Friday, November 4, 2011
Fwd: [New post] The Crisis in the EU
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ThinkMarkets
New post on ThinkMarkets
The Crisis in the EU
by Mario Rizzo
by Jerry O'Driscoll
I addressed the Greek situation and the wider EU debt crisis in an op ed in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, November 2nd ("Why We Can't Escape the Eurocrisis"). It is also posted today on the Cato homepage. I explain the linkages between the US and the EU, particularly among financial institutions.
Banks within the EU finance the deficits of their governments. It is not just that Greek banks buy Greek sovereign debt, but French banks lend to Greek banks. And French banks buy the bonds of the Italian government. US banks lend to EU banks. Less well known, US money market funds hold a good amount of debt issued by EU banks. And the Fed is backstopping dollar funding of EU banks.
Sovereign defaults over there will have a big impact over here. And, then, there is our own public debt problem. And it is not just public-sector debt that afflicts both economies, but, to varying degrees, excessive leverage in the household and nonfinancial corporate sectors.
Last night, Judge Napolitano interviewed me for a segment on "Freedom Watch."
The Judge was interested in not only the economic issues, but also political issues.
The lead segment was with John Allison, former CEO of BB&T, who decried the crony capitalism that is at the root of the crisis here and there. It was enjoyable to hear a former banker decree rent seeking by banks. He even used the word "rents."
Mario Rizzo | November 4, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Tags: European Union, government debt | Categories: Financial Markets, Fiscal Policy, macroeconomics | URL: http://wp.me/pmseG-1ih
Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/the-crisis-in-the-eu/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
--
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: Former Marine's injury spurs vets to join Occupy movement
You notice off duty soldiers are marching with the occupation movement
and they didn't march
with the tea party? Ok? Maybe 5 marched with the tea party. But
comparably speaking! Man!!!!!!!!
and they didn't march
with the tea party? Ok? Maybe 5 marched with the tea party. But
comparably speaking! Man!!!!!!!!
--
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: [Tea Party -- One Lump or Two?] New comment on Mitt Romney woos the tea party.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffery Small
Date: Friday, November 4, 2011
Subject: [Tea Party -- One Lump or Two?] New comment on Mitt Romney woos the tea party.
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com
Jeffery Small has left a new comment on your post "Mitt Romney woos the tea party":
Any Tea Party advocate that would fall for Romney's BS would be a fool. This man stands for absolutely nothing, blowing whichever way the prevailing winds take him. He is a statist through and through, as his track record clearly indicates, and would be no advocate for individual rights or limited government. Supporting this man is tantamount to handing the 2012 election to Obama, as was done in 2008 with the nomination of McCain. And the progressives fully understand this, which is why you have seen a concerted attack in the media on every GOP candidate except for Romney. They would love to see Romney as the GOP choice.
All the GOP candidates are flawed, but I suggest that you give Gary Johnson a close look. This is the only person running that tells you exactly where he stands while being the greatest advocate for individual freedom and personal choice. If you really wish to see the Tea Party principles put into action -- as well as any president is able in today's world -- then Johnson is our best hope for the future, and this is precisely why he is being excluded from the debates. But regardless of whether you accept that viewpoint, we should all certainly agree that Romney is, by far, the worst!
Posted by Jeffery Small to Tea Party -- One Lump or Two? at November 4, 2011 11:14 AM
--
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: Immigration and Misplaced Blame
On Nov 4, 9:48 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Misplaced Blame
> ----
> blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
> immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
> jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
> know the enemy
>
>How come this dude get's to make inflammatory and racist remarks
and you throw off somebody like Stephen Stink?
> Misplaced Blame
> ----
> blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
> immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
> jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
> know the enemy
>
>How come this dude get's to make inflammatory and racist remarks
and you throw off somebody like Stephen Stink?
--
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: Former Marine's injury spurs vets to join Occupy movement
Bush didn't tell the Boston police to use non-lethal weapons.
On Nov 4, 11:48 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Studio: "But that's the Republitard police state introduced by Bush
> Jr. in action."
>
> It may be that the Republicans introduced it but the Dems under Obama
> are actually using it and doing with impunity in Democratic
> strongholds such as NYC, California and Mass.
>
> On Nov 3, 8:29 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 10:02 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Meanwhile, in Boston, the Coast Guard has told its members to stay the
> > > F away.
>
> > They can't tell Coast Guard veterans to stay away.
>
> > > Isn't Oakland pretty when its on fire?
>
> > It's not on fire.
> > Can't you sound more fearful of peaceful demonstrators?
>
> > > What cops need to figure out is that these non-lethal weapons aren't.
>
> > But that's the Republitard police state introduced by Bush Jr. in
> > action.
>
> > Wall Street gave NYC cops a $4 million "donation" to help them.
> > Some people say it was a bribe...
> > look for more donations in the future.- 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: Immigration and Misplaced Blame
MJ says: They argue that we can't have people circumventing the
system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate
only when they protect the natural rights of others.
system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate
only when they protect the natural rights of others.
Laws are designed to protect the natural rights of that countries
citizens... Definitely NOT "natural rights of others."
We can not legislate inside another nation nor can we even try a
foreign national that does not have "access" to HIS/HER own consulate/
embassy in ours. As long as this is true and they are not punishable
by our laws as is any legal member of our society without the
notification and or approval of a foreign state their rights (natural
or not) are obviously in the control of that foreign state. Right from
the start an illegal has more "rights" than a legal.... ie TWO
guaranteed phone calls.... one to his consul and one to whomever he
chooses. This is patently UNFAIR to legal citizens that broke no law
to be present in the US.
On Nov 4, 9:48 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity."Immigration and Misplaced BlameFriday, November 04, 2011
> byJoel Poindexter
> Conservatives love to champion the free market. They often are quick to defend businesses from increased regulation and taxation, and generally oppose intervention in the market place. However, in the case of undocumented workers, these free-marketeers suddenly become ardent supporters of central economic planning.
> In this case they condemn those who hire "illegals," call for shutting down their businesses, imposing heavy fines, and other draconian measures.This exchangeat a recent GOP debate demonstrates the prevailing attitude among those on the right regarding the issue.
> The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simplymalum prohibitum, a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.
> The second argument that conservatives present against so-called illegal immigrants concerns unemployment. The perennial claim is that if they weren't "taking our jobs" then hard-working Americans could go back to work. This is wrong for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that a job cannot be stolen. The employer owns the position, and only he or she may decide who will fill it. The second problem with this view is that it fails to explain unemployed skilled workers; most "illegal" immigrants contribute unskilled labor.
> The only significant impact that immigrants have on the labor market is to increase the supply of labor, which tends to put downward pressure on wages. Everything else equal, the only way an immigrant will be hired over a native worker is if he is willing to accept lower wages. In order to maximize profits, business owners look to pay the lowest wage possible without affecting marginal productivity. If an immigrant is willing to work for less, and he is productive enough, it only makes sense to choose the lower-cost labor. Billions of people the world over make this same decision on a daily basis while shopping for goods and services -- it's called bargain hunting.
> When owner and employee enter into an agreement, they are simply engaging in voluntary exchange. This is how the market would function absent state coercion. It is merely humans acting on two of the most basic desires: economic survival and improving one's condition. Neither has violated the natural rights of any other person, so no real crime has been committed, and they haven't caused unemployment.
> Government intervention in the labor market leads to unemployment, and this includes restrictions on who may be allowed to work in the United States. "Getting tough" on illegal immigration would undoubtedly make us all worse off. The unemployment rate would rise, real wages would fall due to a decrease in productivity, and an overall lowering of living standards would be realized. We're already witnessing the effects of legislation targeting illegal immigrants. It was recentlyreportedthat, thanks to a law passed in April, Georgia farmers had to leave $75 million of produce to rot in their fields because of labor shortages. Firms that laid off undocumented workers for fear of losing their businesses could hire documented workers but would not likely be able to replace everyone. Otherwise it stands to reason that they would have done so in the first place, and stayed within the boundaries of the law.
> It's unclear what the exact ratio would be, but assuming that in some industries three illegal immigrants can be hired in place of two legal citizens, when the former are laid off to accommodate the latter, we see that previously there were two unemployed workers, but now there are three. Where the firm once had the productive capacity of three laborers, it now has that of two. Forcing companies to fire employees on the basis of their immigration status hardly seems an effective way to lower unemployment rates or increase real wealth.
> Perhaps the only reasonable claim that conservatives make is that they've been paying into the system their whole lives, and it's unjust for immigrants to come here illegally and collect welfare. But this is not an issue of immigration policy; it is a problem of government welfare policy. In a free society, individuals would pay directly for the things they needed, and the problem offree ridingwould disappear.
> One effect of displacing immigrant workers already in the country is that an increase in actual crimes is likely to occur, as Stefano R. Mugnainiexplains. These individuals are not likely to repatriate immediately, given the costs. Many are likely to turn to the underground market, resorting to actual crime (malum in se) in order to survive. Again, we see that further intervention is likely only to cause more problems.
> Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity.
> It's clear the current problems can be directly traced to the state's interference in the market. If employer and employee were left free to negotiate contracts without government intervention, everyone would truly have an equal opportunity at business, and the highest quality at the best price would surely result. This economic freedom is at the heart of a free society, and only when the market is divorced from the state will its full potential be realized.
> Joel Poindexter is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter.http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame
--
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: True free market Capitalism evil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf9d3Sayso8&feature=related
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would much rather by unhappy with money, than unhappy without money......
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:40 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Money is more important than ANYTHING
> > --
> > you gotta have it and the more the better
>
> > congrats on facing a small piece of reality
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:30 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Money is more important than ANYTHING.
> > > it comes before God, before people, before animals, before
> > > environment, before health, before life, before housing, before food,
> > > before taxes, before paychecks, before resources, before property,
> > > before .... ANYTHING.
>
> > > And if your one of the .5% Republitard overlords, put a YOUR after the
> > > before.
>
> > --
> > 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/
> > * 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: Jesus as a Republican
So next time you ponder the question; "what would Jesus do?"
----
remember that he's a myth used to control people
----
remember that he's a myth used to control people
do not let the use of fear and threats of hell control you
On Nov 3, 6:58 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Republitards interpretation of the Bible:
>
> Remember in the Bible where Jesus blames everything on the poor?
>
> Where Jesus tells them they shouldn't protest against Roman rule?
>
> The part where Jesus tells the poor how lazy they are?
>
> Or Jesus tells the people paying taxes is wrong?
>
> And where Jesus tells the people how good unfettered capitalism is?
> (Well, they didn't call it capitalism back then, it was just called
> greed).
>
> And the part where Jesus tells the rich to take the credit and the
> money?
>
> And how Jesus tells the rich that they'll be able to keep their wealth
> and status the same in Heaven?
>
> And the part where Jesus tells the people not to follow in his
> footsteps, but to do what He say's, not what He does?
>
> Or how Jesus tells the people that putting forth false witnesses will
> gain you popularity?
>
> Or how Jesus was a patriotic supporter of a strong military?
>
> Or how Jesus specific states how He's firmly set against gays and
> lesbians?
>
> And how Jesus goes into great detail how women and doctors who perform
> abortions should be punished?
>
> So next time you ponder the question; "what would Jesus do?"
> It's all right there in the Republican Bible of Money folks...
--
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: Immigration and Misplaced Blame
Misplaced Blame
----
blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
know the enemy
----
blame the politicians and those who extort them into ignoring our
immigration laws ... namely unAmerican socialist minorities, xians,
jews, and liberals and those who hire illegals
know the enemy
On Nov 4, 10:48 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity."Immigration and Misplaced BlameFriday, November 04, 2011
> byJoel Poindexter
> Conservatives love to champion the free market. They often are quick to defend businesses from increased regulation and taxation, and generally oppose intervention in the market place. However, in the case of undocumented workers, these free-marketeers suddenly become ardent supporters of central economic planning.
> In this case they condemn those who hire "illegals," call for shutting down their businesses, imposing heavy fines, and other draconian measures.This exchangeat a recent GOP debate demonstrates the prevailing attitude among those on the right regarding the issue.
> The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simplymalum prohibitum, a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.
> The second argument that conservatives present against so-called illegal immigrants concerns unemployment. The perennial claim is that if they weren't "taking our jobs" then hard-working Americans could go back to work. This is wrong for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that a job cannot be stolen. The employer owns the position, and only he or she may decide who will fill it. The second problem with this view is that it fails to explain unemployed skilled workers; most "illegal" immigrants contribute unskilled labor.
> The only significant impact that immigrants have on the labor market is to increase the supply of labor, which tends to put downward pressure on wages. Everything else equal, the only way an immigrant will be hired over a native worker is if he is willing to accept lower wages. In order to maximize profits, business owners look to pay the lowest wage possible without affecting marginal productivity. If an immigrant is willing to work for less, and he is productive enough, it only makes sense to choose the lower-cost labor. Billions of people the world over make this same decision on a daily basis while shopping for goods and services -- it's called bargain hunting.
> When owner and employee enter into an agreement, they are simply engaging in voluntary exchange. This is how the market would function absent state coercion. It is merely humans acting on two of the most basic desires: economic survival and improving one's condition. Neither has violated the natural rights of any other person, so no real crime has been committed, and they haven't caused unemployment.
> Government intervention in the labor market leads to unemployment, and this includes restrictions on who may be allowed to work in the United States. "Getting tough" on illegal immigration would undoubtedly make us all worse off. The unemployment rate would rise, real wages would fall due to a decrease in productivity, and an overall lowering of living standards would be realized. We're already witnessing the effects of legislation targeting illegal immigrants. It was recentlyreportedthat, thanks to a law passed in April, Georgia farmers had to leave $75 million of produce to rot in their fields because of labor shortages. Firms that laid off undocumented workers for fear of losing their businesses could hire documented workers but would not likely be able to replace everyone. Otherwise it stands to reason that they would have done so in the first place, and stayed within the boundaries of the law.
> It's unclear what the exact ratio would be, but assuming that in some industries three illegal immigrants can be hired in place of two legal citizens, when the former are laid off to accommodate the latter, we see that previously there were two unemployed workers, but now there are three. Where the firm once had the productive capacity of three laborers, it now has that of two. Forcing companies to fire employees on the basis of their immigration status hardly seems an effective way to lower unemployment rates or increase real wealth.
> Perhaps the only reasonable claim that conservatives make is that they've been paying into the system their whole lives, and it's unjust for immigrants to come here illegally and collect welfare. But this is not an issue of immigration policy; it is a problem of government welfare policy. In a free society, individuals would pay directly for the things they needed, and the problem offree ridingwould disappear.
> One effect of displacing immigrant workers already in the country is that an increase in actual crimes is likely to occur, as Stefano R. Mugnainiexplains. These individuals are not likely to repatriate immediately, given the costs. Many are likely to turn to the underground market, resorting to actual crime (malum in se) in order to survive. Again, we see that further intervention is likely only to cause more problems.
> Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist onfurtherinterventions with a national ID card orE-verify, conservatives should demand areductionin the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity.
> It's clear the current problems can be directly traced to the state's interference in the market. If employer and employee were left free to negotiate contracts without government intervention, everyone would truly have an equal opportunity at business, and the highest quality at the best price would surely result. This economic freedom is at the heart of a free society, and only when the market is divorced from the state will its full potential be realized.
> Joel Poindexter is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter.http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame
--
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.
Congressional Democrats Send Letters to Election Officials in All 50 States Complaining About Voter Identification Laws
WordPress.com
--
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: Ron Paul’s De-Stimulus Plan
Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that
address the country's fundamental economic problems
---
a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America and our citizens
address the country's fundamental economic problems
---
a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America and our citizens
On Nov 4, 11:14 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations."Ron Paul's De-Stimulus Planby Tim Kelly, November 4, 2011
> Congressman Ron Paul has put forth an economic plan that calls for serious cuts in the size, budget, and power of the federal government. He has also proposed policies that would end the Fed-driven inflation responsible for the global economic meltdown. This is truly a de-stimulus plan.
> Paul's plan would immediately cut $1 trillion from the federal budget by closing down five cabinet departments, slashing regulations, and withdrawing troops from overseas. During a Paul presidency, the U.S. government would cease being the world's policeman, and the empire would be liquidated in the interests of the both the economy and the Constitution.
> Such a radical and necessary shift in foreign policy would be difficult for those Americans dependent on the war economy and accustomed to seeing their government as a colossus bestriding the world. But now is the time for Americans to face reality and admit that our country's exalted global position has been a corrupting experience, and it is simply no longer affordable.
> Such a sharp reduction in the federal budget, coupled with much tighter monetary policy would stop the flow of so-called stimulus spending from the economy. This would be the beginning of a painful readjustment period, as people necessarily reduced their consumption, and the economy liquidated years of inflation and debt-financed malinvestment. Unemployment would likely go up in the short term as zombie firms deprived of their periodic fix of easy money went bankrupt, and government payrolls were thinned.
> But it would also be the beginning of genuine economic recovery, because the private sector, relieved of the burdens of a metastasized state, would begin to accumulate real capital and invest in viable enterprises. Real jobs, not government jobs, would be created, and Americans would soon find themselves earning more, because their currency, no longer devalued by the Fed's printing presses, would actually gain purchasing power.
> No doubt Keynesians would still be out there preaching the necessity of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies and warning of the dire consequences of deflation. There would also be no shortage of hack politicians and rent-seeking special-interest groups willing to spread the Keynesian message of more government spending. And it would be naïve to expect the financial elite to sit quietly as their privileges were taken away. A few select firms on Wall Street reap enormous profits from the bond market, and under the current system they are free to engage in essentially risk-free speculation due to their "too-big-to-fail" status.
> Paul has defended his de-stimulus program to inquisitors by correctly pointing out that similar "austerity measures" have been very successful in the past in spurring economic recovery and therefore should be used as roadmaps for recovery today. During a recent appearance on NBC'sMeet the Press, Paul tutored host David Gregory on "the depression of 1946."
> Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations.
> Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder explain in greater detail in their article"Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946":Historically minded readers may be saying, &147;There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard about that." You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the &147;Depression of 1946" may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that &147;the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls." After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. In fact, Hansen's advice went unheeded. Government canceled war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard refers to as the &147;shock of peace." From the economy's perspective, it was the &147;shock of de-stimulus."Another historical precedent Paul can point to is the depression of 1920. Very few people have heard of this "economic crisis." This is most likely due to its short duration and the fact that Warren G. Harding, a president not held in high esteem by mainstream historians, was able to reverse it with laissez-faire policies that are anathema to Keynesian orthodoxy.
> Historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. provides this synopsis of Harding's successful de-stimulus program:The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.Paul's de-stimulus plan has been given the cold shoulder in Washington, DC, but that's to be expected. After all, politicians are in the business of dividing plunder, and proposing to take an axe to the federal budget is no way to win friends and influence people inside the Beltway. But most Americans are now skeptical of stimulus programs, because the plans have clearly failed to reverse the country's economic downturn. Indeed, more people are coming to realize that the orgy in government spending since 2008 has only accelerated the decline. Moreover, there is serious concern regarding the federal government's unprecedented budget deficits and their potential for sparking hyperinflation.
> Perhaps enough voters will come to realize that Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country's fundamental economic problems, and perhaps they will reward him appropriately for his insight and statesmanship.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111c.asp
--
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.
Ron Paul’s De-Stimulus Plan
"Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations."
Ron Paul's De-Stimulus Plan
by Tim Kelly, November 4, 2011
Congressman Ron Paul has put forth an economic plan that calls for serious cuts in the size, budget, and power of the federal government. He has also proposed policies that would end the Fed-driven inflation responsible for the global economic meltdown. This is truly a de-stimulus plan.
Paul's plan would immediately cut $1 trillion from the federal budget by closing down five cabinet departments, slashing regulations, and withdrawing troops from overseas. During a Paul presidency, the U.S. government would cease being the world's policeman, and the empire would be liquidated in the interests of the both the economy and the Constitution.
Such a radical and necessary shift in foreign policy would be difficult for those Americans dependent on the war economy and accustomed to seeing their government as a colossus bestriding the world. But now is the time for Americans to face reality and admit that our country's exalted global position has been a corrupting experience, and it is simply no longer affordable.
Such a sharp reduction in the federal budget, coupled with much tighter monetary policy would stop the flow of so-called stimulus spending from the economy. This would be the beginning of a painful readjustment period, as people necessarily reduced their consumption, and the economy liquidated years of inflation and debt-financed malinvestment. Unemployment would likely go up in the short term as zombie firms deprived of their periodic fix of easy money went bankrupt, and government payrolls were thinned.
But it would also be the beginning of genuine economic recovery, because the private sector, relieved of the burdens of a metastasized state, would begin to accumulate real capital and invest in viable enterprises. Real jobs, not government jobs, would be created, and Americans would soon find themselves earning more, because their currency, no longer devalued by the Fed's printing presses, would actually gain purchasing power.
No doubt Keynesians would still be out there preaching the necessity of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies and warning of the dire consequences of deflation. There would also be no shortage of hack politicians and rent-seeking special-interest groups willing to spread the Keynesian message of more government spending. And it would be naïve to expect the financial elite to sit quietly as their privileges were taken away. A few select firms on Wall Street reap enormous profits from the bond market, and under the current system they are free to engage in essentially risk-free speculation due to their "too-big-to-fail" status.
Paul has defended his de-stimulus program to inquisitors by correctly pointing out that similar "austerity measures" have been very successful in the past in spurring economic recovery and therefore should be used as roadmaps for recovery today. During a recent appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Paul tutored host David Gregory on "the depression of 1946."
Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations.
Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder explain in greater detail in their article "Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946":
Historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. provides this synopsis of Harding's successful de-stimulus program:
Perhaps enough voters will come to realize that Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country's fundamental economic problems, and perhaps they will reward him appropriately for his insight and statesmanship.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111c.asp
Ron Paul's De-Stimulus Plan
by Tim Kelly, November 4, 2011
Congressman Ron Paul has put forth an economic plan that calls for serious cuts in the size, budget, and power of the federal government. He has also proposed policies that would end the Fed-driven inflation responsible for the global economic meltdown. This is truly a de-stimulus plan.
Paul's plan would immediately cut $1 trillion from the federal budget by closing down five cabinet departments, slashing regulations, and withdrawing troops from overseas. During a Paul presidency, the U.S. government would cease being the world's policeman, and the empire would be liquidated in the interests of the both the economy and the Constitution.
Such a radical and necessary shift in foreign policy would be difficult for those Americans dependent on the war economy and accustomed to seeing their government as a colossus bestriding the world. But now is the time for Americans to face reality and admit that our country's exalted global position has been a corrupting experience, and it is simply no longer affordable.
Such a sharp reduction in the federal budget, coupled with much tighter monetary policy would stop the flow of so-called stimulus spending from the economy. This would be the beginning of a painful readjustment period, as people necessarily reduced their consumption, and the economy liquidated years of inflation and debt-financed malinvestment. Unemployment would likely go up in the short term as zombie firms deprived of their periodic fix of easy money went bankrupt, and government payrolls were thinned.
But it would also be the beginning of genuine economic recovery, because the private sector, relieved of the burdens of a metastasized state, would begin to accumulate real capital and invest in viable enterprises. Real jobs, not government jobs, would be created, and Americans would soon find themselves earning more, because their currency, no longer devalued by the Fed's printing presses, would actually gain purchasing power.
No doubt Keynesians would still be out there preaching the necessity of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies and warning of the dire consequences of deflation. There would also be no shortage of hack politicians and rent-seeking special-interest groups willing to spread the Keynesian message of more government spending. And it would be naïve to expect the financial elite to sit quietly as their privileges were taken away. A few select firms on Wall Street reap enormous profits from the bond market, and under the current system they are free to engage in essentially risk-free speculation due to their "too-big-to-fail" status.
Paul has defended his de-stimulus program to inquisitors by correctly pointing out that similar "austerity measures" have been very successful in the past in spurring economic recovery and therefore should be used as roadmaps for recovery today. During a recent appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Paul tutored host David Gregory on "the depression of 1946."
Now, readers can be forgiven for not being familiar with the depression of 1946, because there actually wasn't one. But many Keynesian economists were predicting in 1945 the onset of economic depression as a consequence of peacetime demobilization. However, the exact opposite occurred, because the end of the war brought an enormous peace dividend in the form of a two-thirds reduction in government spending as well as the removal of most of the wartime economic regulations.
Jason E. Taylor and Richard K. Vedder explain in greater detail in their article "Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946":
- Historically minded readers may be saying, &147;There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard about that." You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the &147;Depression of 1946" may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that &147;the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls." After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. In fact, Hansen's advice went unheeded. Government canceled war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard refers to as the &147;shock of peace." From the economy's perspective, it was the &147;shock of de-stimulus."
Historian Thomas E. Woods Jr. provides this synopsis of Harding's successful de-stimulus program:
- The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.
- Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.
- Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction." By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.
Perhaps enough voters will come to realize that Paul is the only presidential candidate proposing policies that address the country's fundamental economic problems, and perhaps they will reward him appropriately for his insight and statesmanship.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1111c.asp
Gingrich Latest Phony to Rise in Polls
November4th
Gingrich Latest Phony to Rise in Polls
Tom Woods
A recent South Carolina poll has three status-quo candidates Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich with a commanding lead. South Carolina Republicans evidently believe the country is basically on the right track if they're content with candidates who pledge to change things about one to two percent. (Cain supporters will dispute this, but the evidence is right here.)
Regarding Gingrich, I reproduce a passage from Rollback:
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a reputation for being a right-wing ideologue. But it is surely a strange right-wing ideologue who credits Franklin Roosevelt with lifting the country out of the Great Depression, joins with John Kerry on "climate change," and supports (among many other things) the Medicare prescription drug benefit, federal programs to pay for more teachers, Internet access for every American, and rewards to students who take challenging math and science sources not to mention his sympathy for federal energy policy and Hillary Clinton's proposed national health-care database, among other things….
- [In 1994,] the GOP leadership made the [election] into a referendum on [Gingrich's] "Contract with America," a series of proposals the party pledged to champion if elected. Democrats and Republicans alike pretended it was a radical assault on government spending and activity -- Democrats in order to frighten their base, and Republicans in order to energize theirs. The Contract was, in fact, a hodgepodge of trivial changes that both kept the basic structure of the American Leviathan intact and neutralized the more ambitious plans and proposals of freshman congressmen who may actually have wanted to change something. The center-left Brookings Institution had it right: "Viewed historically, the Contract represents the final consolidation of the bedrock domestic policies and programs of the New Deal, the Great Society, the post-Second World War defense establishment, and, most importantly, the deeply rooted national political culture that has grown up around them."
- [In 1994,] the GOP leadership made the [election] into a referendum on [Gingrich's] "Contract with America," a series of proposals the party pledged to champion if elected. Democrats and Republicans alike pretended it was a radical assault on government spending and activity -- Democrats in order to frighten their base, and Republicans in order to energize theirs. The Contract was, in fact, a hodgepodge of trivial changes that both kept the basic structure of the American Leviathan intact and neutralized the more ambitious plans and proposals of freshman congressmen who may actually have wanted to change something. The center-left Brookings Institution had it right: "Viewed historically, the Contract represents the final consolidation of the bedrock domestic policies and programs of the New Deal, the Great Society, the post-Second World War defense establishment, and, most importantly, the deeply rooted national political culture that has grown up around them."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qi6n_-wB154
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/gingrich-latest-phony-to-rise-in-polls/
Immigration and Misplaced Blame
"Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist on further interventions with a national ID card or E-verify, conservatives should demand a reduction in the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity."
Immigration and Misplaced Blame
Friday, November 04, 2011
by Joel Poindexter
Conservatives love to champion the free market. They often are quick to defend businesses from increased regulation and taxation, and generally oppose intervention in the market place. However, in the case of undocumented workers, these free-marketeers suddenly become ardent supporters of central economic planning.
In this case they condemn those who hire "illegals," call for shutting down their businesses, imposing heavy fines, and other draconian measures. This exchange at a recent GOP debate demonstrates the prevailing attitude among those on the right regarding the issue.
The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simply malum prohibitum, a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.
The second argument that conservatives present against so-called illegal immigrants concerns unemployment. The perennial claim is that if they weren't "taking our jobs" then hard-working Americans could go back to work. This is wrong for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that a job cannot be stolen. The employer owns the position, and only he or she may decide who will fill it. The second problem with this view is that it fails to explain unemployed skilled workers; most "illegal" immigrants contribute unskilled labor.
The only significant impact that immigrants have on the labor market is to increase the supply of labor, which tends to put downward pressure on wages. Everything else equal, the only way an immigrant will be hired over a native worker is if he is willing to accept lower wages. In order to maximize profits, business owners look to pay the lowest wage possible without affecting marginal productivity. If an immigrant is willing to work for less, and he is productive enough, it only makes sense to choose the lower-cost labor. Billions of people the world over make this same decision on a daily basis while shopping for goods and services -- it's called bargain hunting.
When owner and employee enter into an agreement, they are simply engaging in voluntary exchange. This is how the market would function absent state coercion. It is merely humans acting on two of the most basic desires: economic survival and improving one's condition. Neither has violated the natural rights of any other person, so no real crime has been committed, and they haven't caused unemployment.
Government intervention in the labor market leads to unemployment, and this includes restrictions on who may be allowed to work in the United States. "Getting tough" on illegal immigration would undoubtedly make us all worse off. The unemployment rate would rise, real wages would fall due to a decrease in productivity, and an overall lowering of living standards would be realized. We're already witnessing the effects of legislation targeting illegal immigrants. It was recently reported that, thanks to a law passed in April, Georgia farmers had to leave $75 million of produce to rot in their fields because of labor shortages. Firms that laid off undocumented workers for fear of losing their businesses could hire documented workers but would not likely be able to replace everyone. Otherwise it stands to reason that they would have done so in the first place, and stayed within the boundaries of the law.
It's unclear what the exact ratio would be, but assuming that in some industries three illegal immigrants can be hired in place of two legal citizens, when the former are laid off to accommodate the latter, we see that previously there were two unemployed workers, but now there are three. Where the firm once had the productive capacity of three laborers, it now has that of two. Forcing companies to fire employees on the basis of their immigration status hardly seems an effective way to lower unemployment rates or increase real wealth.
Perhaps the only reasonable claim that conservatives make is that they've been paying into the system their whole lives, and it's unjust for immigrants to come here illegally and collect welfare. But this is not an issue of immigration policy; it is a problem of government welfare policy. In a free society, individuals would pay directly for the things they needed, and the problem of free riding would disappear.
One effect of displacing immigrant workers already in the country is that an increase in actual crimes is likely to occur, as Stefano R. Mugnaini explains. These individuals are not likely to repatriate immediately, given the costs. Many are likely to turn to the underground market, resorting to actual crime (malum in se) in order to survive. Again, we see that further intervention is likely only to cause more problems.
Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist on further interventions with a national ID card or E-verify, conservatives should demand a reduction in the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity.
It's clear the current problems can be directly traced to the state's interference in the market. If employer and employee were left free to negotiate contracts without government intervention, everyone would truly have an equal opportunity at business, and the highest quality at the best price would surely result. This economic freedom is at the heart of a free society, and only when the market is divorced from the state will its full potential be realized.
Joel Poindexter is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter.
http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame
Immigration and Misplaced Blame
Friday, November 04, 2011
by Joel Poindexter
Conservatives love to champion the free market. They often are quick to defend businesses from increased regulation and taxation, and generally oppose intervention in the market place. However, in the case of undocumented workers, these free-marketeers suddenly become ardent supporters of central economic planning.
In this case they condemn those who hire "illegals," call for shutting down their businesses, imposing heavy fines, and other draconian measures. This exchange at a recent GOP debate demonstrates the prevailing attitude among those on the right regarding the issue.
The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simply malum prohibitum, a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.
The second argument that conservatives present against so-called illegal immigrants concerns unemployment. The perennial claim is that if they weren't "taking our jobs" then hard-working Americans could go back to work. This is wrong for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that a job cannot be stolen. The employer owns the position, and only he or she may decide who will fill it. The second problem with this view is that it fails to explain unemployed skilled workers; most "illegal" immigrants contribute unskilled labor.
The only significant impact that immigrants have on the labor market is to increase the supply of labor, which tends to put downward pressure on wages. Everything else equal, the only way an immigrant will be hired over a native worker is if he is willing to accept lower wages. In order to maximize profits, business owners look to pay the lowest wage possible without affecting marginal productivity. If an immigrant is willing to work for less, and he is productive enough, it only makes sense to choose the lower-cost labor. Billions of people the world over make this same decision on a daily basis while shopping for goods and services -- it's called bargain hunting.
When owner and employee enter into an agreement, they are simply engaging in voluntary exchange. This is how the market would function absent state coercion. It is merely humans acting on two of the most basic desires: economic survival and improving one's condition. Neither has violated the natural rights of any other person, so no real crime has been committed, and they haven't caused unemployment.
Government intervention in the labor market leads to unemployment, and this includes restrictions on who may be allowed to work in the United States. "Getting tough" on illegal immigration would undoubtedly make us all worse off. The unemployment rate would rise, real wages would fall due to a decrease in productivity, and an overall lowering of living standards would be realized. We're already witnessing the effects of legislation targeting illegal immigrants. It was recently reported that, thanks to a law passed in April, Georgia farmers had to leave $75 million of produce to rot in their fields because of labor shortages. Firms that laid off undocumented workers for fear of losing their businesses could hire documented workers but would not likely be able to replace everyone. Otherwise it stands to reason that they would have done so in the first place, and stayed within the boundaries of the law.
It's unclear what the exact ratio would be, but assuming that in some industries three illegal immigrants can be hired in place of two legal citizens, when the former are laid off to accommodate the latter, we see that previously there were two unemployed workers, but now there are three. Where the firm once had the productive capacity of three laborers, it now has that of two. Forcing companies to fire employees on the basis of their immigration status hardly seems an effective way to lower unemployment rates or increase real wealth.
Perhaps the only reasonable claim that conservatives make is that they've been paying into the system their whole lives, and it's unjust for immigrants to come here illegally and collect welfare. But this is not an issue of immigration policy; it is a problem of government welfare policy. In a free society, individuals would pay directly for the things they needed, and the problem of free riding would disappear.
One effect of displacing immigrant workers already in the country is that an increase in actual crimes is likely to occur, as Stefano R. Mugnaini explains. These individuals are not likely to repatriate immediately, given the costs. Many are likely to turn to the underground market, resorting to actual crime (malum in se) in order to survive. Again, we see that further intervention is likely only to cause more problems.
Many have misdirected their anger toward illegal immigrants or the businesses that hire them. Instead, this outrage should be aimed where it truly belongs -- with the state. Rather than insist on further interventions with a national ID card or E-verify, conservatives should demand a reduction in the government's role. Alexis de Tocqueville made a keen observation when he said "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." It is time for Americans to realize more of the same -- that is, more slavery -- cannot possibly bring about more prosperity.
It's clear the current problems can be directly traced to the state's interference in the market. If employer and employee were left free to negotiate contracts without government intervention, everyone would truly have an equal opportunity at business, and the highest quality at the best price would surely result. This economic freedom is at the heart of a free society, and only when the market is divorced from the state will its full potential be realized.
Joel Poindexter is a student at Johnson County Community College working toward a degree in economics. He lives near Kansas City with his wife and daughter.
http://mises.org/daily/5785/Immigration-and-Misplaced-Blame
Re: Former Marine's injury spurs vets to join Occupy movement
Studio: "But that's the Republitard police state introduced by Bush
Jr. in action."
Jr. in action."
It may be that the Republicans introduced it but the Dems under Obama
are actually using it and doing with impunity in Democratic
strongholds such as NYC, California and Mass.
On Nov 3, 8:29 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 10:02 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, in Boston, the Coast Guard has told its members to stay the
> > F away.
>
> They can't tell Coast Guard veterans to stay away.
>
> > Isn't Oakland pretty when its on fire?
>
> It's not on fire.
> Can't you sound more fearful of peaceful demonstrators?
>
> > What cops need to figure out is that these non-lethal weapons aren't.
>
> But that's the Republitard police state introduced by Bush Jr. in
> action.
>
> Wall Street gave NYC cops a $4 million "donation" to help them.
> Some people say it was a bribe...
> look for more donations in the future.
--
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.
He Chews Gum *and* Talks at the G20!
--
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.
Careful with that Weird, Koran-doting Uncle
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1111/west110411.php3?printer_friendly
Nov 4, 2011 / 7 Mar-Cheshvan 5772
Careful with that weird, Quran-doting uncle
By Diana West
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Uncle Sam is getting a little weird -- make that a lot weird. Having dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into a sinkhole called Afghanistan populated by misogynistic, pederastic, tribalistic and religiously supremacist primitives to no avail, he has hit on a new plan for winning those ever-elusive Afghan "hearts and minds."
Uncle Sam has decided that the answer lies in the latrine with the U.S. Marine Corps. No kidding. When nature calls, Uncle Sam has decided he wants every U.S. Marine equipped with a map and compass, or some other way of knowing direction. This is to ensure that no U.S. Marine in Afghanistan urinates in the direction of Mecca ever again.
Now, there's a winning strategy.
It's still OK, of course, to spread baksheesh (payola) indiscriminately, chase jihadis into twisting mountain gorges, clear any road laced with improvised explosives -- blow up, even, and bleed all over the place. Just make sure your sense of direction is sharp when it really counts.
Take spitting. According to an article in the North County Times, the word is: Ix-nay on itting-spay toward ecca-May, guys. If there's a pinch between teeth and gum while you're hiding out in a cold valley, figure out where Mecca is (2,000 miles away) before letting anything out of your mouth. Oh, and when it's time to catch some shut-eye "when sharing a base with Afghan army troops" -- if you can sleep, given the frightening odds an Afghan National Army soldier might turn his gun on you -- don't, whatever you do, let your combat boots point toward you-know-where.
That would be "culturally insensitive" and, therefore, it seems, worse than anything Afghani (or Pakistani) jihadist butchers might do (beheadings, rape) because they, as Muslims, are automatically "culturally sensitive." Apparently to compensate, senior Pentagon brass created something called the USMC Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning to teach Marines to exist in the Islamically approved fashion.
When Marines learn not to excrete in the direction of Mecca -- home of the black cube known as the Kaaba -- and not to sleep with their boots toward Mecca, what are they really learning? They are learning to become intensely sensitized to the whereabouts of Mecca; how to be guided by that magnetic north for Muslims as a matter of the most personal habits and hygiene, all in accordance with Shariah (Islamic law). They are learning to act like Muslims. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
Such "culture learning" blends seamlessly with an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) guidance to all troops in Afghanistan to revere the Quran and its teachings. That's the unmistakable message of COIN Advisory #20100924-001, which I found on the ISAF website.
"Never talk badly about the Quran or its contents," says the guidance, a no-nonsense formulation of Islamic prohibitions against any criticism of Islam. Touching it is out, too. "It is considered culturally insensitive for any non-Muslim to touch a copy of the Quran," ISAF explains. Why that is indeed the Islamic case, ISAF doesn't explain. Presumably, it might upset troops to learn that this injunction exists because Muslims consider non-Muslim "najis," or unclean, and thus unfit to touch their religious book. Before searching people, ISAF advises, "ask them if they have a Quran or religious item present. If so, ask them to remove it or put it in a suitable place before conducting the search."
Think the Navy SEALS who zapped Osama bin Laden asked him to put his Quran in a "suitable place" first? We can only hope.
Of course, there's more: "Additionally," ISAF continues, "verbal disrespect for Islam and/or the Quran is considered as inappropriate as physical desecration of the Quran. Insulting the Quran is an act of blasphemy."
The way Islam treats women stinks = verbal disrespect for Islam. The verses of the Quran that call for jihad against infidels are heinous = insulting the Quran. But ISAF, veritable mouthpiece of the coming caliphate, deems such talk "inappropriate" and outright "blasphemy." This might win the generals an extra cushion at the foot of the caliph's throne. But, as the Marines are learning in their Culture Learning classes, they'll have to drink all their chai and finish their goat, first.
--
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: [W-H] Dems dream ticket for 2012 [1 Attachment]
---------
[Attachment(s) from Steve S. included below]
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1336f1af6639f2e6&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw>
__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from Steve S.
1 of 1 File(s)
<http://l.yimg.com/kq/static/images/yg/img/doc/html16x16.gif> Untitled attachment 02250.htm
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic ()
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
To unsubscribe from the W-H Warped-Humor The Bueker file, send an email to:
Warped-Humor-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
check out my news and discussion list:
Individual-Sovereignty@yahoogroups.com
MARKETPLACE
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
<http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=1ffc47ee-06f6-11e1-b595-87638a94e847&T=1cp4i4p05%2fX%3d1320418996%2fE%3d1705117977%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d1334648496%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iR3JvdXBzO01vYmlsZTtCb29rbWFyaztLbm93bGVkZ2VfU2VhcmNoO0FsZXJ0cztBdWN0aW9ucztMb3R0ZXJ5O01haWw7QnJpZWZjYXNlO1BvZGNhc3RzOyIgZGlzYWJsZXNodWZmbGluZz0iMSIgc2VydmVJZD0iMWZmYzQ3ZWUtMDZmNi0xMWUxLWI1OTUtODc2MzhhOTRlODQ3IiBzaXRlSWQ9IjQ0NTI1NTEiIHRTdG1wPSIxMzIwNDE4OTk2NjE3ODM1IiA-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d29228962&U=13coa0mv0%2fN%3d_mlKHtBDRsg-%2fC%3d493064.14543979.14562481.13298430%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d6060255%2fV%3d1>
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
--
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)