Miscellany: 5/31/14

Quote of the Day

I can’t write a book commensurate with Shakespeare, 
but I can write a book by me.
Sir Walter Raleigh

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Don Boudreaux's Barrons Review of Piketty: Thumbs UP!

Flaws aplenty mar Piketty's telling of the capitalist saga, flaws that spring mainly from his disregard for basic economic principles. None looms larger than his mistaken notion of wealth...No principle of economics is more essential than the realization that, ultimately, wealth isn't money or financial assets but, rather, ready access to real goods and services...Yet, to the extent that inequalities are at all relevant, the only ones that really matter are inequalities in access to real goods and services for consumption...This shrinking gap between the real economic fortunes of the rich and the rest of us should calm concerns about the political dangers of the expanding inequality of monetary fortunes.

Flaws in the author's stratospheric viewpoint are also on display when we try to think in human terms about the inevitability of the return on capital, at 4% to 5%, exceeding the growth rate of economy, at 1% to 1.5%...Sooner or later, the entry of competitors and of changing consumer tastes curbs their growth, when not reducing their size absolutely or even bankrupting them. In 2013 alone, 33,000 businesses in the U.S. filed for bankruptcy, a typical figure for a year of economic expansion. Second, and more importantly, successful capitalists rarely spawn children and grandchildren who match their elders' success; there is regression toward the mean.

If Piketty really believes in a "perfect" capital market yielding capitalists reliable and steady income, he might wonder why the bankrupt book-selling giant Borders is no longer around to sell his books, while Amazon.com has grown up to challenge all manner of bricks-and-mortar retailers. In his world, capitalism is a system of profits; in the real world, it's a system of profit and loss.

Piketty's disregard for basic economic reasoning blinds him to the all-important market forces at work on the ground—market forces that, if left unencumbered by government, produce growing prosperity for all.

I'm a mark for just about anything Boudreaux writes; my favorite daily email is a digest from Cafe Hayek. If I would make a criticism, I might have wanted a brief summary of some of the more technical objections to Piketty, e.g., the summarization and/or valuation of capital, whether Piketty's findings are unduly influenced by the analomous 2008 economic tsunami, the use of summary statistics vs. longitudinal designs which might obfuscate income mobility, etc. I know that he is aware of them via links published at Cafe Hayek. I might have wanted him to expand more on the opportunity costs of Piketty's "and then some magic happens" suggestions of public policy tools to correct inequalities. If, as I believe, that wealth taxes and/or high income tax brackets are inversely related to economic growth (did Piketty exhaustively review public policy? I haven't heard a reviewer mention it), wouldn't that adversely affect job opportunities and net worth for the lower-income households? What about the morally hazardous consequences of welfare net programs on lower-income savings accumulation? I don't believe for a second Piketty's view about wars or revolutions being wealth accumulation resets.

Boudreaux has a marvelously readable, pithy writing style I admire. I particularly like the second highlighted sentence--this is very similar to a point Cowen recently made: "Another pre-existing empirical problem is that 19th century data seem to indicate that a “Piketty world,” even if we take it on its own terms, far from being a disaster, would likely be accompanied by rising real wages and declining consumption inequality, albeit rising wealth inequality." Conveniences like televisions, music players, PC's, and cellphones, were barely conceivable less than a century ago, unavailable at any cost. Whereas the well-off may have been early adoptees of emerging technologies, it was production economies of scale which made the technology affordable for even lower-income Americans. So what if companies like Apple and WalMart made themselves wealthy in the process of providing low-cost, usable technologies for the masses? Competition is intense; for instance, a number of smartphone competitors (including Google and Microsoft) challenge Apple's dominance, and Amazon has transformed itself from its early roots as a dominant online bookseller to a serious competitor to WalMart.

Shinseki Resigns: Thumbs UP!

This was inevitable; the fact that the Obama Administration had been caught red-handed keeping vets off the official wait lists to manipulate performance statistics, it was necessary for Shinseki to fall on his sword. I knew just as soon as I heard him issue a public apology, he was done. Nervous Dem incumbents, up for reelection this fall, were increasingly on the record for throwing him under the bus. I think I was mostly intrigued that Speaker Boehner had held off calling for Shinseki's resignation.

The big issue remains, of course. As an aside, I myself, as a former Navy officer, had received a mailing from the VA, hyping eligibility for the program. No, thanks; the VA has been hyped by the Administration as the successful prototype for "superior" single-payer solutions. The real solution is to privitize VA hospital operations.

Guest Post Comment

Every once in a while I'll  comment in another blog (e.g., occasionally I'll do it on Cafe Hayek). As I've explained in past posts, I don't do it often, because in the past I've found myself subjected to wolf pack attacks (e.g., Atkins diet fanatics); it's not that I don't enjoy the give and take of a debate (after all, I'm a former academic), but they are a sinkhole of my time, and typically the other party resorts to ad hominem attacks, which is never fun.

In this case, the House of Representatives passed an historic bipartisan amendment 219-189 to defund related DEA raids in nearly half the states decriminalizing medical marijuana/products (e.g., medicinal oils). Granted, this is a baby step forward; we also need federal sentencing reform, etc., and it's an open question whether the Senate might go along, although I would expect senators from the nearly half of states which have decriminalized pot for medical or recreational use would support it, and I think there are enough libertarian-leaning GOP senators (Paul, Cruz, Flake, Rubio, etc.) to push it through (although frankly I've not looked at individual senator policy positions on this issue).

I myself have never indulged and have never been tempted by either cigarettes or marijuana. One story from my undergraduate days: my best friend Ramon and I had taken a city bus down to watch the Spurs play. (At the time, the Spurs offered OLL student a cheap ticket bundle--I think it cost more for the bus rides than the games.) Some of our dorm friends spotted us and offered us a free ride back to campus. Ramon didn't want to go but didn't explain his reluctance; I didn't see the harm in saving bus fare. I then understood; soon as we got on the road, our dorm friends started smoking weed, and the smoke filled the car. They rolled down the windows and shouted, "Oink! Oink!" as we passed by a San Antonio cop directing traffic. All of a sudden, I could see my life pass in front of my eyes, worrying I might get busted with my fellow students, even though I had nothing to do with it. I then told the others that the smoke was making me queasy, and if they didn't stop, I might puke all over the car. It worked, although there was discussion of kicking me out of the car and stranding me in the middle of San Antonio...

It was difficult not to notice in the dorms where it seemed every other room was burning incense. It got to the point I even misinterpreted an act of kindness. One of my best coed friends had a younger, taller sister also attending the university; I didn't know the sister that well, but late one semester she had some issue with her typewriter (yes, I'm ancient...) with some end-of-semester term papers coming due; without really thinking about it, I offered to loan her mine. The next semester I started getting notes from a secret admirer, and one of the guys in the dorm was helping her out. I don't think at the time I had even gone out on a date (I graduated from high school at 16, I lived on an Air Force base miles from campus and had no car), never mind having a secret admirer (I have to admit that initially it was very flattering). Then one day the intermediary knocked on my door bearing a pan of brownies. At this point, I started getting paranoid: everyone knows what some people do with brownies: was this some sort of hoax to get me high? (I eventually did eat the brownies--which were ordinary brownies.) I thought the attention I was getting had crossed the line into stalker territory, and I told the intermediary in no uncertain terms this had to stop. I got one tearful response from the mystery coed writing it was never her intent to get me upset; she wanted me to be happy, and she would respect my wishes and leave me alone... It stopped and had mostly been forgotten until some time later when I was talking to my coed friend whom I think was graduating. She made a puzzling comment that her kid sister was dating someone else now. I didn't immediately understand why she was discussing her sister's dating life with me--when it finally dawned on me later that the little sister was my secret admirer and big sister thought I knew. Story of my dating life: once women get to know me... (It would have been awkward anyway; I was attracted to big sister, whom had a boyfriend; I would have asked her out in a heartbeat. Who knows? Maybe big sister encouraged her sister's interest; I don't know how she forgave me for hurting her sister's feelings--I would have never done that if I had known whom it was. I would have probably have asked out the little sister if her approach had been more direct, and my life might have changed for the better.)

In any event, the Libertarian Republican blog published a relevant post on the medical marijuana vote. (I have my differences with the blog, which is more interventionist, immigration-restrictionist, and partisan political than I am; they regard some of my widely cited sources like Reason as "left-libertarian". As I mentioned in yesterday's post, I see left-libertarianism as more anti-big, including business, not in terms of foreign meddling, which the Old Right, like Robert Taft, also opposed.) I have mostly steered my blog away from partisan bickering and have posted multiple times my differences with the GOP, even coined a term 'Free Federalist' for a new party name. (I use the term to reflect less of a nationalistic, mercantilistic brand which transitioned from Hamilton's party to the Whigs and eventually GOP, more reflective of the principle of Subsidiarity with a minarchist perspective.) That being said, I find the conservative wing of the GOP closer to my classical liberal (free market) views, while there no longer is such a thing as a conservative Democrat [the last real conservative of note was Grover Cleveland]. But still, the one talking point that irritates me to sniping back on Facebook and elsewhere is the LP talking point that Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. I think the George W. Bush Administration was anomalous; keep in mind Bush had been elected in part on rejecting Clinton-style nation-building, he had created the world's biggest bureaucracy in DHS, and his version of "compassionate conservatism" was a smokescreen for accelerated domestic spending and a radical expansion in federal education intervention--a generation after Reagan wanted to eliminate it. I think likewise the Congress had lost its way--the most prominent example being a late Alaskan senator whom threatened to resign his seat over any attempt to scratch funding for the Bridge to Nowhere. This was a different GOP than the one whom kept President Zipper in a fiscal straitjacket during his last 6 years in office.

Here's the Dem troll:
FTR, 91% of democrats supported this while 22% of republicans did. Party of freedom and liberty indeed. 
As to the Democrat troll in this thread, tell me, where was the Democratic leadership on this issue when they controlled both chambers of Congress from 2007-2010, plus the Presidency in the second? And where has The One been, other than the Justice Department will look the other way for states that decriminalize, an abuse of discretion? The fact of the matter is that 100% of the Dems couldn't have carried the day without sizable GOP support. And let's not forget: "Progressives" were full in on the original Prohibition and to the present day have no problem telling other people what to do, to eat, etc.

Facebook Corner

(Drudge Report). D'Souza's 'AMERICA' warns Hillary will 'finish off' country.
I think 2016 will be a change election year, and an aging Hillary is part of the Bush-Clinton legacy that will have dominated national politics over the past 3 decades. We will be well into the first decade of the Baby Boomer tsunami, with probably $80T in unfunded liabilities, nearly $20T in national debt and probably 16 years of tepid economic/job growth, if not a global recession. If and when interest rates pick up, federal interest expenses on that $20T will explode. Even if Ms. President Zipper is elected, she will likely be fending off problems that have been kicked down the road for years, hardly expanding the Statist empire.

(Economic Freedom). See Thought of the Day.
Hairdressers should be licensed. I am a licensed barber, at the time I needed 15OO hrs of schooling (took out a loan) then had to pass state of fla. board. There is a lot to know especially when dealing with chemicals & sanitation. So I believe in licensing for certain jobs
Spoken like a self-serving crony hairdresser; why do you feel threatened by women whom have a talent for hairbraiding? If you can markup your services commensurate with your qualifications, do so.

 Who would hire a unlicensed plumber? How about a unlicensed doctor?
Licensing need not be bear the imprimateur of Statist bureaucracy. Speaking as an IT consultant and former MIS professor, I've met many talented people in the profession without a relevant degree or certification. I know a lot of people whom pick a service professional based on favorable word of mouth and/or have selection criteria beyond any licensing criteria, e.g., bedside manner, responsiveness, availability, experience. (For example, when I had my Lasik procedure done, it was done by someone with 800 procedures under his belt.)

More Proposals









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the original artist via IPI

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

BJ Thomas, "Whatever Happened to Old-Fashioned Love?"

Miscellany: 5/30/14

Quote of the Day

Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
Albert Einstein

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Suffer the Little Children: An Innocent Victim of the War on Drugs

I first became of this story through Drudge Report and then Reason; for some reason, I had trouble embedding the news media video here; I did find it republished on Youtube (embedded below, available as of publication date). I'm not buying into the sheriff's excuse: some surveillance of the home would have revealed other parties, and there's no excuse for tossing a grenade without looking; even if the targeted suspect was there, he could have been injured without due process. We need to stop the madness; I do not believe in recreational drugs of any type, but it is too costly and all but impossible to keep people from making their own mistakes.



The Stock Market and the Fed

My retirement accounts reached an all-time high valuation yesterday. That doesn't mean I've done all that well over the past year; I've worried about valuations in the market, and bonds have seemed ripe for a correction, a little of what we experienced when Bernanke hinted of a Fed taper. I've made some ill-timed choices along the way, but I've been more disciplined about cutting my losses. For all I know, the market could suffer a 20% correction next week, wiping out years of gains...

I'm not sure, 5 years into the "Obama recovery", once again looking long on the tooth, with stalwarts like WalMart and McDonald's reporting softer numbers, a first-quarter 1% GDP contraction, more tepid consumer sentiment, an ongoing long-term unemployment problem, and consumer debt rising again:

Historically, the debt-to-income ratio was well below 90 percent, he said, though it peaked at almost 130 percent just before the recession. At the end of the third quarter of 2013, before the increase seen in the Fed report, it was still above 100 percent. The savings rate also decreased each month in the fourth quarter.

There are some wild anomalies: who would have guessed two years ago that 10-year Spanish and Italian bonds would be selling for under 3% yields? Treasuries under 2.5%? High yield (junk) bonds at 5%? There is no room for error... In the meanwhile, the Fed, European Union, and Japan have cranked up the printing presses.

There are a few anomalies bothering me: (1) why the Fed is tapering now, (2) why gold prices are dropping despite monetary printing. On the latter, I could see, for instance, if the Fed owes Germany gold they don't have in stock, they might have an incentive to drive down the price of gold in order to acquire it. And granted, if the dollar is gaining strength and/or if inflation is weak, the demand for gold would weaken. I haven't come across a good explanation for the former, although I would argue that it's long past due. It could be the Fed is concerned that the economy has not been strong enough to push a 2% target inflation rate, they have accumulated enough assets to sell and take money out of circulation if the velocity of money picks up, there's enough intrinsic demand for Treasuries to keep rates low, they have soaked up enough toxic assets to shore up the banks, they want to avoid the appearance they are financing the deficit, they are seeing signs of cheap money rekindling asset bubbles, they want to express confidence in the dollar, and/or they want to move towards a more traditional monetary policy and policy tools. It could also be PR to shift blame if economic conditions deteriorate (i.e., "proving" the "free market" will fail, justifying more activist policy). I'm not sure. I've read the views of a few economists but none convincing enough to reprint here.

However, some Chicken Little's are already blaming tapering for weak 1Q14 results, a housing market losing steam under higher mortgage rates; emerging markets are worried that rising federal rates will price them (at an offset) out of the market. Here's what I know: we already know we've got an unsustainable college loan debt, central banks have always timed their moves too much, too little, too late, and the Fed's power in terms of policy options is limited and indirect at best; it exacerbates economic uncertainty, perpetuates failing businesses, and obfuscates natural business cycle indicators. I'm not sure we are seeing the "all-in" of retail investors whom are usually late to the party prior to a market top yet, but I remember recently posting about a city or state wanting to sell bonds figuring they could earn returns beating the interest rate on the bonds. That's a fatal conceit that raised a red flag to me.

Facebook Corner

(IPI). In a step toward meaningful pension reform, Oklahoma lawmakers passed a 401(k)-style plan for all new non-hazard duty state workers.

When signed into law, Oklahoma will join Michigan and Alaska in requiring its new employees to participate in defined contribution plans. Michigan made the move in 1996 and Alaska in 2005.

Six other states already offer optional defined contribution plans for some of their employees. Employees in Florida, Montana, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Colorado can choose between staying in the traditional defined benefit plan or moving to a 401(k)-style plan.

Another 10 states offer either mandatory or optional participation in hybrid retirement plans that combine both defined benefit and defined-contribution plans.
But, not to rain on this parade, how does this resolve the cash flow issues involving the Baby Boomer tsunami itself? Not to mention the dubious double standard for public safety personnel? (I do think disability is a valid concern.) I don't think the cash flow savings from younger, lower-earning public employees will be enough to shore up potentially decades of payments of half-pay or better for Baby Boomer retirees....

[A follow-up exchange from yesterday's post on the issue of Snowden: patriot or traitor; most libertarians probably see Snowden primarily as the patriot whistleblower on NSA run amok. My nuanced response: criminal violation, breach of contract. I don't have an issue with the leak/public disclosure of bulk data collections but with the nature and extent of Snowden's unauthorized activities.]
The NSA is violating the rights of Americans. What is more important to you? Total patriot here.
I find the NSA violations of citizen privacy unconstitutional. But you are ignoring the fact that the preponderance of what he collected did not involve the NSA program. The information he took could have or still be used to shakedown governments or blackmail people. No "patriot"--he is on the run vs. facing the consequences for breaching his contract.

(Reason). The ‪#‎NSA‬ says Edward Snowden never tried to whistleblow. Does it matter?
Although I think that the NSA revelations are troubling and corroborate a government bureaucracy run amok at the expense of the people's liberty and right to know, Snowden violated the contract underlying his clearance, and I believe that is sufficient to call into question his integrity; I believe I read a recent report that Snowden claimed that he made a good faith effort to communicate his concerns. The self-serving Mr. Snowden's bluff has been called: put up or shut up; surely, he should be able to document time, dates, party, message.... I would respect Snowden a lot more if he would stand trial for the charges against him instead of hiding behind one of the world's most corrupt regimes.

(IPI). Auditor General William Holland reported that Illinois paid $12 million for dead Medicaid enrollees.
Illinois had been using a private contractor to scrub its Medicaid eligibility rolls, but the firm was blocked by AFSCME.
The firm was finding that 40% of the Medicaid enrollees were ineligible for the program. And that was only halfway through the project. According to estimates, the private-contractor Medicaid scrub could have saved Illinois taxpayers $350 million per year.
Evidence all those dead voters out of Chicago are finally getting their "fair share"..

(Reason). By treating the Koch brothers’ activities in critical but fair terms,Sons of Wichita points to Libertarianism 3.0, a political and cultural development that, if successful, will not only frustrate the left but fundamentally alter the right by creating fusion between forces of social tolerance and fiscal responsibility.
Ideally, true Libertarians like myself do not call themselves right wing. But IMO, that doesn't mean that we can't participate in or help fund right-wing movements if we think it's going to be advantageous for marketing our perspective to the mainstream. The funding strategy that the Kochs are using, in this context, is probably going to be more advantageous in the short-term than building a new party or ideology from scratch.
I'll simply point out here that Ron Paul proudly wore the most authentic conservative label: "From 1937 - 2002 Ron Paul ranked the #1 most conservative member of Congress in a study by the American Journal of Political Science." Now the right wing doesn't necessarily mean libertarian; for example, paleoconservatives like Buchanan are likely to meddle in the economy when it comes to things like mercantilist policies which most libertarians would reject from free market principles. And military conservatives have a fiscal double standard when it comes to defense spending. And, of course, the Chamber of Congress has reportedly pledged to spend up to $50M to defeat more conservative Tea Party challengers, like Justin Amash. I think fusion libertarian-conservatives like Paul and Amash differ more in the skepticism of government power and international meddling.
[separate comment]
Some of the discussion in this thread is muddled. "A socialist can be libertarian." Not a chance! I'm willing to concede the existence of left-libertarians, whom are skeptical of anything big--government, businesses, etc. And it's possible for some small groups, e.g., religious, to enter into a voluntary contract to share personal resources.

As a right-libertarian, I share certain social norms, traditional institutions of marriage and family; I don't believe in the role of the state to intervene in a community's standards, but at the same time, I don't believe in the state or any other groups intervening, short of the violation of some person's unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. I don't believe in the culture of political correctness nor in the Big Nanny coalition of liberals and conservatives to micromanage other people's dubious choices, e.g., alcohol, drugs, prostitution. I don't see myself as a social liberal; I see a distinction between tolerance and acceptance.

A little troll stomping (I'm a little annoyed with banker/corporation scapegoating):
 Attorneys are a necessary evil but Wall Street Bankers are all going to hell I imagine.
 No. The Fed and over 2 centuries of failed bank regulators and bad, morally hazardous public policy.

[See Cicero quotation above] is a bit of nonsense. No one should become richer through causing damages and injuries to another. To profit from cleaning up after damaging or injurious situations is not inherently problematic.

Tow companies might often be run by scumbags profiting off of everyone's shitty day, but consider car parks with no entropy-reducing dynamic.
You completely miss the point. Cicero was not arguing against just compensation for services rendered. The full quote is "According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by another"

"For Cicero, natural law obliges us to contribute to the general good of the larger society. The purpose of positive laws is to provide for "the safety of citizens, the preservation of states, and the tranquility and happiness of human life."

More Innovative Proposals...









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Henry Payne via Reason

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Carly Simon, "Jesse"

Miscellany: 5/29/14

Quote of the Day

The palest ink is better than the best memory.
Chinese Proverb

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Via Drudge Report

Image of the Day

Via Bob Perring on FB

Chart of the Day: George "the Deregulator" Bush? NOT....

NSA Spying and the Constitution

Judge Napolitano is spot on here; I've suggested some reforms to control for dysfunctional government: term limits; recall of elected officials (including Presidents) and laws.



Why Oppose Class Warfare Tax Policies?

Beingclassicallyliberal has another excellent post talking about the difference between effective rate and top rate:

The point is with our complex tax system, very little income is actually taxed at that punitive rate. So if that's the case, why don't we want brackets to be high? Because it adversely effects economic growth, which lifts all boats:

 A somewhat recent (2007) study by Christina and David Romer, who happen to be both Keynesians and Democrats, has done this. According to them:
“[T]ax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes. The large effect stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment…we find that a tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers GDP by about 3 percent.”
A 2011 survey of the academic research on the relationship between taxation and economic growth makes similar findings. 

Facebook Corner

(IPI). Cook County’s pension fund has $0.56 for every $1 it should have in the bank today to pay out future benefits. The pension fund will become insolvent in 2038 if it continues down its current path.
Cook Country carrys most of the state. How many Million dollar salaries do you have in your town? Income tax is high for the workers making more than min. wage. Sheeesh.
Don't count on the economically successful to remain in the Chicago area: too many parasites....

(Drudge Report). Are we all racist now?
What's disappointing here is how the UKIP has a nuanced stand; so much for being a British libertarian party by playing to an anti-immigrant backlash! Like most economically advanced countries, Britain has an aging population and a low birth rate; immigration is a means to sustain a more robust economy. Is/was bigotry a factor in nativist immigration restrictions? No doubt. But the response is not, as Brown suggested, to reduce it to bigotry. A lot of it has to do with employment security and economic uncertainty. Government policy has harmed economic growth, which is the real problem, allowing others to see employment as a zero-sum game.
if all it means now to be racist is to be a patriot of good native citizen of your own country, so be it. I'll take the name and defend it
A patriot remembers that we are a nation of immigrants, Anyone who does not accept others dishonors the legacy of those whom fought and died for those freedoms.


(Reason). Is it time for V.A. Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign?
Yes. This is a no-brainer; it was on his watch It is incredible that years after Obama went on the record : " reform a system that often places barriers between veterans and the benefits they have earned. Obama and Joe Biden will ensure we honor the sacred trust to care for our nation’s veterans. Strengthen VA Care: Make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible. " Playing bureaucratic games to keep a backlog off the public record? 

The real solution is to end counterproductive federal healthcare programs; time to privatize them and restore a robust free market.
how about we just kick out all the Republicans that voted against the Veterans bill recently? http://www.csmonitor.com/.../Republicans-block-Senate..
How much of a partisan tool are you not to realize that King Harry restricts amendments to partisan bills? You can put lipstick on a pig but it's a pig. Put a misleading populist name on legislative sausage making---you must be one of those useful idiots whom think ObamaCare make government-regulated health "more affordable"

(Judge Napolitano). Patriot or traitor? My reactions to ‪#‎InsideSnowden‬ interview last night on Fox & Friends Fox News at 6:40a!
Criminal. He violated the terms of his clearance. This isn't a case of leaking something he found--it was a core dump of every secret file he could get his hands on, far beyond what to date is in the public arena. Even libertarians recognize the concepts of contract and good faith.
The corruption is stunning. Even when the GOP had all 3 branches of Govt- not 1 page of the IRS Tax Code was yanked from that 50 pound behemoth. They put on a good show fighting on Cable- then go to dinner together laughing at the wee people. Wee people about to open a can of whoopass. The pressure is building in the Volcano.
Give me a break; even with tenuous majorities in Congress, Bush couldn't make his signature tax cuts permanent; however, the rate of regulation slowed on his watch.

(Reason). Do you think divided government is our best bet for limiting federal power?
Our best bet? No. Bush folded like a cheap suit when it came to fiscal reform and response to the economic tsunami. Our best hope, short of an imminent crisis, for downsizing government is a conservative/libertarian coalition. But short of reform, the speed bumps of divided government prevent the Statist march to Serfdom.
Then why does congress' approval rating plummet every year this stagnation continues?
In part because there has been brainwashing of American education and history that promotes activist government. And the mainstream media have played up talking points of obstruction, i.e., resistance to partisan demands to capitulate without concessions or compromise.

(Cato Institute). "Many of President Obama’s adjustments to immigration enforcement have been disappointing and haven’t legalized as many unlawful immigrants as they could have. The president’s record on enforcing our harsh immigration laws is strict in contrast to his rhetoric and the stated goals of his executive actions."
We don't need to legalize any unlawful immigrants!!! We need to abide by the current laws. Deport all Criminal Invaders and their issue.
No, our overly restrictive immigration laws over the past centry have hurt economic growth. Anti-growth busybodies and bigots need to mind their own business.

A Toddler With Better Dance Moves Than Me



Choose Life/Entertainment Potpourri: Jane the Virgin

This is an unlikely setup for an upcoming network show: Jane has been saving herself for her upcoming marriage. During a hospital visit for routine matters, an overly busy doctor gets her patients mixed up and thinks Jane is there for artificial insemination. Jane finds herself pregnant and confused, not to mention her fiance. The doctor offers to give her an abortifacient. What's particularly moving is what Jane's grandmother says to her near the end of this clip:

“I told your mother to get an abortion,” Alba says mournfully, “but I carry that shame in my heart, because you have become the best part of my life. And this will be the best part of your life, too.”

Innovative Proposals









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via investors.com

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Orleans, "Love Takes Time"

Miscellany: 5/28/14

Quote of the Day

The nearest way to glory -- 
a shortcut, as it were -- 
is to strive to be what you wish to be thought to be.
Socrates

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Chart of the Day: The War on Women Men

Via Carpe Diem

Only Government Hires Unproductive People



More on Counterproductive Minimum Wage Madness

Let's be clear: labor unions know about supply and demand. The only way they can maintain artificially high wages/compensation is to limit the supply of workers, which is why they oppose liberalized immigration, including temporary worker programs. One of the motivations of the first federal minimum wage law was to battle Southern textile mills employing lower-paid blacks (whom obviously could relocate to the Northeast to take advantage of all those plentiful union jobs...) The fact that the market-clearing wage was below that for the Northeast mills is highly relevant; the new federal law left fewer mill and other jobs for poor Southern blacks: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

BeingClassicallyLiberal at liberty.me had a post about 10 days back  about a Danish McDonald's worker claiming she was making the equivalent of $21/hour. [For the unknowing reader, classical liberals are contrasted against the modern concept of a social liberal, whom argues for positive rights/liberties, i.e., things that the government or others must do on your behalf, e.g., education, pensions, etc. Classical liberals, like myself, focus on negative liberties, i.e., other parties cannot impede my unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.] Iacono points out about $7 are price-level differences (the Danes have a higher cost of living, with restaurant prices roughly double that over American ones), and the rest enabled by a legally-protected labor cartel, which essentially deprives a surplus of competitive workers from gainful employment at the lower market-clearing rate. He then points out economic statistics showing how job formation in states without forced unionism policies has been more robust.

Another relevant news item was the Swiss' recent rejection at a better than 3-1 margin of an attempt to establish the equivalent of a $25/hour minimum wage for unskilled labor. The USA Today account noted some of the opposition came from workers whom worried that they would be laid off if the measure passed and, as in America, over 90% of workers make above wage floors.

Crony Big Dentistry in Arkansas



Facebook Corner

(Reason). Nearly 2,000 studies about GMOs all say the food is safe.
So if it is so safe, allow people to decide and label? People have a right to know what they are paying for.
Forcing a label change allows a special interest group to impose its crony will on the average consumer and is really an anti-competitive, fear-mongering weapon of dubious scientific merit. It makes no more sense to label a food as non-GMO than (say) a soft drink as non-alcoholic. GMO foods are often cheaper and more nutritious than "traditional" foods, and the implied stigmatization leaves poorer people worse off, with a lower standard of living, which I find morally unconscionable. We know in other contexts the slippery slope of stigmatization, e.g., the scarlet letter, wearing the Star of David, etc. If non-GMO elitists want to market their products, let them, but they need to meet the burden of scientific proof any claims that their products are "safer", etc.

(IPI). Illinois lawmakers voted down a proposal that would have added nearly $3 to the cost of a case of soft drinks.
No doubt the average Joe Six Pack/Case would feel the pinch....

(Reason). Should police be required to get a warrant before searching the cellphones of people they've placed under arrest? Rand Paul thinks so.
You left out the rest of the sentence that specifies that it is only against unreasonable searches and seizures. If a cell phone is the 21st century version of papers and effects then I assume you are saying it is not unreasonable since the police can search the papers and effects you have on you when you are arrested.
Only a fascist would look to generalize the State's access to personal data. Consider, as an example, a household whom moves its possessions across states, say, with a U-Haul. If the driver is ticketed for a minor traffic infraction, does that give law enforcement the right to go on a fishing expedition in the moving van? Of course not--at least not without a reasonable basis and a warrant. Cellphones are simply a means of transporting our effects; I might normally make a stock transaction in the privacy of my home, but the technology allows me to do that elsewhere, e.g., in my car. Papers are still papers, e.g., even if I apply for a clearance online, I still have to file physical signature papers.

(Stossel). WEB ONLY: Should government ban unhealthy food? No! More from Food Fight! tomorrow at 9PM. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3593075270001/should-government-ban-bad-food/#sp=show-clips
No. But you should not be able to buy crap food with foodstamps.
I find it astonishingly hypocritical that people who resent Big Nanny elsewhere, say, Michelle Obama's unappetizing lunches where politically correct, expensive food often ends up in dumpsters, have no problem playing the role of Food Stamp Nazi. Let us all acknowledge, as Bastiat did, the primacy of the consumer.'

(Reason). Here's why The New York Times Jill Abramson faces harsher sexist discrimination than professional Indian women.
What a load of pretentious politically correct crap! There are American women whom have strong leadership skills and are taken seriously on the basis of their intellectual contributions (Ayn Rand comes to mind). Whatever you may think of her political views, Sarah Palin has undeniably more charisma and influence in backing candidates than any comparable Dem politician, including Ms. President Zipper. 

I think as long as American women continue to pursue their self-indulgent, intellectually vacuous radical victimization agenda rather than establishing more substantive gender-neutral, inclusive, positive leadership, they will alienate the underestimated fathers, husbands, sons, nephews, and brothers whom otherwise love and respect the women in their lives.

(Reason). Today President Barack Obama will outline why he's never made a false step in foreign policy and how his bold, radical new approach will build on all his past glories.
"Americans have learned it was harder to end a war than to start one". Says the man whom wants to send military advisers to the Syrian opposition, whom has intervened in Libya and has radically expanded undeclared war hostilities with drone bombings in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.

(Cato Institute). "Should the government concern itself with the relationship between the 'creators' of things and the 'transporters' of them?"
The problem is the anticompetitive government granted monopolies that cable companies enjoy. If company x throttles, customers should be able to choose company y instead. However, in many places, choosing ISP's means moving.
Nonsense. We have multiple modes of Internet access--wire, cable, wireless, satellite, etc. Even when there is limited competition, you do not have to pay for poor service. Moreover, the idea that government should intrude in business decisions where it has no competence is fundamentally unacceptable.

More Creative Proposals








Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the original artist via Bastiat Institute

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Steve Perry, "Oh, Sherrie"

Miscellany: 5/27/14

Quote of the Day

A person's maturity consists in having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Courtesy of We the Individuals

Image of the Day

via reader post to Reason thread on Obama sending military advisers for the Syrian opposition

Chart of the Day: End the Ex-Im Bank

Plumhoff v. Rickard: 9-0 For Lethal Force in High Speed Chase: Thumbs DOWN!

This is a case of using deadly force on a speeding vehicle seemingly boxed in while in Memphis. The unarmed driver and his passenger tried to flee as police fired 15 rounds into the car and died from some combination of bullets and/or the ensuing crash; SCOTUS basically gave the police broad discretion to discern threats to public safety and to decide on an appropriate, even lethal response. I believes this serves to reinforce a police bias towards "shoot first, apologize later" where the State violates due process and becomes judge, jury, and executioner. Crashes of wounded drivers and/or stray bullets can injure third persons or property. There may be ways to identify or track suspects for later, more peaceful arrest. I think police conduct can exacerbate the threat to public safety and we need laws and policies to promote prudent, proportionate behavior.

Welcome to the "Progressive" Poverty Trap



George Will On the Unmanageable, Incompetent State



Facebook Corner

(Cato Institute). "Obama’s two main legacies may turn out to be a failed health care plan and a tongue-in-cheek award for being a great recruiter for the cause of libertarianism."
They are all still increasing spending. None of them have done anything to hold down spending. Both parties are for continually growing the federal government.
I'm so tired of the trolls whom say the GOP is just the same as the Dems--and I am no GOP shill. Over 60% of the budget is entitlements; who initiated the entitlements? When's the last time a Dem-controlled House balanced the budget? What President has run up 4 trillion-dollar deficits in 5 years, although only 5 months in recession? Spending is still up over $1T a year since the GOP lost Congress in 2006--and don't forget interest rate expense is artificially low because the Fed has been de facto monetizing the debt. The problem the GOP faces is cutting spending is politically very difficult. And the troll doesn't point out unlike Obama, Bush never had a supermajority--in fact couldn't even make his tax cuts permanent.

(Drudge Report). Swiss to allow assisted dying for elderly who are not ill...
Slippery slope for ObamaCare death panel...

More Proposals









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the original artist via IPI

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Ike and Tina Turner, "River Deep, Mountsin High"

Miscellany: 5/26/14 Memorial Day

Quote of the Day

Listen or thy tongue will keep thee deaf.
American Indian Proverb

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Image of the Day

Via Jeffrey Tucker

Via Dollar Vigilante
We should also have a legislative financial institution bailout chart
with the decision path:
is the entity "too big to fail"?

Via Dollar Vigilante

Thomas DiLorenzo, "Some Anti-Memorial Day Remembrances": THUMBS UP!

Unfettered nationalism is a sickness, a cultural religion of sorts. I do have a pride in my country and in its ideals; my heart still skips a beat when I see the occasional flag on display as I approach an overpass. But there's a part of me that wants expression to be spontaneous and freely given, not predictable and scheduled because, say, some Congress passed some self-congratulatory holiday. (Yes, I know--it's not Congress or Presidents' Day; but theoretically only Congress can declare war, and the President is the Commander-in-Chief. When you are celebrating the sacrifices of men whom have died in battle, you are tacitly honoring their missions. I've never been comfortable with our interventions, in particular, I'm thinking of things like Grenada and Panama and wondering why the hell is it any of our business?

During my salad days, I had been considering a vocation to the Roman Catholic priesthood, one of the reasons I had an undergraduate major in philosophy. I was basically pro-life, anti-capital punishment, and anti-war, positions I've held to the present day, although I was never politically active in these causes. By the time I was in college, American involvement in Vietnam was tapering off. But there are a couple of things that come to mind about that time.

First, my dorm RA was a Vietnam vet whom had lost one of his legs in the Hamburger Hill campaign. Tom would occasionally hop around without his prosthesis; I remember being embarrassed when my baby sister during a family visit pointed out Tom's missing leg. Tom wasn't particularly strident, vocal or bitter about his experience, but what I remember was his sense of frustration that this particular mission, to hold or reconquer a hill of dubious strategic merit, just chewed up casualties on both sides, as if they were pawns in some warroom at the Pentagon or Hanoi.

Second, there was a quiet conversation I had with my Dad one time. He never spoke that much about what he did in Southeast Asia. He didn't have a choice in the matter; my Mom had just given birth to her seventh child, and we were barely scraping by on his enlisted man's income (in the early years he used to moonlight a second income, e.g., at the NCO Club); how easy would it be to start off a second career with a family of nine depending on him? What he was doing didn't readily translate to civilian jobs. I seem to recall during his tour that he was generous, especially to kids near where he was stationed, and he had a local artist paint his and Mom's wedding picture; it's still unusual seeing the likeness of my parents painted with Asian features, e.g., their eyes. But one day when we were alone, years later, I bluntly asked him, "How do you feel knowing what you did over there may have contributed to the deaths of innocent women and children?" (He was not a direct combatant; he was in more of a support role.) He has never answered me, but I don't think there is a good answer to that question. I think there's a lot of crap that happens in a warzone nobody wants to talk about, even if they could. And that's in part why I take strong exception to the Presidents' drone policy, although my Dad retired long before drone technology was implemented. I'm sure that my Dad picked up that his first-born son did not approve of his mission over there,

Tom DiLorenzo has a wonderfully concise, powerful writing style, and let me give a couple of brief samples from his essay (my edits):

One of the tenets of militaristic fascism in America is the oft-repeated slogan that “you don’t have to agree with the wars to honor those who fight them for us.” “Honoring” paid killers for the state for participating in non-defensive, unjust wars only serves to make it more likely that there will be even more unjust wars in the future.  And it rewards individuals for engaging in some of the most sinful and reprehensible behavior known to mankind. In general what Americans are “memorializing” on Memorial Day is wars of conquest, imperialism, mass murder of foreigners and the confiscation of their property, the abolition of civil liberties at home, the slavery of military conscription, and the debt, taxes, and inflation that are used to pay for it all. The state orchestrates never-ending memorials to itself and its wars because war is the health of the state (and in almost all cases, the deadly enemy of freedom and prosperity).

DiLorenzo, a critical Lincoln scholar, gives a scathing, powerful, concise review of the Civil War, also the Indian Wars, the Spanish American War and the two World Wars. This is not the standard fare you'll read in conventional whitewashed classes; it is polemical, and DiLorenzo suffers no fools when it comes to politicians rationalizing interventions.

This is powerful praise coming from me: I wish I had written the essay. I've been a DiLorenzo fan for some time (his essays on Rockwell's website have been on my blogroll for some time).  Unfortunately, we've had only one brief exchange. Rich Lowry of National Review had written a conventional Lincoln retrospective and in a related post had blasted DiLorenzo's work. I didn't like the fact Lowry was taking shots behind Tom's back and emailed him. DiLorenzo gave a  typically pithy response of the type "I've heard it all before, although better stated by others. It's the same old same old I've refuted hundreds of times..."

Chart of the Day: The Blago-Quinn (Dem) Era in Illinois

Via IPI

Fascists Who Undermine the Unalienable Rights of the People, Their Moral Character By Promoting Undue Dependence on the State Are Treasonous, Having Plowed the Sacred Burial Ground of  Slain Patriots to Raise Poisonous Fruit



Even Dems Are Questioning The One's Competency...



Facebook Corner

Via Drudge Report

 Let us make sure any broken law is necessary; repeal any law which infringes on unalienable rights. A law that serves no purpose but to create lawbreakers is not worthy. Let us choose our battles to legislate/regulate.

(Reason). If we are serious about addressing economic inequality and restoring social justice, then a minimum wage increase should be just the start. We also need to outlaw volunteering.
Don't give the fascists any ideas... They'll probably sue for backpay, too...

(Drudge Report). Conservatives float alternative to Boehner... What do you think?
Justin Amash is my preference, but Hensarling would be a worthy Speaker.

Via Bastiat Institute

Who remembers the My Lai massacre of 1968? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
Memorial Day should reflect all casualties of war. Killing innocent, unarmed civilians is without honor.

(Drudge Report). UPDATE: TOP CIA AGENT EXPOSED BY WHITE HOUSE
Just wait... They'll say "It was Scooter Libby's fault...."

(Bastiat Institute). PlaceAVote wants to replace politicians with internet polls http://ow.ly/xgulV
I don't want to give a majority the legal ability to plunder the minority, but there's a lot to be said for giving the people the constitutional right to repeal unpopular, corrupt laws like ObamaCare and to recall federal lawmakers, including Presidents

Proposals/Weddings









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Lisa Benson via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Queen/Bowie, "Under Pressure"

Miscellany: 5/25/14

Quote of the Day

Scitum est inter caecos luscum regnare posse. 
(It is well known, that among the blind the one-eyed man is king.)
Gerard Didier Erasmus

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Via Independent Institute

Via LFC

Via LFD

Image of the Day

via Eddie DaDog on FB

Courtesy of Natalie Fawn Danelishen via LFC

Still More on Piketty

Stan Veuger of US News & World Report points out an overlooked issue in Piketty's polemical analysis of  the Forbes' list of the wealthiest people. Familiar readers know my usual response to comparing snapshots of income summaries--they usually are not longitudinal in nature (I think Mark Perry has published multiple posts on this topic, e.g., here). In other words, you miss dynamics of mobility over time. For example, I know at one time Ted Turner was worth about $10B on paper; several years later, his net worth collapsed by over two-thirds. This is particularly salient because Piketty espouses a patriarchal theory of capitalism. Veuger looks at the top 10 in Forbes in 1987 and how they are today. Adjusted for inflation, they collectively have increased their net worth only by about 0.5%--not the 7% Piketty suggests: and if you take outlying WalMart out of the mix, the rest of the group lost about half their cumulative wealth.

I'll probably add the Marginal Revolution blog, with major contributors Tyler Cowen (whom I've featured in embedded videos from LearnLiberty) and Alex Tabarrok, to my blogroll in the near future. Tabarrok looks at an asset pricing problem (which, to a certain extent was covered in one of Holcombe's post--recall Piketty's example of rents on a French apartment--he argues that rents will inevitably rise to accommodate a certain return on the apartment's value. Holcombe implies effectively the initial purchase price is irrelevant and a better estimate reflects the market price reflecting apartment rents: in other words, it's not a case of rents rising to meet some return on investment, but the market price correcting to meet the NPV of expected rents. Tabarrok points out that if we look at rent divided by say, interest, the price increases as interest rate decreases. So, for $100 in income, we are willing to pay $1000 if the interest rate is 10%, $2000 if the interest is 5%. Notice that we need 2 income-producing assets producing $100/month if the interest rate is 10% to have the same market priced of assets at half the interest rate. Tabarrok notes that Piketty ignores this salient nuance. Importantly, 4 French economists have demonstrated that Piketty's findings of an increase in capital stock are distorted by the anomaly of the housing bubble, and if you adjust for the disparity of rents from asset prices, capital in the US and France hasn't increased at all.

Cowen considers the asset pricing problem one of the key issue; he is less impressed with the Financial Times spreadsheet issues I discussed yesterday, he is also interested in pointing out nineteenth century data are consistent with rising inflation-adjusted wages and declining consumption inequality. He also discusses a couple of other serious criticisms of Piketty's work: if you adjust for distribution of Europe's population, Piketty's thesis of growing inequality is not confirmed; he also argues that Piketty's focus on inheritance is not supported by the data.

As an aside, the Ryan Avent commentary on the spreadsheet issues cited above has an interesting side discussion of the Reinhart-Rogoff kerfuffle I also discussed in yesterday's post:

In that way, and in many others, this does look quite a lot like the Reinhart-Rogoff contretemps, to which Mr Giles draws a parallel. The errors identified in their spreadsheet turned out to be far more embarrassing to the authors than a threat to their work. The attack on the Reinhart-Rogoff analysis showed that the authors had made a mistake in the figures that led them to identify a "discontinuity" in growth rates when public debt reaches a 90% of GDP threshold. But the analysis by economists at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst actually reinforced the finding that growth rates tended to be slower when debt levels were higher. The UMass work did nothing to undermine the broad dataset that rested beneath the 90% work (and beneath their book, and many other pieces of research). Subsequent analyses have turned up a discontinuity at various thresholds (though other papers have not).

Facebook Corner 

(National Review). The VA scandal is a reminder that government-run single-payer health care does not work
The point of massive bureaucracies is so valid. VA, FEMA, HSS, the list will go on. Yet, I know the benefits of ACA. The number of uninsured has gone done quite a lot. the ACA , blueprinted from Mass. and Heritage Foundation, did not go single payer route which was cheered on by the liberal\progressive wing. It is keeping the private sector in the loop (insurance companies). The downside, too many top down regulations as to how / when / who on policies. Medical Profession acceptance (see Medicare\Medicaid).
Wrong. The Heritage Foundation never advocated the idea of bundled health services which is not true insurance or risk-sharing. Keep in mind Taxachusetts implemented guaranteed issue and community rating long before RomneyCare, never mind gold-plated benefit mandates that had families paying far more than, say, those in Utah. What Heritage did was propose the concept of catastrophic coverage as an alternative to single-payer or the current fascist model where nominally insurance remains in the private sector but the government controls it. Effectively the insurance industry serves as Statists' useful idiots and whipping boys at public discontent over hiked premiums.

(IPI). Illinois Sen. Ira Silverstein wants to ban Illinois drivers from using Google Glass, even before complaints about drivers using it have become an issue. Silverstein has been pushing a Google Glass ban for some time, even before it became available for the general public to buy, and last week representatives from Google went to the General Assembly to demonstrate how Glass works.
Never underestimate the Nanny State

(Reason). Whatever you may think of Keynesian economics, you have to give it credit for one thing: its staying power.
Self-serving political whores always love a philosophy that morally justifies their propensity to overspend.

Via LFC

Real democracy is the marketplace. Unlike the government, capitalists can't use force to compel you to buy their goods or services, and they remain subject to the forces of competition, innovation and creative destruction.
I agree with your sentiment, but replace the word "democracy" with "liberty". Democracy is acrimonious to liberty. Democracy is mob rule; it means 51% get to dominate and control the 49%. Democracy is a terrible idea.
I wasn't referring to "vulgar" democracy or the modern form of republican democracy. Capitalism has done to raise people out of poverty than politicians and religions put together; it increases the people's standard of living, and it brings a variety of goods and services to all even the most wealthy just decades ago could barely imagine, never mind procure, like a smartphone.

(National Review). Rep. Adam Kinzinger says the two-year backlog at the VA was a sign of incompetent bureaucracy, but that the fake waiting list showed "criminal negligence.” Read NR’s coverage of the Sunday talk shows: natl.re/1nIOUcW
No, the case of hidden waiting lists is a de facto form of rationing, which is an artifact of a single-payer system (and a predictable one at that). The problem with the healthcare system is domination by government, which is too rigid to deal with the dynamism and complexity of the markets. What we should be hearing is a call to privatize the system and rollback government programs, regulations and tax policies which have served to consolidate competition and exacerbate sector inflation.

Do I believe that what happened in Arizona was a matter of negligence and incompetent management and there should be accountability? Of course. The free market operates to serve the consumer, and feedback is a way of correcting course or gaining market share. Consumers would not willingly choose a provider given bad reviews from existing customers. There's no way this would have happened given, say, an ombudsman that vets or their families could come to and/or if the agency was independently sampling current/former patients about quality, timeliness, professionalism, etc., of current providers

(Independent Institute). Senior Fellow William Shughart: " No one hates the U.S. shale revolution more than Russian President Vladimir Putin. Surging U.S. oil and gas production is a nightmare he can’t escape. Already, U.S. gas production and the promise of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports have Russia’s European customers demanding cheaper prices for gas, and the Russians are reluctantly agreeing.."
Man, this guy drinking the kool aid or what!? Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, were very reliable suppliers of gas to Europe. Even at the height of the cold war. Second, it is Ukraine not paying it's bills and siphoning (to put it polity) Gas intended for paying customers. That is why the North stream pipeline direct to Germany was built and now the South stream is being built as well. To by pass your newest fascist pets in the Ukraine. Next, shipped gas from the US is no way even close to being cheaper. Did this guy do research or simply a stooge!? Lastly, Russia and China just signed a massive gas trade agreement that will develop the Siberian regions and enable investment in high technologies, meaning diversification, and with Russia's mineral wealth, oh by golly! Also, all the benefits of fracking in the US like polluted water and god knows what else. Lastly, the gas supplies from the fracking are not really panning out to be very productive. Quite a few wells are a failure, but, the area has been polluted. So Mr. Shughart, you need to actually do some journalism instead of just being a mouthpiece.
Hypocritical talk of a country led by corrupt, lawless politicians whom have failed to diversify their country's economy from overreliance on commodities which ultimately rely on international economic growth. Everyone knows that the referenced negotiation with China broke down several times over price, and in part that had to do with global supply/demand referencing new export supplies from the US. Someone from Russia parrotting US environmentalist crackpots on fracking, when Russia has some of the worst air and water pollution on the planet? Russia is ugily extorting Ukraine and has periodically threatened cutoffs to Europe to gain concessions; the fact is, supply from the US is undermining Russia's pricing power to Europe.

Via LFC

Technically socialism is the assumption that human nature is good. Think about it, the aim of socialism is for everyone to share, and for there to be no class distinction. Unfortunately mans nature is evil. That is why socialism and communism fail so horribly. It looks good on paper, but it can't work on earth due to the fall of man. Our sinful nature prevents us from a perfect world.

Capitalism is the best fit for a healthy economy. America started as a free market capitalist nation, we exponentially warped into a mixed market capitalist society that ignorantly moves towards socialism. 

It's this countries' overwhelming ignorance that will be the downfall. Americans today are too consumed with their own self worth to bother with the future of our nation.

Sad sad truth...
"America started as a free market capitalist nation"--I don't think so. Alexander Hamilton from the first Washington Administration wanted to use tariffs and dutieson imported goods to go beyond funding the government to protect the US fledging manufacturing sector. Hamilton's ideas were inherited by Clay's American System based on central planning through tariffs, a central bank, and infrastructure: the Whigs and then the GOP developed similar themes. The Democrats saw protectionist policies as favoring the Northeast at their expense and a threat to their exports (e.g., cotton)--not to mention that high tariffs contracted the import tax base. I'm not necessarily arguing that nationalist policies carried the day, but to argue that we were free market ignores much of our history--plus pre-Constitution protectionist taxes on interstate commerce ("In the 1783–89 period, each state set up its own trade rules, often imposing tariffs or restrictions on neighboring states").

(Bastiat Institute). Is Murray Rothbard the most influential Austrian Economist ever? http://liberty.me/authors/murray-n-rothbard/
No. It's hard to overestimate Mises' impact, particularly his devastating early 1920's critique of socialism. I consider Rothbard to be a superb historian and certainly the most influential American in the tradition, and obviously Hayek's Nobel Prize speaks for itself--certainly the most accessible of the three. I do wish Hayek had done more to undermine Keynes' masterwork.

Proposals With a Twist

I really love this one and the backing song... I think I may be the only person on the planet never to have heard the song before, because Youtube shows 174M  plays for Christina Perri...



Now I never thought about a flash mob on a flight... Very creative...





OK, I like the serenade aspect of the same old same old Bruno Mars tune, but does anyone else have the itch to give this dude a buzz cut?



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Olivia Newton John, "Don't Stop Believin'"