You can't build a reputation on
what you're going to do.
Henry Ford
Saints John Paul II and John XXIII
Image of the Day
Chart of the Day
 |
| Via LFC and Bastiat Institute |
One of the facts I've pointed out is that Canadian banks have been far more resilient than US banks; there were a couple of salient concepts that came into play: branch banking and asset currency. Unit banks did not want to compete against more diversified, capitalized brach banks. Now banks also issued their own banknotes; typically banknotes were convertible in specie, usually gold or silver coins. In the Civil War era, facing liquidity issues in financing the war, the goverment established federal (vs. traditional state) chartered banks. These banknotes had to be backed by Treasury notes or Civil War-era "greenbacks". When state banks were reluctant to convert, the federal government decided to enact a Draconian tax on outstanding state banknotes. To make things worse, as the federal government vs. today actually paid down its war debt and money supply shrank, it affected the banks' ability to handle the seasonal autumn currency spikes at farm state banks, ultimately resulting in financial panics. The 1907 panic really set the stage for the birth of the Federal Reserve under Wilson.
The populism of William Jennings Bryant, best known for trying to inflate the money supply through "free silver", in contrast to the international "sound money" gold standard, showed up in a significant way: Bryant had a distaste for commercial banknotes or more flexible asset-based vs. federal currency, which he portrayed as a "surrender" of the national sovereignty of the money supply to plutocrat bankers. Selgin explains how Wilson craftily got the bill past his Secretary of State Bryant and other reformers, whom had a populist's distaste for a European-style central bank (i.e., several regional branches), no bankers on the Board, legal tender bonds (like greenbacks) vs. convertible bonds, being obligations not just of the Fed but of the government. Ironically, Bryant, a 3-time failed nominee whose support of Wilson was instrumental, was played by Wilson in supporting the creation of a currency monopoly far worse than Jefferson or Jackson could have imagined in their worst nightmares.
Facebook Corner
 |
| Via LFC |
(Cato Institute). "Last week, the New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Duncan v. New Hampshire, concerning the constitutionality of the “Live Free or Die” state’s trailblazing scholarship tax credit program. The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the program."
I favor school choice, but to their credit, there is a valid argument on behalf of those who oppose school vouchers. First of all, there is unequal competition between public and private school districts--namely-- private school districts can choose which applicants they want to accept into their districts. Public school districts, on the other hand, have to accept anyone and everyone who applies; Secondly, vouchers divert funding which goes to public schools. Public schools are funded by the taxpayer; in the process, private schools receive that funding instead, and thus, public school districts become weaker in the process.
First of all, public schools can and do suspend and/or expel students; do not blame private schools for public school policies, which often differ by location. Second, vouchers do not 'take away resources'; parents exercising school choice are forced to pay twice for their child's education, a perverse, immoral, monopoly privilege. We are simply offering parents more control of their own money to choose a better school. Education is a perverse, anti-competitive market. Lower-income students may be sentenced to badly run, ineffective schools if parents don't have the budget to pay for their kids' education twice.
Are there any politicians I can vote for that will follow through on a promise to create an economy that will allow me to get it for myself? Even with the possible risk of costing the ultrarich a portion of their disposable income? I ain't askin' for much. Just enough to keep a roof over my head, clothes on my back, food in my belly, and maybe a couple bucks I can save for a rainy day, cuz I can feel a storm comin'.
First of all, politicians can't create an economy; what they can do is alleviate the conditions that retard the efficiency and functionality of the free markets, including counterproductive tax and regulatory policies, manipulated monetary policy, barriers to free trade, immigration, etc. Second, you can lose the Politics of Envy; it's morally corrosive; there is no virtue of picking the other guy's pocket at the point of a gun. Look to lower the bite government takes out of your and everyone else's pocket equally by demanding less government spending. Consumers and investors are better off keeping more of their own money to spend, save, or invest much more effectively in the real economy, the private sector.
(IPI). Praise the Lord and pass the new progressive tax that will finance public pensions.
Concern for the poor is best handled through the private sector: religious-sponsored institutions (e.g., hospitals and schools), fraternal societies, philanthropies and charities, soup kitchens, etc. I have generally found the clergy to be utterly uninformed on business and economic matters, other than the fact in a challenging economy, the collection plate isn't as full.
Would any clergyman accept the collection of the proceeds from neighborhood burgler? Where is the virtue in giving what is not his to give? And yet they play the useful idiots, blessing the growth, ineffectiveness, and inefficiencies of state government which gets its cut before anything trickles down to the poor--while endorsing ever-increasing levels of theft at the point of a gun from the state? How soon they forget Mark 12:17? Jesus did NOT say, "Give Caesar whatever he demands"; He clearly distinguished the separate, higher obligation to God. There are several places in the Gospels where Jesus specifically rejected a political mandate.
A flat tax is really the easiest, fairest way to tax; whether we are talking about applying the same rate to the first vs. last dollar of purchase or your first vs. last hour of work income. People who spend or earn more pay more aggregate taxes; these tend to be higher-income people. It's not a per-capita tax. A "progressive" income tax punishes people or businesses which are more productive. The state thinks it's entitled to a greater take of each additional dollar you earn--which lowers your incentive to work. It's horrible economics. It shrinks the tax base, it lowers the incentive to invest in the local economy. People who object to punitive tax rates have the liberty to relocate to a more taxpayer-friendly state; guess who picks up the slack when higher-income taxpayers move out of state?
You might think that the clergy would not be so easily duped by "progressive" political rhetoric. We have decades of failed domestic programs, failing public education programs, drugs and violence-ridden neighborhoods, a large segment of the population dependent on morally-hazardous government, a high percentage of illegitimate births and single-parent homes: and yet the message is to give the political whores in Springfield even more money to fritter away at the expense of the real economy. Disgraceful and immoral.
(Reason). Should the NBA fire Clippers owners Donald Sterling for racist remarks? Is this case any different than Mozilla canning Brendan Eich over gay marriage stance? And should you worry more about your workplace these days?
People say stupid things every day. Can we go 24 hours before some media-generated crisis demanding a sacrifice to the god of political correctness?
(Drudge Report). NBA ROCKED BY RACISM CHARGE
How many race cards does [Obama] have left in his deck of cards?
Sportsmanship
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Henry Payne via Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series
The Carpenters, "Close to You"
