Zenconomics

Why Politics Fail

excerpt from The Left, the Right, and the State by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. :

The logic of the market is predicated on the pervasive and glorious inequality of man. No two people have the same scales of values, talents, or ambitions. It is this radical inequality, and the freedom to choose our own lot in life, that makes possible the division of labor and exchange. Through money and contracts, markets allow us to settle differences to our mutual advantage. The result—and here is why people call the market miraculous—is a vast, productive system of international cooperation that meets an incomprehensibly huge range of human needs, and finds a special role for everyone to participate in building prosperity.

Now, to politics. The system of voting is designed to replicate the market’s participatory features. In fact, it is a perverse distortion of the market system. In markets, you get the goods you pay for. If you don’t and there’s been a violation of contract, you have legal recourse. In voting, people are not actually purchasing anything but the politician’s word, which is not only legally worthless; he has every incentive to lie to produce the desired result.

Politics take no account of individuals. You and I are merely tiny specks on the vast blob called “the American people,” and what this blob “thinks” is only relevant insofar as it accords with a political agenda advantageous to the state and its friends.

You think you are voting for tax cuts. Instead you get secret tax increases and perpetual increases in spending. You think you are voting for smaller government. Instead you get ever more government intrusion. This is because it is not the voters who are managing the system. It is well-organized interest groups who feed at the trough managed and owned by the state. Thus there is a vast gulf that separates the average voter from the politician’s real day-to-day interests.

The spectacle of elections grows more absurd every year. We are asked to cast ballots for people we do not know because they make promises they are under no obligation to keep. What’s even worse, the voting gesture is pointless on the margin. The chances that any one vote (meaning your vote) will actually have an impact are so infinitesimally small as to be meaningless.

In markets, entrepreneurial talent means the ability to anticipate and serve the needs of the buying public. In politics, success means the ability to manipulate public opinion so that enough fools (so regarded by politicians) reaffirm the politician’s power and glory. It takes special talents to do this—talents not cultivated in good families.

If American politics were characterized solely by voting and the products of voting, the system would be loathsome enough. And yet the corruption runs deeper. The real power behind Leviathan is wielded by a vast, unelected army of bureaucrats who fancy themselves specialists in the pseudoscience of public policy. In their minds, the only role for the citizenry, treated as a homogenous blob, is to conform or suffer the consequences. Gone are the cooperation, peace, and genuine diversity of markets. Instead, we experience brute force.

Intellectuals specialize in dreaming up grandiose tasks for government that would be doomed to fail even if perfectly implemented. And yet the most obvious criticism of all government schemes is that they must all be mediated by this corrupt system called politics.

How different is this system from the one envisioned by people like Patrick Henry and George Mason? They hoped to erect a wall of separation between society and government to protect the people from being manipulated by cunning political forces. Indeed, the best of the American revolutionaries hoped for a society free of politics, a society free of any visible signs of government. Albert Jay Nock was right to characterize the state, democratic or not, as a parasite on society. Like a plague bacillus, its only successes are from its own point of view.

Antibiotics and the Aware Parent

by Claudia Anrig, D.C. – ICPA.org:

Acute Otitis Media is the most common upper respiratory condition treated in pediatric offices and the treatment of this condition continues to be the most controversial in the medical community.

The majority of children suffering from Acute Otitis Media will automatically be placed on antibiotics despite growing evidence that suggests there’s only a marginal benefit from this form of care.

The pediatric community is being confronted primarily by mounting evidence that the standard use of antibiotics may be an outdated practice with little value and what appears to be greater risk to the child.

When prescribing antibiotics for your child your pediatrician should be willing to answer the question, “Does this case warrant a prescription”?

Let’s consider an observation published recently by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians:

“Each course of antibiotics given to a child can make future infections more difficult to treat. The result is an increase in the use of a larger range of—and generally more expensive— antibiotics. In addition, the benefit of antibiotics for Acute Otitis Media is small on average and must be balanced against potential harm of therapy. About 15 percent of children who take antibiotics suffer from diarrhea or vomiting and up to 5 percent have allergic reactions, which can be serious or life threatening. The average preschooler carries around 1 to 2 pounds of bacteria – about 5 percent of his or her body weight. These bacteria have 3.5 billion years of experience in resisting and surviving environmental challenges. Resistant bacteria in a child can be passed to siblings, other family members, neighbors, and peers in group-care or school settings.”

Scientific Evidence

Scientific evidence puts forth the following information:

• Children with high temperature or vomiting improved after an average of three days.

• Children with high temperature or vomiting were likely to benefit from antibiotics, although it’s still reasonable to wait 24 to 48 hours since many children will improve when left to their body’s own natural defenses.

• Children without high temperature or vomiting were not expected to benefit from immediate antibiotics.

Considering this information it’s best to take an option to observe stance since 80 percent of children with Acute Otitis Media get better without antibiotics within 48 to 72 hours.

With this scientific evidence mounting, ask yourself a few questions:

Will my pediatrician continue to prescribe antibiotics to my child based on his or her old programming and habits despite growing evidence that suggests antibiotics make little difference?

Does my pediatrician continue to have concerns that there’s a risk for dangerous complications, such as Acute Mastoiditis, despite the fact that it’s documented as a “rare occurrence”

As a parent, what do you need to know?

• That there is mounting evidence from the research community that the use of antibiotics has very little effect on Acute Otitis Media.

• That your doctor may be prescribing antibiotics based on old habits or the concern of developing acute mastoiditis, which has proven to be rare.

• That when delaying the use of antibiotics for 72 hours, even if your child is suffering from fever and vomiting, 50 percent of all children improve within that time period.

• That children with Acute Otitis Media but without fever and vomiting receive very little benefit from the use of antibiotics (this child should not begin antibiotics unless their condition worsens).

• It’s your child and you can take the initiative by asking your pediatrician to consider waiting 72 hours before introducing the antibiotic.

Prevention is the Key

New guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend that the clinician take an active role in preventing Acute Otitis Media. A few suggestions included:

• Altering child care center attendance • Breastfeeding for the first 6 months • Avoid supine bottle-feeding (bottle propping) • Reduce or eliminate pacifier in the second six months of life • Eliminate exposure to passive smoke

A Healthy Alternative

Take the common sense approach to otitis media and consider chiropractic care. The Fallon study with 332 participating children suggests that chiropractic care may be more effective than drug therapy.

Be aware that your chiropractor is not opposed to antibiotics when necessary, but the chiropractic profession acknowledges that over usage is prevalent in our country and that the habits of medical doctors may not have caught up with the latest research.

A Final Thought

For the overall wellness of your child, participate in all decisions when it comes to the usage of antibiotics and seek other non-invasive forms of care. Remember, it’s your child and you have a say in his or her care. Most importantly, initiate healthy lifestyle choices for your family and include regular chiropractic care as part of your family’s achievement towards wellness.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

The True Cost of the Homeownership Obsession

by Ryan McMaken

Article originally published in the February issue of BankNotes.

In 2014, the US homeownership rate fell below 65 percent, which means it’s back to where it was during the 1970s and much of the 1990s. Various federal agencies have long made homeownership a priority, and have introduced a bevy of government and quasi-government programs including the GSEs like Fannie Mae, FHA-insured loans, VA-insured loans, the Bush administration’s “American Dream Downpayment Initiative” and, of course central bank meddling to keep interest rates nice and low for the mortgage markets.

And for all their efforts, all the inflation, and all the taxpayer-funded subsidies poured into bailouts, we have a homeownership rate at where it was forty years ago. During the housing boom, though, homeownership rates climbed to unprecedented levels, cracking 70 percent or more in many parts of the country. When the boom in homeownership came to an end, it was not a painless matter of people selling their homes. It was a very costly readjustment process, and it was something that would have been completely unnecessary and would never have happened to the degree it did without the interference of Congress, the central bank, and the easy-money
induced boom they engineered.

The American Dream = Homeownership

Homeownership rates have never been an indicator of economic prosperity. Switzerland, for example, has a homeownership rate half of the US rate. Nevertheless, raising the homeownership rate has long been a pet project of politicians in Washington. Nevertheless, the political obsession with raising homeownership rates dates back to the New Deal when Roosevelt began introducing a variety of homeownership programs designed to drive down the percentage of households that were renting their homes. Based on romantic ideas of frontier homesteading, it was assumed that owning a house was the only truly American way of living. It was during this time that the thirty-year mortgage — an artifact of government intervention — became a fixture of the mortgage landscape. And homeownership rates did indeed increase. And with it, debt loads increased as well.

By the 1990s, central-bank engineered low interest rates propelled mortgage debt loads to awe inspiring new levels, and houses kept getting bigger as families got smaller. Government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac kept the liquidity flowing and home equity lines of credit turned houses into sources of income.

From 2002 to 2007, those of us who worked in or around the mortgage industry were amazed at just how easy it was to get a loan even with a very sketchy credit history and unreliable income. Only token down payments were necessary. Many of these less-than-impressive borrowers bought multiple houses. Behind all of it was the Federal government and the Fed forever repeating the mantra of more homeownership, lower interest rates, more mortgages, and rising home prices. The rising homeownership levels were for the populists. The rising home prices were for the bankers and the existing homeowners.

A Housing-Related Employment Bubble

The housing bubble became the gift that seemingly never stopped giving because with all this home buying came millions of new jobs in real estate, construction, and home mortgages. Seemingly everyone looked to real estate as a source of easy money. The bag boy at your local grocery store was selling condos on the side, and everyone seemed to be selling new home loans. Home builders couldn’t keep up with the orders and contractors had six-week waiting lists.

We know how that all ended. The foreclosure rate doubled from 2002 to 2010. Implied government backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became explicit government backing, and numerous too-big-to-fail banks which had invested in home mortgages were bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Some lenders like Countrywide and Indymac essentially went out of business, and all lenders (including many who were not bailed out) faced costs ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 per foreclosure in lost revenue, legal fees, and other costs. Foreclosures begat foreclosures as foreclosure-dense neighborhoods were most prone to price drops, leading to negative equity, which in turn led to even more foreclosures. Ironically, the most responsible borrowers — the ones who made sizable down payments and reliably made payments, and thus had more skin in the game — were the ones who suffered the most and who had the most to lose by simply walking away from their homes.

Real estate agents, loan industry professionals, construction workers, and others who relied on the home purchase industry lost their jobs and had to spend time and money on retraining in completely new industries. Or they were simply among the millions who collected unemployment checks and food stamps supplied by those who still had jobs

Was the Bubble Worth It?

And for what? The opportunity cost of it all was immense and during the bubble years, total workers in housing-related employment ballooned to 7.4 million, many of whom were fooled by the bubble into
thinking the home-sales industry was a good long-term career. To get these jobs they spent many hours and thousands of dollars on certification, training, and job experience. After the bubble popped, three million of those jobs disappeared. From 2001 to 2006, employment in the mortgage industry increased by 119 percent, only to have most of those jobs disappear from 2006 to 2009.

Now, there will always be people who make bad career decisions, and there will always be frictional unemployment, but without the housing bubble and the myriad of federal programs and central bank pumping behind it, would millions of workers have flooded into these industries knowing that most of them would be unemployable in that same industry only a few years later? That seems unlikely.

Moreover, might we be better off today if those same people, many of whom were very talented, had invested their time and money into other fields and other endeavors? What businesses were never opened and what products were never made because so many flocked to the housing sector? We’ll never know. Thanks to the government’s relentless drive for more homeownership and ever-increasing home prices, millions of workers concluded that real-estate jobs were the best bet in the modern economy. They thought this because investors chasing yield in a low-interest-rate environment were pouring their money into owner-occupant housing in response to government guarantees on single-family loans and easy money for mortgage lending. The people were promised more homeownership, but after just a few years, it has become clear they didn’t get it. At the same time, Wall Street was promised high home prices, and when the prices faltered, it was offered bailouts instead. Wall Street got its bailouts.

The cost of the housing bubble is often calculated in dollar amounts that can easily be counted on Wall Street, but for those who aren’t politically well-connected — for ordinary workers, homeowners, construction firms, and many others — the cost in time and lost opportunities will forever remain among the many unseen costs of government intervention.

Please see the February issue of BankNotes for the original article and others like it.

The American Medical Association Restricts Medical Care

excerpt from The Left, the Right, and the State by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.:

Restricting the supply of medical care has a long history. Hippocrates built a thriving medical center on the Greek island of Cos in the fourth century B.C., and taught any student who could pay the tuition. But when the great man died, there was fierce competition for students and patients, and the doctors sought to cartelize the system with the Hippocratic Oath.

The oath pledged devoted care to the sick, but also that “I will hand on” my “learning to my sons, to those of my teachers, and to those pupils duly apprenticed and sworn, and to none others.”

In the modern world, England’s Royal College of Physicians (RCP)—a state-approved licensing agency—has long been the model medical monopoly, exercising iron control over its members’ economic conduct. But this guild-like system wasn’t salable in laissez-faire America.

In 1765, John Morgan tried to start an intercolonial medical licensing agency in Philadelphia, based on the RCP. He failed, thanks to bitter infighting among the doctors, but did begin the first American medical school, where he established the “regular mode of practice” as the dominant orthodoxy. Those who innovated were to be punished.

After the Revolution, said historian Jeffrey Lionel Berlant, “a license amounted to little more than a honorific title.” In Connecticut and Massachusetts, for example, unlicensed practitioners were prohibited only from suing for fees. And in the free market 1830s, one state after another repealed penalties against unlicensed practice.

By the mid-nineteenth century, there were virtually no government barriers to entry. As economist Reuben A. Kessel noted, “Medical schools were easy to start, easy to get into, and provided, as might be expected in a free market, a varied menu of medical training that covered the complete quality spectrum.” Many were “organized as profit-making institutions,” and some “were owned by the faculty.”

From time to time, doctors attempted to issue tables of approved fees—with price-cutting called unprofessional—but they failed, because price-fixing cannot long survive in a competitive environment.

Organized medicine’s lobbying against new doctors and new therapies began to be effective in the middle of the century, however. The official reason was the need to battle “quackery.” But as historian Ronald Hamowy has demonstrated in his study of state medical society journals, doctors were actually worried about competition lowering their incomes.

The American Medical Association (AMA) was formed in 1847 to raise doctors’ incomes. Nothing wrong with that, if it had sought to do it through the market. Instead, its strategy, designed by Nathan Smith Davis, was the establishment of state licensing boards run by medical societies. He attacked medical school owners and professors who “swell” the number of “successful candidates” for “pecuniary gain,” fueled by the “competition of rival institutions.” These men advance “their own personal interests in direct collision” with “their regard for the honor and welfare of the profession to which they belong.” The answer? “A board of examination, to sit in judgment” to restrict entry and competition, which he did not point out could only have a pecuniary motive.

As philosopher William James told the Massachusetts legislature in 1898: “our orthodox medical brethren” exhibit “the fiercely partisan attitude of a powerful trade union, they demand legislation against the competition of the ‘scabs.’” And by 1900, every state had strict medical licensure laws.

The Flexner Report of 1910 further restricted entry into the profession, as legislatures closed non-AMA-approved medical schools. In 1906, there were 163 medical schools; in 1920, 85; in 1930, 76; and in 1944, 69. The relative number of physicians dropped 25 percent, but American Medical Association membership zoomed almost 900 percent.

During the great depression, as Milton Friedman notes, the American Medical Association ordered the remaining medical schools to admit fewer students, and every school followed instructions. If they didn’t, they risked losing their AMA accreditation.

Today, with increasing government intervention in medicine — often at the AMA’s behest— the organization exercises somewhat less direct policy control. But it still has tremendous influence on hospitals, medical schools, and licensing boards.

It limits the number of medical schools, and admission to them, and makes sure the right to practice is legally restricted. The two are linked: to get a license, one must graduate from an AMA-approved program. And there is a related AMA effort to stop the immigration of foreign physicians. The American Medical Association also limits the number of hospitals certified for internships, and licensure boards will accept only AMA-approved internships.

The licensure boards—who invariably represent medical societies—can revoke licenses for a variety of reasons, including “unprofessional conduct,” a term undefined in law. In the past, it has included such practices as price advertising.

Medical licensure is a grant of government privilege. Like all such interventions, it harms consumers and would-be competitors. It is a cartelizing device incompatible with the free market. It ought to be abolished.

Personal Secession: Ideas for Opting Out

by Jeff Deist – Mises Daily:

So in closing, let me make a few humble suggestions for beginning a journey of personal secession. Not all of these may apply to your personal circumstances; no one but you can decide what’s best for you and your family. But all of us can play a role in a bottom-up revolution by doing everything in our power to withdraw our consent from the state:

• Secede from intellectual isolation. Talk to like-minded friends, family, and neighbors — whether physically or virtually — to spread liberty and cultivate relationships and alliances. The state prefers to have us atomized, without a strong family structure or social network;

• Secede from dependency. Become as self-sufficient as possible with regard to food, water, fuel, cash, firearms, and physical security at home. Resist being reliant on government in the event of a natural disaster, bank crisis, or the like;

• Secede from mainstream media, which promotes the state in a million different ways. Ditch cable, ditch CNN, ditch the major newspapers, and find your own sources of information in this internet age. Take advantage of a luxury previous generations did not enjoy;

• Secede from state control of your children by homeschooling or unschooling them;

• Secede from college by rejecting mainstream academia and its student loan trap. Educate yourself using online learning platforms, obtaining technical credentials, or simply by reading as much as you can;

• Secede from the US dollar by owning physical precious metals, by owning assets denominated in foreign currencies, and by owning assets abroad;

• Secede from the federal tax and regulatory regimes by organizing your business and personal affairs to be as tax efficient and unobtrusive as possible;

• Secede from the legal system, by legally protecting your assets from rapacious lawsuits and probate courts as much as possible;

• Secede from the state healthcare racket by taking control of your health, and questioning medical orthodoxy;

• Secede from your state by moving to another with a better tax and regulatory environment, better homeschooling laws, better gun laws, or just one with more liberty-minded people;

• Secede from political uncertainly in the US by obtaining a second passport;

• Secede from the US altogether by expatriating.

• Most of all, secede from the mindset that government is all-powerful or too formidable an opponent to be overcome. The state is nothing more than Bastiat’s great fiction, or Murray’s gang of thieves writ large. Let’s not give it the power to make us unhappy or pessimistic.

All of us, regardless of ideological bent and regardless of whether we know it or not, are married to a very violent, abusive spendthrift. It’s time, ladies and gentlemen, to get a divorce from DC.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

<br />

Children May Not Need Antibiotics for Acute Infective Conjunctivitis

by Pathways Magazine – ICPA.org:

Antibiotics are not necessary for most children with acute infective conjunctivitis, according to the results of a randomized, double-blind trial published in the June 22 Early Online Publication issue of The Lancet.

“We have shown that symptoms resolve without antibiotics in most children with acute infective conjunctivitis,” lead author Peter W. Rose, from the University of Oxford, England, said in a news release. “The health economic argument against antibiotic prescription for acute conjunctivitis is compelling.”

The authors note that each year, one in eight schoolchildren has an episode of acute infective conjunctivitis annually, and that standard clinical practice is to prescribe a topical antibiotic. However, there is little evidence to support this practice.

“Parents should be encouraged to cleanse their children’s eyes if an antibiotic is not prescribed,” the authors conclude. “Parents should be encouraged to treat children themselves without medical consultation, unless their child develops unusual symptoms or the symptoms persist for more than a week.”

1 in 8 schoolchildren has an episode of acute infective conjunctivitis annually, and that standard clinical practice is to prescribe a topical antibiotic. However, there is little evidence to support this practice.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Central Banks Perpetuate Boom-Bust Cycles

excerpt from High Alert: How the Internet Reformation is causing a financial hurricane – and how to profit from it:

Central Banks Protect Private Banks from the Market

To prevent such a breakdown, the supply of the paper money must be managed. The main purpose of managing the supply is to prevent various competing banks from overissuing paper certificates and from bankrupting each other. This can be achieved by establishing a monopoly bank, i.e., a central bank-that manages the expansion of paper money.

To assert its authority, the central bank introduces its paper certificates, which replace the certificates of various banks. (The central bank’s money purchasing power is established on account of the fact that various paper certificates, which carry purchasing power, are exchanged for the central bank money at a fixed rate. In short, the central bank paper certificates are fully backed by banks’ certificates, which have a historical link to gold.)

The central bank paper money, which is declared as the legal tender, also serves as a reserve asset for banks. This enables the central bank to set a limit on the credit expansion by the banking system. Note that through ongoing monetary management, i.e., monetary pumping, the central bank makes sure that all the banks can engage jointly in the expansion of credit out of “thin air” via the practice of fractional reserve banking. The joint expansion in turn guarantees that checks presented for redemption by banks to each other are netted out, because the redemption of each will cancel the other redemption out. In short, by means of monetary injections, the central bank makes sure that the banking system is “liquid enough” so that banks will not bankrupt each other.

Central Banks Take Over Where Inflationist Private Banks Left Off

It would appear that the central bank can manage and stabilize the monetary system. The truth, however, is the exact opposite. To manage the system, the central bank must constantly create money “out of thin air” to prevent banks from bankrupting each other. This leads to persistent declines in money’s purchasing power, which destabilizes the entire monetary system.

Observe that while, in the free market, people will not accept a commodity as money if its purchasing power is subject to a persistent decline. In the present environment, however, central authorities make it impractical to use any currency other than dollars even if suffering from a steady decline in its purchasing power.

In this environment, the central bank can keep the present paper standard going as long as the pool of real wealth is still expanding. Once the pool begins to stagnate — or, worse, shrinks — then no monetary pumping will be able to prevent the plunge of the system. A better solution is of course to have a true free market and allow commodity money to assert its monetary role.

The Boom-Bust Connection

As opposed to the present monetary system in the framework of a commodity-money standard, money cannot disappear and set in motion the menace of the boom-bust cycles. In fractional reserve banking, when money is repaid and the bank doesn’t renew the loan, money evaporates (leading to a bust). Because the loan has originated out of nothing, it obviously couldn’t have had an owner. In a free market, in contrast, when true commodity money is repaid, it is passed back to the original lender; the money stock stays intact.

Treating an Ear Infection

by Joseph Mercola, DO – ICPA.org:

I know antibiotics are not good for my baby, but what do I do if he gets an ear infection?

Avoid dairy. Identify food allergens. Try this safe, economical solution!

The treatment of ear infections in this country is a huge problem. Most of the chronically sick children I see were given antibiotics frequently for recurrent ear infections. The sad tragedy is that nearly all of these are preventable by simply changing the diet. Avoiding milk and dairy is the single largest issue, but clearly other food allergens contribute.

Even with the best diets though a child may get an ear infection. This does not mean that the child needs antibiotics. The simple solution is to put a few drops of breast milk in the ear canal every few hours. This usually works to clear up the infection within 24–48 hours and is far safer, less expensive and a better solution than putting the child on antibiotics. If the mother is not breastfeeding, it is likely she knows someone who is. All that is required for the treatment is about one half ounce of breast milk, so obtaining that from a friend will work just as well.

If you know someone who has a child with ear infections please share this article. You may make a huge impact on the future health of that child.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

The Current Financial System is Terminal

excerpt from High Alert: How the Internet Reformation is causing a financial hurricane – and how to profit from it:

Despite the talk of rosy numbers, of deficits coming down and jobs being created, citizens of the West, especially in the US, face an uncertain outlook and a challenging future. Many Americans live from paycheck to paycheck — highly leveraged and bereft of any honest money. They are overwhelmingly exposed to whatever it is that those who are the most powerful believe appropriate or profitable to themselves in the sociopolitical or economic arena.

The current financial system is not salvageable. It is entropic, prone to decay. Central banks have to print more and more money to keep up with the spending of the politicians who, in turn, spend more and more to buy the favor of increasingly disaffected voters. Fiat money devalues more and more quickly, and the printing presses run day and night. Prosperity is just around the corner but never arrives and, in fact, recedes despite official pronouncements to the contrary.

The productivity isn’t there any longer, yet in the USA, certainly more than Europe as of this writing, the average household is loaded to the eyeballs in debt and is still urged to take on more. Why? Because foreign buyers continue to purchase American debt, allowing US citizens, even if they don’t know it, to fund their lifestyles at least in part with overseas loans. Who could blame the Chinese for trying to unload some of its dollar reserves by buying resource companies that help to ensure they have enough control over their own productive destiny?

As the currency devalues, the US middle class will be squeezed even harder. The public sector will continue to swell, just as it has overseas. The money and credit in the system continue to expand until the volume simply can’t be contained by economic activity. It becomes overwhelming — triggering hyperinflation and sweeping revaluations. Today, this very scenario is taking place — and tomorrow, as the financial hurricane bears down, it will be even worse.

Again, these results are predictable. Anyone who studies money knows how government fiat-money systems end up. History tells us they always collapse. And we are facing a collapse now.

The Wait and See Prescription – Avoiding Antibiotics

by Darrel Crain, DC – ICPA.org:

Earaches bring more unhappy children to emergency rooms and pediatric offices each year than just about any other health disorder. Antibiotics remain the most popular medical treatment for earache, with doctors reportedly writing 15 million prescriptions per year in the United States alone. It is estimated that at least half of the prescriptions are unnecessary and ineffective for helping this problem.

Due to the widespread overuse of antibiotics, drug-resistant germs have been reproducing as fast as frolicking rabbits, constantly evolving new levels of drug resistance. For over a decade our health leaders have been sounding the alarm to doctors to stop writing so many prescriptions for antibiotics because of growing drug resistance as well as serious health risks to the user.

“The risks of antibiotics, including gastrointestinal symptoms, allergic reactions, and accelerated resistance to bacterial pathogens must be weighed against their benefits for an illness that, for the most part, is self-limited,” according to the authors of a study about earache published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in September 2006.

Antibiotics are weapons of mass destruction intended to assassinate select gangs of bad-boy bacteria. Unfortunately, most of the hardworking, honest bacteria in the body get murdered at the same time, wiping out the body’s mighty microbes that normally do important work such as digesting food and making vitamins.

The earache study published in JAMA was a test of something called the “wait-and-see prescription” to help kids with earaches. This method has apparently been tried previously, but never before in an emergency room.

Half of the 283 children in the study diagnosed with acute otitis media (AOM) were sent home with a standard prescription, the other half with the wait-and-see prescription (WASP). The only difference between the two groups was that the parents in the WASP group were told to wait at least 48 hours before filling the antibiotic prescription.

“Everything comes if a man will only wait,” Benjamin Disraeli pointed out more than 150 years ago.

An unbelievable two out of three children avoided antibiotics with this innovative wait and- see strategy. “The WASP approach substantially reduced unnecessary use of antibiotics in children with AOM seen in an emergency department and may be an alternative to routine use of antimicrobials for treatment of such children,” according to the study.

The WASP concept may well be one of the greatest advances in medical science since the discovery of hand washing. The immediate benefit will be in the fight against two very pressing medical problems, microbial drug resistance caused by widespread antibiotic use, and antibiotic-induced chronic disease. But I can imagine applications throughout the medical profession. How about “wait-and-see surgery” for example?

The WASP study is sure to be criticized because it was only an observational study, not a clinical randomized trial (CRT). The CRT is considered the gold standard in medical science, so if the only thing you have is observational and anecdotal evidence to support your clinical practice, you might as well just use the paper to line your birdcage.

Which brings us to children who visit the chiropractor’s office for their earaches… Critics of chiropractic complain that there just isn’t any science to verify the ability of the chiropractic adjustment to enhance natural healing of the ears. The fact is, a significant number of studies have been published that describe the neurology and verify the benefits of chiropractic care for children, but alas, no clinical randomized trials.

And that reminds me of the famous parachute study, published in the British Medical Journal in December of 2003. The authors of this study write, “parachutes are widely used to prevent death and major injury after gravitational challenge,” yet the placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials have never been done. I’m thinking that at this point it may be difficult to find people willing to jump from an airplane wearing a placebo parachute. It looks and feels like the real thing when you put it on, but when you pull the cord nothing happens.

“The perception that parachutes are a successful intervention is based largely on anecdotal evidence… As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomized controlled trials,” write the authors.

Now I may be wrong, but it seems to me that people seeking good health are mostly interested in getting well as quickly as they can with having to worry about additional health risks. The wait-and-see prescription is not a recommendation to just ignore health problems and hope they go away, it is simply more evidence that the watchword for medical interventions is “less is more.”

Common sense suggests that if you need to jump out of a plane while still up in the air, you might want to strap on a real parachute without waiting for the double blind studies. I agree with the authors of the JAMA study who conclude, “Individuals who insist that all interventions need to be validated by a randomized controlled trial need to come down to earth with a bump.”