Friday, October 16, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
The economy is not recovering...
Once again, CNN has managed to simultaneously enrage and terrify me with its pro-state economic garbage. There latest gem of reporting is on the likely recovery that the economy is now entering. It shouldn't baffle me that pundits in the mainstream media are claiming the economy is in recovery. I should be used to the idiocy by now, but I am shocked almost daily by the moronic things that these people say. Every single aspect of the supposed economic 'recovery' has me shaking in my boots.
The establishment is treating a rise in housing prices as a sign of recovery. They are treating a weakening dollar as good for trade. They assume that a rising stock market in the face of a zero (and possibly negative) growth in productivity is a sign of good things to come.
Society is running full speed ahead toward a cliff.
Housing prices need to continue to fall. The market absolutely needs to discover the true value of these assets, and any attempt to artificially raise the price will only lead to further miss-allocations of resources. The same applies to the stock market. There has been no real growth in the economy, and the rise in stock prices is a direct symptom of credit expansion and easy money. Rising prices simply mean that the purchasing power of our money is falling. We are becoming poorer, not richer.
We have seen several months of rising prices in commodities and consumer goods, and this is supposed to represent greater prosperity for the nation. The unprecedented monetary inflation created by the FED has been slow to show up in consumer prices, but that is simply because the banks are not making loans at the moment. Once there is a little confidence in the market and the banks start making loans again, the value of the dollar is likely going to fall through the floor. All that cash that the FED has created out of thin air is just waiting to be multiplied through fractional reserve banking. On top of that, the bulk of the stimulus money is going to be put to use by the government in 2010, further decreasing the value of the dollar, and bidding enormous amounts of resources away from private enterprise.
This depression is just getting started, people. Wake up and smell the inflation.
The establishment is treating a rise in housing prices as a sign of recovery. They are treating a weakening dollar as good for trade. They assume that a rising stock market in the face of a zero (and possibly negative) growth in productivity is a sign of good things to come.
Society is running full speed ahead toward a cliff.
Housing prices need to continue to fall. The market absolutely needs to discover the true value of these assets, and any attempt to artificially raise the price will only lead to further miss-allocations of resources. The same applies to the stock market. There has been no real growth in the economy, and the rise in stock prices is a direct symptom of credit expansion and easy money. Rising prices simply mean that the purchasing power of our money is falling. We are becoming poorer, not richer.
We have seen several months of rising prices in commodities and consumer goods, and this is supposed to represent greater prosperity for the nation. The unprecedented monetary inflation created by the FED has been slow to show up in consumer prices, but that is simply because the banks are not making loans at the moment. Once there is a little confidence in the market and the banks start making loans again, the value of the dollar is likely going to fall through the floor. All that cash that the FED has created out of thin air is just waiting to be multiplied through fractional reserve banking. On top of that, the bulk of the stimulus money is going to be put to use by the government in 2010, further decreasing the value of the dollar, and bidding enormous amounts of resources away from private enterprise.
This depression is just getting started, people. Wake up and smell the inflation.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Fallacy of Limited Government
At what point has government action simply nullified the constitution? This post is not in response to any particular thing that the government has done lately, but simply about the totality of unconstitutional laws and actions that the Federal Government has engaged in over the last two hundred or so years. When can it be said that the Federal Government has completely violated and nullified its "contract" with the people it "serves"?
I understand that as long as people continue their support for government by supplying it with votes and money the parasites will continue to operate under the guise of legality under the sacred "social contract", but after repeatedly violating nearly every clause of the very document that gives the government any right to exist at all, how can it possibly be said the government has any legitimacy whatsoever? The idea is absurd.
While I firmly believe that a government that operated within the confines of the constitution would be better than what we have now, I cannot help but remember the words of Lysander Spooner in his legal epic, No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority,
Spooner hit the heart of the issue; There is no such thing as limited government. It is ridiculous to think that a piece of paper could ever stop the expansion of the State. The very idea of giving one group of individuals a legal monopoly on the use of force is absurd in the extreme. To think that they will confine themselves to a set of written rules is outright insanity. The only real solution to this problem is to end the monopoly. Legal institutions evolved out of social cooperation under the division of labor. They existed before the State, and they will continue long after its decline. Returning legal authority (and more importantly, responsibility) to the hands of all people is the only way toward lasting peace.
I understand that as long as people continue their support for government by supplying it with votes and money the parasites will continue to operate under the guise of legality under the sacred "social contract", but after repeatedly violating nearly every clause of the very document that gives the government any right to exist at all, how can it possibly be said the government has any legitimacy whatsoever? The idea is absurd.
While I firmly believe that a government that operated within the confines of the constitution would be better than what we have now, I cannot help but remember the words of Lysander Spooner in his legal epic, No Treason: The Constitution of no Authority,
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Economic Systems and the Concept of Property
I was just watching filmmaker Michael Moore give an interview on CNN pertaining to his new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story". Wolf Blitzer asked him whether or not he was a socialist or would want socialism to replace the capitalist system in America, and Moore gave an interesting response. I don't have a direct quote as to what he said, but he basically claimed that he was not a socialist or a capitalist, but wanted to see an economic system based on democratic (not Democratic) principles, where decisions about the economy were put back in the hands of the people, and not the wealthiest one percent of the population. He went on to say that Capitalism was a sixteenth century idea, socialism was a nineteenth century idea, and we should construct our economy based on a twenty-first century idea.
While I agree with Mr. Moore that I would like to see an economic system that put decision making power back in the hands of the people, I realize that there is only one way to do that. The only way in which the people of the United States can possibly hope to achieve this kind of power is to get the government out of the private economy in every way. Contrary to what Moore suggests, there is no third option in economic systems, there is only the free and competitive market economy, or the state controlled socialist method.
What people don't understand is that economic systems are based entirely upon how societies treat the concept of property. Even communist states (who's economies were socialist in nature) are entirely based on how property rights are administered. What characterizes a market economy as such is that it is based upon the protection of private property rights, and the fact that entrepreneurs are allowed to pursue private profits to be owned and controlled by them, and them alone. Decisions about production are made by private individuals, and not by the state. On the other hand, the socialist system is based upon collective property rights, where the state owns and controls all property. Collective ownership (i.e. control) of property by all people in a nation, is impossible in practice, as it is not feasible for millions of individuals to simultaneously exercise absolute control of any scarce resource. This task falls upon the state, as the state supposedly represents the interests of the people it governs. This is simply the nature of collective ownership.
There simply is no third method of organizing economic action. Either production decisions are made by entrepreneurs seeking profits based on their ability to serve consumer demand, or they are made by the state who's actions are not based on profit seeking.
Now what of the so called "mixed" economy? There is no such thing. As long as people are still allowed enough freedom in exercising control over their property that they may seek profits through entrepreneurial action, there still exists a market economy. It may be severely hampered by government intervention, but it still retains the fundamental core of the market economy, and that is the pricing system.
Absolute state control of the economy destroys the price system, as pricing relies upon the free exchange of property titles. Under state control, their exists no such freedom, and no prices can be formed. Without prices, people are flying dark, and all production decisions are entirely arbitrary. Society suffers as the result of this.
Currently, the economy is in tatters, and people are looking for a solution to the crisis. "The market has failed!" has become the mantra of the day, and many are looking for the government to intervene further in private markets to solve the crisis. Anyone advocating the protection of private property rights as the solution to the crisis is deemed a nut (and more often than not, a "right wing extremist"), but it is precisely that the concept of property has become so removed from our daily lives that these problems exist in the first place.
Private property is based upon the idea that individuals bear all the consequences of their actions with regard to the things that own. This does not simply mean enjoying the fruits of your labor, it also means bearing the full consequences when your decisions produce unfavorable results. As our society has moved deeper and deeper into the regulatory age and diminished the right to exclusive control of our property, we have also diminished the responsibility that our actions carry.
The bailouts of the banks, GM, and AIG, are prime examples of this. After having been subsidized and protected by the government and the Fed for decades, these industries were finally going to collapse under their own weight and stop pulling the economy down. The market was providing the solution to this mess by forcing these monsters of phony-capitalism into the economic graveyard. There would have been economic pain to be sure, but the failure of these giants would have left the economy fertile for real growth.
However, we have virtually thrown the idea of property to the wind, and these industries were able to socialize their losses. They are still in business and have avoided the consequences of their actions. The five biggest banks in America have gotten bigger. Those who failed as entrepreneurs are still getting enormous, tax funded bonuses, that have nothing to do with their ability to serve consumer demand, and everything to do with who they know in the government. To blame the market for the continued fortune of these industries would be absolutely ridiculous.
There are only two paths that we can take at this time, as the status quo is universally recognized to be unacceptable. We can either:
A). Add more state intervention/political-favors into the system and further collectivize property rights, thereby helping to distribute unfavorable consequences of decisions onto others instead of those who made the decisions; or
B). Remove state intervention/government-guarantees and enhance the rights of private property, thereby letting individuals bear the consequences of their decision making on their own, whether the consequences be good or bad.
Their simply is no third solution. Their is no "twenty-first century idea" that can solve this problem. There is only the choice between privatizing or collectivizing ownership as the basis for society. After seeing the total failures of fully collectivized property in socialist nations in the twentieth century, it is obvious that moving further in that direction would be economic suicide. This is precisely why most socialist nations rapidly moved away from collectivized property rights, and further into that of private ownership. Private ownership is the only reason that the material misery of these nations has subsided. The gargantuan growth of the economies in China and India ought to be proof of this. Both countries have their problems, but the standard of living of their peoples has improved immensely since they started allowing free enterprise. They have fewer restrictions in their economies, and they are going through modern day industrial revolutions.
If the government were to stop propping up failing industries, and limit its activity in the economy to enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud (for which we already have effective laws), our economy would grow so immensely that we would once again be the most prosperous nation in the world, and not the biggest debtor in the history of mankind. The only way to accomplish this is through the protection of the right of individuals to own property, and allowing them to bear the full consequences of their actions.
While I agree with Mr. Moore that I would like to see an economic system that put decision making power back in the hands of the people, I realize that there is only one way to do that. The only way in which the people of the United States can possibly hope to achieve this kind of power is to get the government out of the private economy in every way. Contrary to what Moore suggests, there is no third option in economic systems, there is only the free and competitive market economy, or the state controlled socialist method.
What people don't understand is that economic systems are based entirely upon how societies treat the concept of property. Even communist states (who's economies were socialist in nature) are entirely based on how property rights are administered. What characterizes a market economy as such is that it is based upon the protection of private property rights, and the fact that entrepreneurs are allowed to pursue private profits to be owned and controlled by them, and them alone. Decisions about production are made by private individuals, and not by the state. On the other hand, the socialist system is based upon collective property rights, where the state owns and controls all property. Collective ownership (i.e. control) of property by all people in a nation, is impossible in practice, as it is not feasible for millions of individuals to simultaneously exercise absolute control of any scarce resource. This task falls upon the state, as the state supposedly represents the interests of the people it governs. This is simply the nature of collective ownership.
There simply is no third method of organizing economic action. Either production decisions are made by entrepreneurs seeking profits based on their ability to serve consumer demand, or they are made by the state who's actions are not based on profit seeking.
Now what of the so called "mixed" economy? There is no such thing. As long as people are still allowed enough freedom in exercising control over their property that they may seek profits through entrepreneurial action, there still exists a market economy. It may be severely hampered by government intervention, but it still retains the fundamental core of the market economy, and that is the pricing system.
Absolute state control of the economy destroys the price system, as pricing relies upon the free exchange of property titles. Under state control, their exists no such freedom, and no prices can be formed. Without prices, people are flying dark, and all production decisions are entirely arbitrary. Society suffers as the result of this.
Currently, the economy is in tatters, and people are looking for a solution to the crisis. "The market has failed!" has become the mantra of the day, and many are looking for the government to intervene further in private markets to solve the crisis. Anyone advocating the protection of private property rights as the solution to the crisis is deemed a nut (and more often than not, a "right wing extremist"), but it is precisely that the concept of property has become so removed from our daily lives that these problems exist in the first place.
Private property is based upon the idea that individuals bear all the consequences of their actions with regard to the things that own. This does not simply mean enjoying the fruits of your labor, it also means bearing the full consequences when your decisions produce unfavorable results. As our society has moved deeper and deeper into the regulatory age and diminished the right to exclusive control of our property, we have also diminished the responsibility that our actions carry.
The bailouts of the banks, GM, and AIG, are prime examples of this. After having been subsidized and protected by the government and the Fed for decades, these industries were finally going to collapse under their own weight and stop pulling the economy down. The market was providing the solution to this mess by forcing these monsters of phony-capitalism into the economic graveyard. There would have been economic pain to be sure, but the failure of these giants would have left the economy fertile for real growth.
However, we have virtually thrown the idea of property to the wind, and these industries were able to socialize their losses. They are still in business and have avoided the consequences of their actions. The five biggest banks in America have gotten bigger. Those who failed as entrepreneurs are still getting enormous, tax funded bonuses, that have nothing to do with their ability to serve consumer demand, and everything to do with who they know in the government. To blame the market for the continued fortune of these industries would be absolutely ridiculous.
There are only two paths that we can take at this time, as the status quo is universally recognized to be unacceptable. We can either:
A). Add more state intervention/political-favors into the system and further collectivize property rights, thereby helping to distribute unfavorable consequences of decisions onto others instead of those who made the decisions; or
B). Remove state intervention/government-guarantees and enhance the rights of private property, thereby letting individuals bear the consequences of their decision making on their own, whether the consequences be good or bad.
Their simply is no third solution. Their is no "twenty-first century idea" that can solve this problem. There is only the choice between privatizing or collectivizing ownership as the basis for society. After seeing the total failures of fully collectivized property in socialist nations in the twentieth century, it is obvious that moving further in that direction would be economic suicide. This is precisely why most socialist nations rapidly moved away from collectivized property rights, and further into that of private ownership. Private ownership is the only reason that the material misery of these nations has subsided. The gargantuan growth of the economies in China and India ought to be proof of this. Both countries have their problems, but the standard of living of their peoples has improved immensely since they started allowing free enterprise. They have fewer restrictions in their economies, and they are going through modern day industrial revolutions.
If the government were to stop propping up failing industries, and limit its activity in the economy to enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud (for which we already have effective laws), our economy would grow so immensely that we would once again be the most prosperous nation in the world, and not the biggest debtor in the history of mankind. The only way to accomplish this is through the protection of the right of individuals to own property, and allowing them to bear the full consequences of their actions.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Review: END THE FED
Throughout the 2008 presidential election, Ron Paul was demeaned as a reactionary, and sometimes labeled insane. His critisims of the warfare-welfare state, coupled with his devotion to restoring constitutional government, brought massive opposition to his message from both sides of the political spectrum, and he was effectively shut out of any serious debate in the Republican primaries. His (correct) predictions as to where the economy was heading were laughed at, and most of all, his critisism of central banking and monetary inflation were widely ignored. That was 2008. Things have changed considerably.
Where as Ron Paul was ignored and effectively shut out of the media during the election cycle, he has gained considerable attention across all forms of media since the economic collapse, (just type his name into youtube). Most importantly, Ron Paul's message about the corrupt monetary system in the United States, is finally being listened to. The Federal Reserve System (central bank, and monopoly creator of money in the United States) is the target of Doctor Paul's incredible new book, END THE FED.
At just over two hundred pages, this book can be read in an afternoon, and lays out arguments for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve on the grounds of sound economic principles, constitutional law, as well as deep ethical considerations. Perhaps what makes this little book so convincing is Ron Paul's understanding of exactly how the Fed operates, and how central banking has impacted the history of the twentieth century.
Although this book is short, it covers a large amount of ground, and gives a broad, yet deep analysis of Fed policies and history. The rise of paper money and the warfare state have gone hand in hand. Writes Ron:
Through massive arbitrary credit expansion, the Fed has the power to lower interest rates below what the free market would set. The Fed claims that it does this to stimulate the economy, but the reality is that tampering with interest rates in the loan market distorts the ability of entrepreneurs to calculate in a rational manner.
When a commodity currency like gold is the unit of account in a market economy, and there is no central planning of the money supply, interest rates develop according to consumer time preference. When people save more money, and bank cash reserves increase, the "price" of loaning it out decreases. These lower interest rates are a signal to entrepreneurs that they should engage in longer term production processes as consumers are foregoing consumption now, so that they can consume at a later date. By saving money, and not claiming the resources that they are entitled to by the cash that they hold, consumers make available the material resources needed to complete production processes engaged in by entrepreneurs. Consequently when people spend more of their savings, and there is a greater scarcity of loanable funds in the banks, credit tightens up, and interest rates increase. Entrepreneurs are discouraged from long term investment projects by the higher cost of obtaining loans, and they engage in shorter term projects that readily satisfy consumer demands.
Since no such commodity money exists in our society anymore, interest rates are arbitrarily set by the Fed. By forcing interest rates down by flooding the banking system with newly created credit out of thin air, the Fed introduces dis-coordination to a coordinating production process. Lured by low interest rates, entrepreneurs take out loans to fund projects that will not be profitable in the end. Meanwhile, consumers also take advantage of easy credit and spend way beyond their means so that there is little to no real savings in the banks. By claiming the resources they are entitled to by their money, consumers remove available materials from the economy, and when the credit expansion finally ends, the whole system collapses. Interest rates spike up as credit contracts, and projects that seemed to be profitable at their start cannot be completed. They lack both the resources necessary to complete them, and consumers can no longer afford to buy anything. The result is enormous amounts of unsaleable goods, collapse of industry, and the laying off of many workers. The artificial credit induced boom comes to an end, and the market enters a recession. The recession is the necessary outcome of credit expansion, and it is the process through which debt is liquidated, and resources are reallocated to productive purposes.
Unfortunately the Fed sees the boom years as a time of prosperity, and not that of economic dis-coordination and waste. Their solution to the recession is to further expand credit and prop up the errors and mistakes of failing industries. This prolongs the agony of the recession and further dilutes the purchasing power of the dollar.
Ron Paul's proposed solution to this crisis is not a half measure, nor is it a minor reform. The conclusion is crystal clear, and essential to saving the American dream. It is time to completely abolish the Fed and all central banking, and return to sound money. This cannot be done by returning to a "standard" of any kind, it requires that legal tender laws be repealed, and allowing freedom to take its course in the economy. By allowing people to freely choose what they use as money, the size and scope of government would decrease dramatically, and the endless cycle of war and economic instability would come to an end.
Aside from a devastating economic analysis of the Fed's intervention in the market, Doctor Paul makes it expressly clear that the current monetary system is absolutely illegal under the Constitution:
Simply put, this is the most important book of 2009, and the ideas contained within are essential to protecting the freedom and prosperity of the country. It is time to make a choice. Do we allow the Fed to inflate the currency until it is totally worthless? Do we allow the Federal Government to continue machine gunning children around the world? Do we allow inflation to crush what is left of the private economy?
I say its time to make Andrew Jackson proud and kill the monster.
End the Fed!
Where as Ron Paul was ignored and effectively shut out of the media during the election cycle, he has gained considerable attention across all forms of media since the economic collapse, (just type his name into youtube). Most importantly, Ron Paul's message about the corrupt monetary system in the United States, is finally being listened to. The Federal Reserve System (central bank, and monopoly creator of money in the United States) is the target of Doctor Paul's incredible new book, END THE FED.
At just over two hundred pages, this book can be read in an afternoon, and lays out arguments for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve on the grounds of sound economic principles, constitutional law, as well as deep ethical considerations. Perhaps what makes this little book so convincing is Ron Paul's understanding of exactly how the Fed operates, and how central banking has impacted the history of the twentieth century.
Although this book is short, it covers a large amount of ground, and gives a broad, yet deep analysis of Fed policies and history. The rise of paper money and the warfare state have gone hand in hand. Writes Ron:
"It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking. When governments had to fund their own wars without a paper money machine to rely upon, they economized on resources. They found diplomatic solutions to prevent war, and after they started a war they ended it as soon as possible." [page 63]With the ability to create as much money and credit as it could possibly want, the government has enjoyed a means of financing war without having to deal with direct taxation of its people. With no check on its ability to fund wars, the United States government has been all to eager to commit troops to foreign entanglements, and expand its influence in countries around the world. After FDR dealt a massive blow to the Gold Standard through the confiscation of all privately owned gold, and loosened the restrictions on the Fed's power to inflate the currency, foreign military intervention by the Federal Government has been almost continuous. As Doctor Paul aptly states:
"Since World War II, the U.S. government has expanded its reach with a shocking voraciousness both at home and abroad. It's been one war after another, the building of killer weapons of mass destruction, the construction of a huge welfare state that covers all classes in society. There was the Cold War, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs, an invasion of the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and endless involvement in the Middle East, in addition to wars on Nicaragua, Salvador, Bosnia, and Haiti, as well as all the wars around the world conducted in the name of the War on Terror." [page 69]Furthermore, it is not simply the power to directly pay the bills through the printing press that allows the Fed to fund the war; it is the fact that it backs the banking system and bond dealers as the lender of last resort:
"Even when the Fed is not providing the direct infusions of newly created money, it stands ready to back endless creations of debt year after year, none of which would be worth anything on the free-market bond market if the Fed were not there to guarantee it all." [page 70]It is only through the continuous debasement of the dollar, and the power of the Fed to guarantee bond holders against default that the government can fund its military adventurism around the world. Consequently this debasement of the dollar is also the root and cause of the economic calamity that the world now faces.
Through massive arbitrary credit expansion, the Fed has the power to lower interest rates below what the free market would set. The Fed claims that it does this to stimulate the economy, but the reality is that tampering with interest rates in the loan market distorts the ability of entrepreneurs to calculate in a rational manner.
When a commodity currency like gold is the unit of account in a market economy, and there is no central planning of the money supply, interest rates develop according to consumer time preference. When people save more money, and bank cash reserves increase, the "price" of loaning it out decreases. These lower interest rates are a signal to entrepreneurs that they should engage in longer term production processes as consumers are foregoing consumption now, so that they can consume at a later date. By saving money, and not claiming the resources that they are entitled to by the cash that they hold, consumers make available the material resources needed to complete production processes engaged in by entrepreneurs. Consequently when people spend more of their savings, and there is a greater scarcity of loanable funds in the banks, credit tightens up, and interest rates increase. Entrepreneurs are discouraged from long term investment projects by the higher cost of obtaining loans, and they engage in shorter term projects that readily satisfy consumer demands.
Since no such commodity money exists in our society anymore, interest rates are arbitrarily set by the Fed. By forcing interest rates down by flooding the banking system with newly created credit out of thin air, the Fed introduces dis-coordination to a coordinating production process. Lured by low interest rates, entrepreneurs take out loans to fund projects that will not be profitable in the end. Meanwhile, consumers also take advantage of easy credit and spend way beyond their means so that there is little to no real savings in the banks. By claiming the resources they are entitled to by their money, consumers remove available materials from the economy, and when the credit expansion finally ends, the whole system collapses. Interest rates spike up as credit contracts, and projects that seemed to be profitable at their start cannot be completed. They lack both the resources necessary to complete them, and consumers can no longer afford to buy anything. The result is enormous amounts of unsaleable goods, collapse of industry, and the laying off of many workers. The artificial credit induced boom comes to an end, and the market enters a recession. The recession is the necessary outcome of credit expansion, and it is the process through which debt is liquidated, and resources are reallocated to productive purposes.
Unfortunately the Fed sees the boom years as a time of prosperity, and not that of economic dis-coordination and waste. Their solution to the recession is to further expand credit and prop up the errors and mistakes of failing industries. This prolongs the agony of the recession and further dilutes the purchasing power of the dollar.
Ron Paul's proposed solution to this crisis is not a half measure, nor is it a minor reform. The conclusion is crystal clear, and essential to saving the American dream. It is time to completely abolish the Fed and all central banking, and return to sound money. This cannot be done by returning to a "standard" of any kind, it requires that legal tender laws be repealed, and allowing freedom to take its course in the economy. By allowing people to freely choose what they use as money, the size and scope of government would decrease dramatically, and the endless cycle of war and economic instability would come to an end.
Aside from a devastating economic analysis of the Fed's intervention in the market, Doctor Paul makes it expressly clear that the current monetary system is absolutely illegal under the Constitution:
"The Constitution is clear about no paper money. Only gold and silver were to be legal tender. Since the states caused themselves harm when they issued their own paper money, the states were prohibited as well from issuing paper currency under the Constitution. Article I, Section 10: "No state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." So there you have it, plain and simple: paper money is unconstitutional, period." [page 165]Not only does the paper money system give the government a means to wage unlimited war and cause the boom bust business cycle, it is expressly forbidden under the Constitution of the United States.
Simply put, this is the most important book of 2009, and the ideas contained within are essential to protecting the freedom and prosperity of the country. It is time to make a choice. Do we allow the Fed to inflate the currency until it is totally worthless? Do we allow the Federal Government to continue machine gunning children around the world? Do we allow inflation to crush what is left of the private economy?
I say its time to make Andrew Jackson proud and kill the monster.
End the Fed!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What is an Austro-Libertarian?
A libertarian is someone who believes in maximum freedom for the individual, and that private property rights are the basis for all human cooperation. The libertarian also believes that property rights are the only rights that we as humans can possibly posses, and that law exists to protect these rights.
An Austro-libertarian is a libertarian who combines the teachings of the Austrian School of Economics with libertarian political ideas for a unified system of social philosophy. For the most comprehensive Austro-Libertarian library available, visit www.mises.org and enter their literature section. Most of the books that Mises Institute sells are available for free (legally) in .pdf form, and it is a treasury of incredible ideas.
However, the purpose of this blog is not simply to advertise for the Mises Institute [although their will be plenty of of that ;) ], it is to offer the perspective of an intelligent young libertarian on current events, politics, economics, and art.
An Austro-libertarian is a libertarian who combines the teachings of the Austrian School of Economics with libertarian political ideas for a unified system of social philosophy. For the most comprehensive Austro-Libertarian library available, visit www.mises.org and enter their literature section. Most of the books that Mises Institute sells are available for free (legally) in .pdf form, and it is a treasury of incredible ideas.
However, the purpose of this blog is not simply to advertise for the Mises Institute [although their will be plenty of of that ;) ], it is to offer the perspective of an intelligent young libertarian on current events, politics, economics, and art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
