union, outside the government itself, I think that argument might hold water. But it's not. It's part of the government. Therefore, it's one faction of the government against another. And I think the governor is a reformer, kind of in the mold of Ron Paul. Well, not nearly as good as Ron Paul, but at least more like him than many politicians. Of course I don't naturally sympathize with either Republicans or Democrats, I dislike them all, through and through, but it seems to me this governor is at least trying to reduce the overall amount of looting. Isn't that better than not?
"Lew Rockwell suggests we should support the unions because they'll be troublesome employees, they'll "gum up the works," as he puts it. Well, that's certainly true for the private sector, where a company can be forced out of business when it has a problematic union on its hands, but not so for the government. To the contrary the government never goes out of business, it just taxes more. Therefore, troublesome government employees, particularly those that get their own way, simply mean more trouble for the honest hard working citizen.
"Unfortunately, though, this isn't a battle where the union and the government of Wisconsin both weaken each other. In a dragged out, knockout fight to the death, if the union wins, the administration isn't going to go away. No, all that's going to go away is the head of that institution, the governor. In reality then, it's a fight between a union and one man. It's not small bad union against big bad government. Its big bad government union against small bad governor. And if the union wins, and they get their own guy in there – one who'll increase the mugging and looting so as to give them whatever they want – doesn't that make the government – as opposed to the governor – stronger, bigger and more villainous? On the other hand, if the governor wins, at least you get rid of the union. That by itself is a good thing, but doesn't that actually weaken the government in the long run? So this is the way I see it. If the union wins it means a stronger government union, and bigger government. If the governor wins, the government union ceases to exist, and you get weaker government. Yes, a pox on both their houses, but if I have to root for one over the other, I go for the latter, at least in this particular fight.
"To use the analogy of a Mafia gang: The governor, of course, is the mob boss. But he's a slightly better mob boss, one who's saying perhaps we shouldn't shake down the neighborhood quite as much as we've been doing. And now all the wise guys – that's the union – are raising a stink. Not only would they like to see more thuggery and more stealing, they'd also very much like to whack the guy and install a mob boss who's more to their liking, one who'll run a better racket, at least from their point of view. Of course, we, the citizenry, all want to see all the mobsters weakened, so if the fight lasts a good long time, that's all to the good. But in the end, the Mafia isn't going to disappear – sorry but it's not – so you might as well root for the don rather than his wise guys.
5B. "Do (I) secretly want the unions to win, or do (I) want them to lose? I, too, hope the unions lose, but I also hope the government does too. "(T)here'll always be the same amount of looting." That is a recipe for doing absolutely nothing. What is the evidence for this claim? I think it is demonstrably false. If by looting you mean government taxation and/or expenditure, then it has been rising. Well, what goes up can (possibly) come down. There is nothing inevitable in human action. Moreover, these unions are not at all "part of the government." Rather, they are a parasite on the state, gumming it up, making it less efficient. And, even if it were "one faction of the government against another," as you say, we could still root for one or the other. For example, most libertarians are decentralists: they favor the lower levels of government against the higher ones. In this instance the Wisconsin governor is on the side of the angels in that he opposes unions. But he is far from a Ron Paul libertarian on many other issues. His publicity page lists these "accomplishments" as county executive:
- Milwaukee County Parks won the prestigious 2009 National Gold Medal for Excellence in the Park and Recreation Management Program
- Eliminated the waiting list for long-term care for older adults through the Family Care program.
- Milwaukee County's Mitchell International Airport received the Transportation Safety Administration's Partnership Award.
- Invested over $199 million in renovations and improvements to General Mitchell International Airport
But, why didn't he privatize the Parks? Eliminate not the waiting list, but the Family Care program? Privatize the airport? Ok, ok, maybe he had no power to do any of this. But why now brag about these past failures?
Yes, Walker is "at least trying to reduce the overall amount of looting." That is good, of course. But he is in charge of a very big criminal organization, compared to the union, in my view. I agree, probably, at least in our lifetimes, "the Mafia isn't going to disappear," but as libertarians our job is to maximize this probability. In my judgment, the best way to do this is to weaken the strongest part of this gang, and that is the government, not the union.
6A. "It is a foregone conclusion we MUST balance our state budget. The money has to come from somewhere. We can't print fiat fractional reserve notes forever. If the 'civil servants' are not required to kick in, then the tax payers must make up the difference. That means increased taxes, at least for those who pay. Not considering the value of many government actions, any reduction in the number of workers, and or their level of compensation should be a positive development for a freedom minded libertarian. Walker is no libertarian. But he is closer to my beliefs and I have to realistically consider this is a battle that has to be fought inch by inch. He is headed in the correct direction."
6B. Yes, certainly, in his opposition to those public sector unions, the Wisconsin governor is moving down the right path in trying to weaken them. But, they, for their part are equally if not more so doing the Lord's work in effectively gumming up an illicit institution. Why is it that my libertarian critics see the first point so clearly, and balk at the second one, which is also true?
7A. "I read your article with great interest but concluded that a significant argument was overlooked... Not all tapeworms are equal. Some are much harder to dislodge! Both government and unions have monopolistic power, however, with elections, an informed and active electorate has the ability to 'throw the bums out.' But public sector unions are much more entrenched because they have gamed the system and conspired with the politicians to make up the rules. Union rules that coerce and confiscate dues from wages and require membership for gainful employment are how the tapeworm gets securely attached and becomes difficult to remove. Right to work states combat this via legislation which requires action by those elected to office. So removing the union tapeworm is a two-step process while removing the government tapeworm only requires one step. My Grandpa told me that when he was a boy he had a pot belly and skinny arms. An old timer told him, 'Boy, you got tapeworms.' Then he gave him some chewing tobacco and told him to swallow just a little. My Grandpa said it made him sick as a dog but it did the job. As libertarians we need to hand out some chewing tobacco to rid our country of these tapeworms to minimize government and maximize individual freedom.
7B. Your Grand dad was a wise man. We do indeed need to get rid of (coercive) union tapeworms. But, if we want to attain liberty, we must also decrease the power of the government, right down to zero, ideally. Just because something can be done in "one step" does not necessarily mean that it is easier to do than something that takes two steps. Direct exchange takes only "one step." But, due to the double coincidence of wants obstacle studied by economists, the two-step process of indirect exchange is actually far more efficient.
8A. "I found your article very interesting, but I believe many are missing the key point of this battle. In my opinion the Governor is correct in pushing to limit the unions' collective bargaining capability to 'salary only.' It is the 'other benefits' that are killing the ability to balance the budget this year and in future years. Citizens need to pay for the government services as they use them. This is best done through salary. Negotiate the salary and pay for it out of the current budget. Do not negotiate a 'lesser' salary and 'sweeten the pot' with promises that future budgets must bear the burden (for example medical costs or pensions). In my opinion, that is what Gov. Walker is trying to accomplish. If the citizens of Wisconsin want more teachers or to increase the standard of living of the current teachers, they must accept a tax increase or reduce other budgetary items. Do not 'kick the can' to future budgets for today's services."
8B. In the private market, it would be a matter of indifference to pay workers in the form of salary now, or deferred pensions, later. In the political sphere, you are quite correct; politicians sweep generous payouts under the rug in the form of spending that comes later, when a new administration must deal with them. But you and I draw different lessons from these facts. You, pay more now and less later. Me, end this entire vicious system root and brand, as soon as possible. Well, not that quickly. Keep it in power for a while, if it is undermining even more problematic actions of government. If not, then of course draw it to a close, and now.
9A. "I read your article on Public Sector unions and was actually dismayed. Under libertarian law, one has the right of free association and also to refuse to sell one's labor. I reject union's violence against 'scabs' and their use of government to empower themselves at the expense of their competitors. If we had a situation where there was neither pro-union nor anti-union legislation, and a union was successfully able to negotiate a closed shop contract, while I would feel that they are being ultimately self destructive I would also have no grounds to object as a third party to their mutually agreed upon contract. People have a right to hurt themselves. That is part of the libertarian support of drug relegalization. It also applies when they make stupid economic decisions."
9B. I am dismayed at your dismay, since I agree with every word you write.
10A. "Your articles on the public employee unions have been engaging. Thank you for weighing in on the subject. Personally, I come at this from a slightly different perspective. I think it should be made as difficult, annoying, enraging, and insufferable as it can be to be a public employee. If that means banning bureaucrats from joining unions, so be it. If it means closing all employee bathrooms on public property, fine. If it means they are to be required to hang upside down from a tree branch while they do their job, perfect. Perhaps then the rapacious and unproductive thief sector will finally decide that government work just ain't worth it. Government employee unions should be broken and broken permanently, and with extreme prejudice. I wish all those Tea Party people would get on the stick and start protesting the government thug rallies in Wisconsin and elsewhere. These 'protests' are pure, unmitigated, evil covetousness on display and these people should be fired with no chance of ever getting on the public-sector gravy train ever again."
10B. I'm all with you when it comes to dealing harshly with snakes. But, not when they are biting really bad animals, those of even more danger to decent people.
11A. (This letter was not addressed to me, but I was copied on it) "I like the analogy of two thugs in the park, but the problem is both Scott and the unions usually fight together to loot the most money they can from the victim – us. 99.9% of the time, the Scotts of the world (Obama) are more than happy to team up with the unions and extract more money. The unions, in turn, give donations back to the government creeps – usually. However, in this case, Scott has decided that instead of mugging you, taking lots of money from you and splitting it 50/50, he wants to reduce the amount they loot from you. Scott is similar to a Ron Paul or a Rand Paul – someone who miraculously got into government and is trying to right some wrongs.
"Furthermore, Scott is not the stronger of the two. His position is much more precarious than the unions. The unions have their jobs guaranteed, and currently they have their unions protected by the government. Meanwhile, poor little Scott can be slandered, demonized and booted out at the next election. Scott is David and the unions are Goliath. In fact, the union monster is more like an army against one man, which includes the media, union members, and leftists in general all over the state. I think the breakdown is roughly 33% for and 66% against from the polls the media has been feeding us.
"This is an interesting exercise by Walter Block, and I'm curious to see how this debate will resolve itself in libertarian circles, but I'm far from convinced we should be giving support to the unions. I haven't seen any truly good arguments to convince me that we as libertarians would benefit more by supporting the unions. When all is said and done, I think Scott is taking us more in the direction of libertarianism."
11B. "Poor little Scott" can call out the police. He has already attempted to arrest the recalcitrant Democratic state senators. The union does not have anything like that power. Has the "libertarian" Governor of Wisconsin come out against foreign imperialism? Against the Fed? Against the drug laws? I find no evidence of any of this. Thus, I don't see him as similar to Congressman Ron Paul, the next president of these here United States (sorry, I just couldn't resist saying that). Yes, Scott can be voted out at the next election, but the unionists can be jailed right now. Again, I'm only "pro union" in the sense that I welcome their gumming up an even more powerful and evil institution.
12A. "I just got through listening to your "Defending the Undefendable." What a great book. Your discussion about the WI labor unions as being the lesser of two evils reminded me of your argument for the counterfeiters as heroes, since they are merely counterfeiting already counterfeited money. The labor unions are merely stealing back money that was stolen for themselves. Maybe it would be better to root for them. (:-) I was hoping the government would win in this case, however. I would like to see public labor unions smashed as a step in the right direction of landing fewer people in the public trough. But I must admit, you have really given me pause. Thanks for your contributions to Austrian Economics in general. I'm a recent convert and am listening and reading everything I can get my hands on. I hope this beats out mainstream economics some day soon. It deserves to."
12B. Thanks for your kind remarks. I am not rooting for unions per se. Perish the thought. I only favor them in their role of undermining an even more dangerous institution.
IV. Conclusion
Let me take one last swipe at this. Suppose the Governor Walker announced that he was cutting welfare payments by 50%. Would I support him on this? Yes. But, posit that as a result of his welfare reduction announcement, masses of welfare recipients picketed the state house, had sit ins at the various bureaus, made it all but impossible for the bureaucrats to do their job of ruining the economy. Would I support the outraged welfare recipients? You're darn tootin' I would. Would I root for them? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Does this mean I favor the welfare system? Of course not.
In my view, the quality of the responses, both those that support my analysis and especially, in some cases, those that oppose it, are of very high quality. If this is indicative of the talent of the people who tune in to LewRockwell.com, we as an Austro-libertarian movement are in very good shape indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)