After his 28 year long authoritarian reign in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has finally been called on by the people he governs to step down and abandon his grip on the political holsters he has so "un-democratically" been occupying. Protests on the streets of Cairo so clearly demonstrate the will of the people; yet, Mubarak has audaciously defied all sense of reason by refusing to relinquish his formal powers.
If democracy is worth anything, the power of protest should be at the forefront of civilian rights. Last week, at a celebration of Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, Dick Cheney reminded attendees of the longstanding "friendship" between the US and Egypt: after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Mubarak granted flyover privileges to the US along with access to the Suez Canal. He went on to say that "he's been a good man and a good friend and ally of the United States, and we need to remember that."
Someone else was once described as a "good friend" of the United States - Saddam Hussein. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the United States gave satellite photos, weapons, and poison gas to Hussein for use against the Iranian people. Of course, when he became associated with "terrorism" (or however that war was framed...) he was no longer a close ally of ours, but instead, an evil dictator worthy of a spot in the "axis of evil." So I suppose the way we determine our "friends" is based on whether or not their tyrannical regimes suit our international interests.
Our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were framed under the premise of spreading democracy in the Middle East. Yet when the voice of the people cries out for democracy, calling on the support of the United States in their quest for liberation, we turn our backs and hope for the best - that all will work out in due time. This is the time for political interference. One million protesters should take precedence over one "friend" who could very likely end up on that axis of evil list 5 years down the line. If we are to demonstrate our influence in the Middle East at all, it should be through the deliberate and meaningful example we set by supporting democracy where democracy is sought.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Friday, December 10, 2010
Rep. Ron Paul to Chair the Monetary Policy Subcommittee
Great news for fiscal conservatives across the nation broke yesterday in the wake of headlines announcing that Texas Representative Ron Paul has been selected to chair the Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.
Rep. Paul has been the champion of economic conservatism since his first stint in the House in 1976. Notorious for limiting federal spending and voting against expansionary legislation, his fellow Congressmen have given him the nickname "Dr. No." He has written numerous books on the perils and detriments of an expanded federal core, including the bestseller End the Fed, which dictates his skeptical take on the wrongdoings of the Federal Reserve, concluding with a call to abandon the structure altogether.
Long before the financial crisis of 2008, Rep. Paul advocated for the cessation of taxpayer funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He predicted the market crash in 2006, and actively campaigned against the subsequent bailouts. Warning against the implications of the measures taken in 2008 and 2009 to attempt to stabilize the economy, including astronomical inflation and unemployment rates unrivaled since the Great Depression, Paul again proved his competency in the monetary sector, adding to his long resume of economic qualifications for the position.
The next session of Congress will surely benefit from this sensible appointment to the subcommittee. At a time when debt and deficit are instinctively offset by more spending, Ron Paul's voice will pull in the reigns on a federal spending spree that has gone on too long and too far.
Rep. Paul has been the champion of economic conservatism since his first stint in the House in 1976. Notorious for limiting federal spending and voting against expansionary legislation, his fellow Congressmen have given him the nickname "Dr. No." He has written numerous books on the perils and detriments of an expanded federal core, including the bestseller End the Fed, which dictates his skeptical take on the wrongdoings of the Federal Reserve, concluding with a call to abandon the structure altogether.
Long before the financial crisis of 2008, Rep. Paul advocated for the cessation of taxpayer funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He predicted the market crash in 2006, and actively campaigned against the subsequent bailouts. Warning against the implications of the measures taken in 2008 and 2009 to attempt to stabilize the economy, including astronomical inflation and unemployment rates unrivaled since the Great Depression, Paul again proved his competency in the monetary sector, adding to his long resume of economic qualifications for the position.
The next session of Congress will surely benefit from this sensible appointment to the subcommittee. At a time when debt and deficit are instinctively offset by more spending, Ron Paul's voice will pull in the reigns on a federal spending spree that has gone on too long and too far.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Are You Serious, Ben Bernanke?
The United States Federal Reserve - that unconstitutional provision of the extended arm of the Federal government - has long since befuddled my inner sensibilities on the reach of government interventionism. Regulating monetary policy, over-seeing banking institutions, and stabilizing the general economic condition are few of the many "responsibilities" endowed to the structure, all for the purpose of limiting the supposed free-market, laissez faire system that we so vigilantly espouse.
The economic retractions (and subsequent stimulus spending) of 2008 were not the first, in a long line of, faulty and unwarranted economic policies put in place by the Fed. In fact, one could argue that said "economic retractions" were the direct result of protocol gone awry.
In 2003 to 2004, the Fed dropped interest rates to 1%, encouraging consumer borrowing / spending. This lead to the perceived delusion that the economy was performing better than in actuality. 2004 brought about a federal spending spree, spreading its venom as far as the housing market, later encouraging "subprime" mortgage allowances and booming the already zealously over-inflated housing bubble. These (in combination with mark-to-market accounting regulations) lead to the credit crisis of 2008 that spiraled the market into a frenzy of (what seemed to be) perpetual decline.
It is important to remember that a system of capitalism is marked by a balance of healthy economic expansions and contractions. Capitalism cannot function properly, as such, when Keynesian monetary strategists encourage fiscal intervention, especially when they employ said methods inappropriately.
Think about the implications of these previously mentioned policies enacted by the Fed in 2003-2004:
The economic retractions (and subsequent stimulus spending) of 2008 were not the first, in a long line of, faulty and unwarranted economic policies put in place by the Fed. In fact, one could argue that said "economic retractions" were the direct result of protocol gone awry.
In 2003 to 2004, the Fed dropped interest rates to 1%, encouraging consumer borrowing / spending. This lead to the perceived delusion that the economy was performing better than in actuality. 2004 brought about a federal spending spree, spreading its venom as far as the housing market, later encouraging "subprime" mortgage allowances and booming the already zealously over-inflated housing bubble. These (in combination with mark-to-market accounting regulations) lead to the credit crisis of 2008 that spiraled the market into a frenzy of (what seemed to be) perpetual decline.
It is important to remember that a system of capitalism is marked by a balance of healthy economic expansions and contractions. Capitalism cannot function properly, as such, when Keynesian monetary strategists encourage fiscal intervention, especially when they employ said methods inappropriately.
Think about the implications of these previously mentioned policies enacted by the Fed in 2003-2004:
- Lowering the interest rates to 1%. Under normal conditions, this would indicate a period of economic prosperity. However, the economy was already beginning to retract in late 2003; therefore, dropping the interest rates to delude borrowers was a deliberate attempt to offset further contractions.
- Printing cash. Remember the summer of 2004? Remember how high gas prices became?? And how the media (and select politicians) portrayed "greedy" oil companies the culprit? Well, oil is a commodity bought and sold in US dollars. While not immediately evident, the Federal Reserve Bank was busy pumping out hundreds of millions of dollars, again, for the supposed purpose of stimulating growth (or at least maintaining the delusion that the economy was strong). Such a bold increase in the money supply decreased the purchasing power of each dollar, driving oil costs up, and artificially inflating an already artificially-inflated bubble.
Printing dollars and lowering the interest rates kept the populace in the delusion of prosperity. The Fed attempted to offset what they knew was to become a retraction in the economy by artificially encouraging spending, rather than saving. But these risky policies only exacerbated the imminent economic bust, unforeseen by Americans because of the deceptiveness of the Fed.
Another string of economic blows came about in early 2008, including the sudden demise of the stock market, with broad-reaching implications into the housing market and banking institutions. The US Treasury designed relief programs to basically buy up troubled assets for the purpose of keeping said institutions afloat (mind you - institutions that had taken advantage of their shareholders and made poor, risky decisions that ultimately destroyed their corporations).
AIG, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and a string of other groups received money from the government all for the purpose of eliminating the doom to come from their insolvency. And although the Fed, under the authority of Ben Bernanke, was not necessarily implicated in the enactment of TARP, they made it perfectly clear to Congress that its enactment was the only means to saving the economy.
Bernanke appeared before Congress on September 24th, 2008 to offer his professional support in favor of enacting legislation for the purpose of stabilizing the economy. He concluded that "stabilization of our financial system is an essential precondition for economic recovery," and he "urge[d] the Congress to act quickly to address the grave threats to financial stability that we currently face." He was, of course, referencing the pending authorization of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. And after having spent the entire period discussing the "dire" condition of the economy and the exponential effects sure to follow had Congress pursued inaction, his voice was strongly heard and ultimately embraced.
At the time, buying up said "troubled assets" seemed the only plausible course of action. Surely, the failure of corporate behemoths like AIG, GM, and Bank of America would have wrought devastation unparalleled since the Great Depression. But this type of thinking was so short-sighted and apocalyptic that the general public actually bought into it. No one was asking where the government was getting this money from, or what was to happen two years down the road, when the immediate effects of the federal "loans" started to wear off.
And now Bernanke stands before Congress warning against excessive governmental spending, claiming that if the federal government continues on this course of consumption, the future of American economics is "insecure." How is it that he is allowed to cover his own reputation by encouraging policies blinded by the short-term and intended solely to reflect positively on his tenure?
It is without reservation that I condemn the actions of Ben Bernanke, and as such, the Federal Reserve itself. After encouraging expansionary fiscal policy on part of Congress while simultaneously denouncing its unchecked federal spending, on top of artificially inflating the economy to ward off the impending crash that we saw in 2008 and passing the blame to "selfish" corporate giants, it is evident that if anyone is to bear regulatory oversight, it is not the companies pitted at the core of the economic meltdown, it is the Federal Reserve itself.
Friday, September 10, 2010
From the Wise Words of Milton Friedman
No single person sums up my beliefs quite so well as the late Milton Friedman. And after listening to Obama's most recent press conference (September 10th, 2010), it has become increasingly clear that this man neither believes in freedom, nor understands the concept.
As Milton Friedman so eloquently pronounced, "a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that groups think they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
When asked point-blank why government officials were avoiding the word "stimulus" in describing recent and future efforts to artificially inflate the economy, Obama pranced around the issue for a while before announcing his fervent declaration that "everything we've been trying to do is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy. I mean, that's our entire agenda. So I have no problem with people saying the President is trying to stimulate growth and hiring. Isn't that what I should be doing?"
Interesting question, Mr. President. Easier answer, though - NO! Since when does the executive have the power to levy governmental spending for the purpose of "stimulating" growth? And further, who gave the Federal government jurisdiction over private sector spending? The citizens of the United States should file suit over embezzlement - manipulating assets vested in their trust to serve us that are instead being used to "stimulate" growth for a select few - especially considering that said stimulation has not been shown to be effective! If anything, it is detrimental to not only long-term productivity, but also American freedom in general.
The entire press conference proved only one thing; Obama is truly misinformed in both his role as Chief Executive and the boundaries of interest of federal government. His pride must be tempered with his desire to help the American populace - a feat I truly believe he is trying to accomplish. But bolding reasserting failed policies in fact constitutes the definition of insanity.
As Milton Friedman so eloquently pronounced, "a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that groups think they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
When asked point-blank why government officials were avoiding the word "stimulus" in describing recent and future efforts to artificially inflate the economy, Obama pranced around the issue for a while before announcing his fervent declaration that "everything we've been trying to do is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy. I mean, that's our entire agenda. So I have no problem with people saying the President is trying to stimulate growth and hiring. Isn't that what I should be doing?"
Interesting question, Mr. President. Easier answer, though - NO! Since when does the executive have the power to levy governmental spending for the purpose of "stimulating" growth? And further, who gave the Federal government jurisdiction over private sector spending? The citizens of the United States should file suit over embezzlement - manipulating assets vested in their trust to serve us that are instead being used to "stimulate" growth for a select few - especially considering that said stimulation has not been shown to be effective! If anything, it is detrimental to not only long-term productivity, but also American freedom in general.
The entire press conference proved only one thing; Obama is truly misinformed in both his role as Chief Executive and the boundaries of interest of federal government. His pride must be tempered with his desire to help the American populace - a feat I truly believe he is trying to accomplish. But bolding reasserting failed policies in fact constitutes the definition of insanity.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Recession, Recession - Please Go Away!
Since December of 2007, the United States of America has been in a - brace yourself - declared Recession. We often hear this word thrown around, scattered in our newspapers and cleverly evaded by our Representatives - even facetiously employed as the proverbial "butt" of Jon Stewart's jokes.
Any school age child could tell you that we are suffering harsh economic times - but what they cannot tell you is why.
In fact, many political pundits could not even tell you what exactly a "recession" entails. Believe it or not, there is a legal definition constituting the rather simplistic component(s): a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. All that flowering nonsense about high unemployment rates, a decline in the stock market, and diminished interest rates are actually what accompany the initial drop in GDP. Persisting long enough, a recession will become a depression.
The troubles American car industry suffered in the past few years is a sufficient analogy to our general economy. Ford, for example, experienced a stark decrease in sales, shrinking profits, and accumulating debt - not unsimilar to the more general and all-encompassing national economic retractions. To marginalize the debt, employees were laid off and salaries were cut - again, just as occurred in the mainstream.
Without the "help" of federal dollars, Ford put out a fiscal report this month indicating earnings of $2.6 billion in the second quarter, with the expectation of further profits. In fact, they predict that by the end of next year, their profits will surpass their debt.
This is the 5th consecutive profitable quarter for the Ford Motor Company - a feat hardly imaginable two years prior. And while debt has surely accumulated, the company is working towards quickly paying it off.
Our federal government (and the Federal Reserve) could take a lesson from this example. Debt is not erased by more debt - it is eliminated through profits. I think it would go too far to assume that the US is bankrupt; but it is certainly headed in that direction. Spending will not, and obviously has not, set our economy back on the path to profitability. If you want to spend money, you have to have money. And the federal government has NONE. In fact, they have less than none - about $10 trillion less, in fact.
But then again, if I had hundreds of millions of blind minions paying my bills, I guess I might just increase their debt to pay for mine...
Don't forget that the largest source of revenue for the US Federal Government is your pocket. Saving is the only solution to this mess of a debt we've gotten ourselves into.
Any school age child could tell you that we are suffering harsh economic times - but what they cannot tell you is why.
In fact, many political pundits could not even tell you what exactly a "recession" entails. Believe it or not, there is a legal definition constituting the rather simplistic component(s): a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. All that flowering nonsense about high unemployment rates, a decline in the stock market, and diminished interest rates are actually what accompany the initial drop in GDP. Persisting long enough, a recession will become a depression.
The troubles American car industry suffered in the past few years is a sufficient analogy to our general economy. Ford, for example, experienced a stark decrease in sales, shrinking profits, and accumulating debt - not unsimilar to the more general and all-encompassing national economic retractions. To marginalize the debt, employees were laid off and salaries were cut - again, just as occurred in the mainstream.
Without the "help" of federal dollars, Ford put out a fiscal report this month indicating earnings of $2.6 billion in the second quarter, with the expectation of further profits. In fact, they predict that by the end of next year, their profits will surpass their debt.
This is the 5th consecutive profitable quarter for the Ford Motor Company - a feat hardly imaginable two years prior. And while debt has surely accumulated, the company is working towards quickly paying it off.
Our federal government (and the Federal Reserve) could take a lesson from this example. Debt is not erased by more debt - it is eliminated through profits. I think it would go too far to assume that the US is bankrupt; but it is certainly headed in that direction. Spending will not, and obviously has not, set our economy back on the path to profitability. If you want to spend money, you have to have money. And the federal government has NONE. In fact, they have less than none - about $10 trillion less, in fact.
But then again, if I had hundreds of millions of blind minions paying my bills, I guess I might just increase their debt to pay for mine...
Don't forget that the largest source of revenue for the US Federal Government is your pocket. Saving is the only solution to this mess of a debt we've gotten ourselves into.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Cato Institute Has Got it Just Right
Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute outlines the broken promises of our "generous" federal government in this piece published by the New York Post today. Finer words can not have been said on the subject, so here is the direct link:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11998
Happy reading!
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11998
Happy reading!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
So the Tea Party is Now Racist??
Recent attempts at discouraging the muster of the ever-growing Tea Party have only shone a light on how misdirected efforts by the opposition to weaken its credibility are not only outlandish, but they've also failed.
While I personally do not agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party platform, I can appreciate the general movement towards classic liberalism as the first step in a trend for limiting government. Many otherwise disillusioned political activists have been able to form something that is exciting people back into the spirit of our former, more democratic days.
Now, the NAACP has branded the organization as racist - tolerant of bigotry and discrimination. How can they possibly claim such an idea?? Because the Tea Party dispels that certain individuals should have special rights?? Because they outline that government lacks the right to favor one group over another?
Rand Paul ran into trouble of this sort when he claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated certain aspects of the Constitution, including freedom of speech. Rather than allowing for the possibility of accepting his reasoning, the press immediately labeled him a racist.
Had they listened to his defense, they would have (hopefully) understood that the separation between private and public enterprise is the most important factor in any realm of this seemingly complex debate. For a government agency to deny that black people be allowed into their office building is an entirely different debate from a private restaurant refusing service to a table of Middle Easterners. Rand Paul was simply pointing out the fact that regardless of how he himself feels about such type of discrimination, the right to free speech is always more important.
And who is to say he is wrong? That he can acknowledge a hierarchy of rights does not mean that he is somehow less democratic - it means he has his priorities just right.
And plus, the fact that he is skeptical as to whether government can or cannot legally prohibit racism is not sufficient evidence that he himself is a racist.
And the same applies to the Tea Party.
All in all, another failed attempt to bring down the pro-liberty movement. What is so hard to accept about this way of thinking anyways? Is it the lower taxes? The lack of governmental intrusion in your personal life? The desire for peace??
I guess some people are inclined to let others take care of them. Me? I've always been a believer in self-reliability and personal efficacy. After all, who knows you better than yourself?
While I personally do not agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party platform, I can appreciate the general movement towards classic liberalism as the first step in a trend for limiting government. Many otherwise disillusioned political activists have been able to form something that is exciting people back into the spirit of our former, more democratic days.
Now, the NAACP has branded the organization as racist - tolerant of bigotry and discrimination. How can they possibly claim such an idea?? Because the Tea Party dispels that certain individuals should have special rights?? Because they outline that government lacks the right to favor one group over another?
Rand Paul ran into trouble of this sort when he claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated certain aspects of the Constitution, including freedom of speech. Rather than allowing for the possibility of accepting his reasoning, the press immediately labeled him a racist.
Had they listened to his defense, they would have (hopefully) understood that the separation between private and public enterprise is the most important factor in any realm of this seemingly complex debate. For a government agency to deny that black people be allowed into their office building is an entirely different debate from a private restaurant refusing service to a table of Middle Easterners. Rand Paul was simply pointing out the fact that regardless of how he himself feels about such type of discrimination, the right to free speech is always more important.
And who is to say he is wrong? That he can acknowledge a hierarchy of rights does not mean that he is somehow less democratic - it means he has his priorities just right.
And plus, the fact that he is skeptical as to whether government can or cannot legally prohibit racism is not sufficient evidence that he himself is a racist.
And the same applies to the Tea Party.
All in all, another failed attempt to bring down the pro-liberty movement. What is so hard to accept about this way of thinking anyways? Is it the lower taxes? The lack of governmental intrusion in your personal life? The desire for peace??
I guess some people are inclined to let others take care of them. Me? I've always been a believer in self-reliability and personal efficacy. After all, who knows you better than yourself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
