Tag: austrian economics

Voluntary Exchange vs. Government Mandates

by Patrick Barron – Mises Daily:voluntary exchange

The basic unit of all economic activity is the uncoerced, free exchange of one economic good for another. Moreover, the decision to engage in exchange is based upon the ordinally ranked subjective preferences of each party to the exchange. To achieve maximum satisfaction from the exchange, each party must have full ownership and control of the good that he wishes to exchange and may dispose of his property without interference from a third party, such as government.

The exchange will take place when each party values the good to be received more than the good that he gives up. The expected — but by no means guaranteed — result is a total higher satisfaction for both parties. Any subsequent satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the exchange must accrue completely to the parties involved. The expected higher satisfaction that one or each expects may not be dependent upon harming a third party in the process.

 

Third Parties Cannot Create Value by Forcing Exchange

Several observations can be deduced from the above explanation. It is not possible for a third party to direct this exchange in order to create a more satisfactory outcome. No third party has ownership of the goods to be exchanged; therefore, no third party can hold a legitimate subjective preference upon which to base an evaluation as to the higher satisfaction to be gained. Furthermore, the higher satisfaction of any exchange cannot be quantified in any cardinal way, for each party’s subjective preference is ordinal only.

This rules out all utilitarian measurements of satisfaction upon which interventions may be based. Each exchange is an economic world unto itself. Compiling statistics of the number and dollar amounts of many exchanges is meaningless for other than historical purposes, both because the dollars involved are not representative of the preferences and satisfactions of others not involved in the exchange, and because the volume and dollar amounts of future exchanges are independent of past exchanges.

 

One Example: The Case of Ethanol

Let us examine a recent, typical exchange that violates our definition of a true exchange yet is justified by government interventionists today: subsidized, protected, and mandated use of ethanol.

The use of ethanol is coerced; i.e., the government requires its mixture into gasoline. Government does not own the ethanol, so it cannot possibly hold a valid subjective preference. The parties forced to buy ethanol actually receive some dissatisfaction. Had they desired to purchase ethanol, no mandate would have been required.

Because those engaging in the forced exchange did not desire the ethanol in the first place, including the dollar value of ethanol sales in statistics purporting to measure the societal value of goods exchanged in our economy is meaningless. Yet the government includes all mandated exchanges as a source of “value” in its own calculations.

This is just one egregious example of many such measurements that are included in our GDP statistics purporting to convince us that we have “never had it so good.”

 

Another Example: The Soviet Economy

Our flawed view that governments can improve satisfaction caused us to misjudge the military threat of the Soviet Union for decades. Our CIA placed western dollar values on Soviet production data to arrive at the conclusion that its economy was growing faster than that of the US and would surpass US GDP at some point in the not too distant future. Except for very small exceptions, all economic production resources in the Soviet Union were owned by the state. This does not necessarily mean that it was possible for the state to hold valid subjective preferences, for those who occupied important offices in the state held them at the sufferance of what can only be described as gang lords, who themselves held office very tentatively.

State ownership is not real ownership. Those in positions of power with responsibility over resources hold their offices for a given period of time and have little or no ability to pass their office on to their heirs. Thus, the resources eventually succumb to the law of the tragedy of the commons and are plundered to extinction. Nevertheless the squandering of the Soviet Union’s commonly held resources was tallied by our CIA as meeting legitimate demand.

Professor Yuri Maltsev saw first-hand the total destruction of the Soviet economy. In Requiem for Marx he gives a heartbreaking portrayal of the suffering of the Russian populace through state directed, irrational central planning that did not come close to meeting the people’s legitimate needs, while our CIA continued to crank out bogus statistics of the supposed strength of the Soviet economy upon which the Reagan administration based its unprecedented peacetime military expansion.

 

Peaceful Exchange Allowed, Violent Exchange Redressed

With the proviso that no exchange may harm another, as explained so well in Dr. Thomas Patrick Burke’s bookNo Harm: Ethical Principles for a Free Market, we are led to the conclusion that no outside agency can create greater economic satisfaction than can a free and uncoerced exchange. The statistics that support such interventions are meaningless, because they cannot reflect the satisfaction obtained from true ordinally held subjective preferences. Once this understanding is acknowledged and embraced, the consequences for the improvement of our total satisfaction are tremendous. Our economy can be unshackled from government directed economic exchanges and regulations.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

Government Loans: Risky Business for Taxpayers

by Matt Battaglioli– Mises Daily:loans

Obtaining a loan from the government now seems perfectly normal to most Americans, be the loans for education, business, healthcare, or whatever else.

Examples include Small Business Administration loans, where a potential business owner goes to the government to get startup cash, and student loans, where a college student borrows money for tuition or even living expenses. These loans can often be paid back with interest over the course of what is often several decades.

Other examples might include Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans Administration (VA), or Rural Housing Services (RHS) loans, which differ from the former in the sense that they are government insured loans, yet the fundamental principle behind them remains the same: government is taking upon itself (via taxpayers) the risk behind making the loan.

Of course, private loans are also available, though those that do not employ government insurance or other subsidies usually come with higher interest rates. The higher interest rates in the purely-private sector come from the fact that the private entity making the loan must take on all the risk, instead of externalizing it to the taxpayers.

So, the reality of lower interest rates in government and government-subsidized loans means they are vitally necessary, right?

First of all, the government doesn’t “make money,” in the way that private entities do. There is only one way in which states initially accumulate revenue, and that is through taxation. This extorted wealth is originally made in the private sector. So, in order for a government to make a loan back to the private sector, that money must first be removed from the private sector via taxation.

 

Government Knows How To Best Spend Your Money

For private entities, however, when they make a loan and determine who qualifies for it, and at what interest rate, the private firm making the loan is basically determining at what price (i.e, interest rate) the firm feels adequately compensated for the risk of lending out this money, and for giving up direct control over that money for the duration.

To claim, therefore, that the government should be in the business of making loans because private loans are generally too costly or too inaccessible for buyers, is no different than saying that government must take individual’s money and use it in a way that the original owners (i.e., the taxpayers) themselves would determine to be reckless and irresponsible. While it is true that occasionally a government loan may be paid back with interest at the appropriate time, it would be absurd to suggest that politicians would be more knowledgeable about how a person’s money should be used than the person who originally created and owned the wealth in the first place.

 

But Government Should At Least Prevent Usury, Right?

Moreover, there are those who will say that private firms making loans should be restricted from charging “excessive” interest on their loans (i.e., usury). This is an example of a very well-meaning, but utterly damaging regulation. It is crucial to note the differences in time preference displayed by both the lender and the borrower. The lender’s time preference (in this case) is lower than that of the borrower’s, meaning that the lender prefers a larger sum of money in the future, and the borrower prefers a smaller sum now. To get money now, however, the borrower must pay for it in the form of interest.

This represents a healthy balance between lenders and borrowers. It is why loans are made. Laws passed that prohibit certain interest rates on loans are far more likely to hurt those who need the loans, than anyone else. As was previously stated, a firm or person making a loan must feel compensated for the risk of making the loan, and that compensation manifests itself in the interest rate. To restrict a firm from charging a certain percentage of interest on their loans will only reduce the amount of loans it gives out.

 

Taking Away Your Choices

If a potential borrower who is determined to be a rather high risk asks for a private loan, then their interest on that loan will be quite high, but at least in that situation, the borrower has the choice of taking the loan, or to not take the loan. In the end, the borrower will choose what he or she believes will most benefit him or her. Yes, the borrower might miscalculate and the loan might turn out to have been a bad idea, but at least the borrower had a choice.

On the other hand, if the amount of interest that could be charged on the loan were to be forced down via government regulation, then the firm or person making the loan would simply not offer the loan at all, as he or she would not feel their risk is justified by the legally-allowable interest rate.

Faced with a lack of loans, risky borrowers may then look to government and government-subsidized loans as an option, but we find here just another case of government offering itself as the (taxpayer-funded) solution to a problem it caused in the first place.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

Why the Austrian Understanding of Money and Banks Is So Important

by Jörg Guido Hülsmann– Mises Daily:Money and Bank

This article is adapted from the foreword to Finance Behind the Veil of Money: An Austrian Theory of Financial Markets by Eduard Braun.

The classical economists had rejected the notion that overall monetary spending — in current jargon: aggregate demand — is a driving force of economic growth. The true causes of the wealth of nations are non-monetary factors such as the division of labor and the accumulation of capital through savings. Money comes into play as an intermediary of exchange and as a store of value. Money prices are also fundamental for business accounting and economic calculation. But money delivers all these benefits irrespective of its quantity. A small money stock provides them just as well as a bigger one. It is therefore not possible to pull a society out of poverty, or to make it more affluent, by increasing the money stock. By contrast, such objectives can be achieved through technological progress, through increased frugality, and through a greater division of labor. They can be achieved through the liberalization of trade and the encouragement of savings.

 

The Austrians Are the True Heirs of Classical Economics

For more than a century, the Austrian school of economics has almost single-handedly upheld, defended, and refined these basic contentions. Initially Carl Menger and his disciples had perceived themselves, and were perceived by others, as critics of classical economics. That “revolutionary” perception was correct to the extent that the Austrians, initially, were chiefly engaged in correcting and extending the intellectual edifice of the classics. But in retrospect we see more continuity than rupture. The Austrian school did not aim at supplanting classical economics with a completely new science. Regarding the core message of the classics, the one pertaining to the wealth of nations, they have been their intellectual heirs. They did not seek to demolish the theory of Adam Smith root and branch, but to correct its shortcomings and to develop it.

The core message of the classics is today very much out of fashion — probably just as much as at the end of the eighteenth century. As the prevailing way of economic thinking has it, monetary spending is the lubricant and engine of economic activity. Savings are held to be a plight on the social economy, the selfish luxury of the ignorant or the evil, at the expense of the rest of humanity. To promote growth and to combat economic crises, it is crucial to maintain the present level of aggregate spending, and to increase it if possible.

This prevailing theory is precisely the one refuted by Smith and his disciples. Classical economics triumphed over that theory, which Smith called “mercantilism,” but its triumph was short-lived. Starting in the 1870s, at the very moment of the appearance of the Austrian school, mercantilism started its comeback, at first slowly, but then in ever-increasing speed.1 In the 1930s it was led to triumph under the leadership of Lord Keynes.

 

How Keynesianism Destroyed Economics

Neo-mercantilism, or Keynesianism, has ravaged the foundations of our monetary system. Whereas the classical economists and their intellectual heirs had tried to reduce the monetary role of the state as much as possible, even to the point of privatizing the production of money, the Keynesians set out to bring it under full government control. Most importantly, they sought to replace free-market commodity monies such as silver and gold with fiat money. As we know, these endeavors have been successful. Since 1971 the entire world economy has been on a fiat standard.

But Keynesianism has also vitiated economic thought. For the past sixty years, it has dominated the universities of the western world, at first under the names of “the new economics” or of Keynesianism, and then without any specific name, since it is pointless to single out and name a theory on which seemingly everyone agrees.

 

The Key Importance of Money and Banking

No other area has been more affected by this counter-revolution than the theory of banking and finance. It was but a small step from the notion that increases in aggregate demand tend to have, on the whole, salutary economic effects, to the related notion that the growth of financial markets — aka “financial deepening” — generally tends to spur economic growth.2 Whereas the classical tradition had stressed that “financing” an economy meant providing it with the real goods required to sustain human labor during the production process (which was called the wage fund respectively the subsistence fund), the Keynesian counter-revolution deflected attention from his real foundation of finance. In the eyes of these protagonists, finance was beneficial to the extent — and only to the extent — that it facilitated the creation and spending of money. Financial intermediation was useful because it prevented that savings remained dormant in idle money hoards. But finance could do much more to maintain and increase aggregate demand. It could most notably rely on the ex nihilo creation of credit through commercial banks and central banks. It provided monetary authorities with new tools to manage inflation expectations, for example, through the derivatives markets. And financial innovation was likely to create ever new opportunities for recalcitrant money hoarders to finally spend their cash balances on attractive “financial products.”

The youthful and boastful neo-mercantilist movement of the 1930s and the early post-war period did not bother to refute the classical conceptions in any detail. The theory of the wage fund was brushed aside, rather than carefully analyzed and criticized, just as Keynes had brushed aside Say’s Law without even making the attempt to dissect it.3 As a consequence, the foundations of the theory of finance have remained in an unsatisfactory state for many decades. A newer vision of finance had supplanted the older one. But was the latter without merit? The new theory appeared to be new. But was it true?

Finance Behind the Veil of Money is one of the very first modern discussions that try to come to grips with these basic questions. Steeped in the tradition of the Austrian school, Dr. Eduard Braun delivers a sweeping and original essay on the foundations of finance. Relying on sources in three languages, and delving deep into the history of capital theory — most notably the neglected German-language literature of the 1920s and 1930s — his work sheds new light on a great variety of topics, in particular, on the history of the subsistence-fund theory, on the relation between monetary theory and capital theory, on economics and business accounting, on price theory and interest theory, on financial markets, on business cycle theory, and on economic history.

Two achievements stand out.

One, Braun resuscitates the theory of the subsistence fund out of the almost complete oblivion into which it had fallen after WWII. He argues that this theory has been neglected for no pertinent reason, and with dire consequences for theory and economic policy. In particular, without grasping the nature and significance of the subsistence fund, one cannot understand the upper turning points of the business cycle, nor the economic rationale of business accounting, nor the interdependence between the monetary side and the real side of the economy.

Two, the author reinterprets the role of money within the theory of finance. He revisits the theory of the purchasing power of money (PPM) and argues that a suitable definition of the PPM relates exclusively to consumer-good prices, not to capital-good prices. Dr. Braun argues that the PPM in that sense is the bridge between the theory of money and the classical theory of the subsistence fund.

His book shows that this is a fruitful approach and a promising framework for future research in a variety of contemporary fields, such as financial economics, finance, money and banking, and macroeconomics. The current crisis is a devastating testimony to the fact that mainstream thought in these fields is very deficient, and possibly deeply flawed. At the very moment when governments and central banks, with the encouragement of academic economists, set out to apply the conventional Keynesian policies with ever greater determination, Eduard Braun invites us to step back and reflect about the meaning of finance. This is time well spent, as Braun’s readers will find out.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

It’s All About How You Think!

by R. Nelson Nash
Author of Becoming Your Own Banker
Article originally published in the April issue of BankNotesthink

 

Some years ago, the late Nobel prize-winning Dr. Albert Schweitzer was asked by a reporter, “Doctor, what’s wrong with men today? The great doctor was silent a moment, and then he said, “Men simply don’t think!”

Surely, by this time in your life, you have a deepseated feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong in the financial world today. There is debt of unbelievable proportions! There is confused thinking that results in irrational behavior as a matter of course. We are treated to a plethora of information daily to substantiate this truth.

As a result of all this, I see a lot of despair and anguish expressed by a large segment of our population. I really think that it is the feeling of most people. They are saying, “What a mess we are in! What are they going to do about it? We need to get the right folks in our government offices! Get out and vote! That is our only hope!”

Of course, there is another large faction that is totally consumed with apathy. They don’t have a clue as to what has happened – and what is currently happening. You see them – and you can identify them – so I don’t see a need to elaborate this point.

The fact that you are taking the time to read this article indicates that you are searching for an answer to financial matters in your life. We hope that the efforts of the Nelson Nash Institute will be of benefit to you. Thank you for your search. The solution to any money problem begins there.

What happened to cause this deplorable situation?

These things just don’t happen by chance. There is always an underlying cause.

 

How Did Governments Build A Trap To Enslave People Financially?

Here in the United States two significant events occurred just over one hundred years ago:

1. The Income Tax Law – October 3, 1913

2. Adoption of the Federal Reserve Act – December 23, 1913

But, something else occurred 100 years ago: World War I – a tragic event! One that should never have happened! It was the result of unsound thinking by government leaders.

Notice that the Income Tax Law was adopted one year before WWI, and the Federal Reserve preceded WWI by just eight months.

Why is this significant? Study history and you will find that during the War of 1812 an attempt to adopt an income tax failed. Citizens wanted no part of another tax to fund the war. Apparently we had a greater proportion of clear thinkers at that time than we have today.

So – what to do? Plan ahead – because the “powers that-be” knew full well that war was imminent. But, in order to gain public acceptance create the means of funding it before the war starts! But, use some other reason for doing so! This form of deflection is necessary in order to fulfill the hidden agenda.

Wars cost lots of money! Who benefits from all this? History is clear – International Bankers, that’s who! They not only create wars but also actually financeboth sides! If you haven’t figured this out, then you need to start studying history. As a starting place please study the lives of the preeminent Rothschild banking family. Take note that it was the patriarch Rothschild, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who famously proclaimed, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”

On our website www.infinitebanking.org you will find a resource tab. Click it on and then click on the Recommended Reading List. There you will find a large selection of books on economics and history that will help you in your search for the truth about the financial world and the ways bankers carry out their goals. A good starting book to read would be The Law by Frederic Bastiat. Then read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

A word of caution – this action can lead to a beneficial compulsion to continue reading all the books listed there!

For instance, are you aware of the characters at Jekyll Island, Georgia who designed our Federal Reserve System? It is well acknowledged that the chief driving force of this scheme was Paul Warburg, a Germanborn banker. The mismatch between the story the public receives, versus what really happened behind the scenes, has rarely been so large as it was with the founding of the Fed and the advent of World War I.

For example, are you aware of how this central bank idea was made into law by Congress in late December 1913, while most Americans were busy celebrating Christmas with their families? There is plenty of information available to teach you the real history of how all this came to be if you will simply search the right sources.

Let me issue a warning that some revisionist authors make unwarranted leaps and see sinister plots when there is really a much simpler explanation, but that doesn’t mean the entire genre is misguided. A careful student of history will see that the public has been systematically misled about the origin of our modern banking institutions; this was not all designed “forour benefit.” It is not the purpose of this article to show you all this information. My purpose here is to challenge you to read and think!

 

Removing The Blinders

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”― John Maynard Keynes

Probably the greatest source of our disastrous financial situation can be laid at the feet of Lord Maynard Keynes with his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, published in 1936. Keynesian thinking has the entire world in a death grip. I well remember Richard Nixon, in a speech on TV saying, “We are all Keynesians now!” He absolutely did not speak for me, but that is the method that such leaders use to induce people to think the way they do.

Only the Austrian School of Economic thought is correct in explaining the business cycle – central bankers inflate the money supply dramatically and people behave as if the money is “real.” But, it is all an illusion – it is a lie! This inflation always results in booms and busts. What is called a “depression” is not really a “depression” – it is a return to reality! The Austrian economists point out that the real harm during the business cycle comes during the boom phase, not the depression, and that if you want to avoid the painful busts, then you must stop artificially inflating the economy. But the public has been convinced that the boom is a period of genuine prosperity. Those who benefit most from this chicanery are always the bankers.

Your local commercial bank is the primary indirect source of inflation by way of a warped law within their “fractional reserve lending system.” They are actually lending money that doesn’t exist! Note, however, that they cannot lend money unless theyhave customers. Therefore, if you have a loan at any such financial organization, then you are a part of the problem!

I got “hooked” on Austrian Economics 58 years ago and the study of the subject became a passion for me. It was this background, plus a 35-year career in life insurance sales, which led me to see there is a way to build a system for individuals to avoid the devastating effects of inflation in their lives – and to be free of the clutches of bankers. There really is a way out of the financial condition that has enslaved most people and the Nelson Nash Institute can help you discover it.

We have had a tragic change of behavior in our country during the last 100 years. Thought always precedes behavior. The easiest way to motivate people to a desired action is through producing fear in the minds of people! War is probably the ultimate method of doing so.

The State uses contingencies of crisis and misfortune to increase its power – which in turn develops the habit of acquiescence in the people.

In the words of Judge Andrew Napolitano, our country has become a nation of “sheeple.”

This is why I’m leading a movement to change the name of Washington, D.C. to “The Fear Factory.” Notice that every action that is proposed in Washington has fear as its reason for being. “The world is coming to an end if the Government doesn’t take immediate action on (blankety, blank, blank)______________.” You fill in the blank. I challenge you to examine every one of their proposals and determine the validity of my statement.

I had a personal experience with this phenomenon in 1961. I was educated as a forester at the University of Georgia, class of 1952. The Korean Conflict was two years old at that time. During my college years I was an Air Force ROTC student as part of the means of financing my way through school. As a result, all of my ROTC class had to go on active duty for two years to repay the government for the stipend they paid us while we were in college.

During the two years of active duty, I was an aerial photo interpreter with Strategic Air Command at March Air Force Base, California.

Upon completion of this obligation, I moved to Eastern North Carolina to begin my career as a private forester. I did not work for the government; Smokey Bear and I don’t agree on much of anything. It was here that I came face-to-face with the mental paralysis that Socialism causes among people. Up to that time I really never knew much about the idea itself. But, inherently I knew something was fundamentally wrong with it. It just didn’t “square” with my Christian upbringing which began when I was nine years old.

At that time the predominant agricultural product in Eastern North Carolina was tobacco. The entire production of tobacco was totally controlled by a government allotment program. Such programs dominated the thinking of the people who lived in that area of the state. I noted that this pattern of thinking spilled over into everyday life of people.

Upon witnessing all this over a significant period of time, I wondered, “Why do people think (and thus behave) this way?” This led me to become acquainted with the Austrian school of economic thought when I first read Henry Hazlitt’s book Economics in One Lesson. I became a voracious student of their teachings in 1957.

This brings us to 1960 when an article appeared in FOREST FARMER magazine about a proposed government program that would literally take over all the woodlands of private owners in the United States. Nikita Khrushchev, who was premier of the Soviet Union at that time, could not have pulled off such a program in that country! I could not sleep for several nights after reading the article. “How in the world could this be happening?” I thought.

In 1961, I was encouraged to write a memo on this proposed program and send it to a number of publishers and media outlets that would expose the absurdity of the idea. One of those places was NATION’S BUSINESS magazine produced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. My memo crossed their path at exactlythe right time! They knew the proposed program was “coming out of committee” soon and was to be voted on in Congress – and hopefully (for the bureaucrat proponents), to become law of the land. The editors at NATION’S BUSINESS were looking for a way to create a story for their magazine that would expose the nonsense of this Socialist proposal. And, so, they contacted me to help in developing it.

In June 1961 I became the subject of a feature article in NATION’S BUSINESS entitled, “Pattern for Federal Takeover of Your Business.” If you care to look it up, simply Google “NATION’S BUSINESS MAGAZINE JUNE 1961” and you will find it starting on page 34. You might find it interesting because the author, TaitTrussell, did a thorough job of isolating the methodology of every activity that exists in governments throughout the world.

The article was reproduced in large quantities by the Association of Consulting Foresters. Bottom line – we were able to defeat the program before it ever got out of committee and voted on by Congress. All this stuff is a lot of work for anyone that is involved so I won’t bore you with minute details.

However, I learned this about anything that goes on in Washington, DC. Bureaucrats take one segment of the economy, they accumulate bogus data, then they run this stuff through “their crystal ball” and conclude that we will all perish from the face of the earth unless the government takes over this particular economic activity.

During my experience with this event I became acquainted with many of the people advocating the idea. The architect of the proposed program to take over the timberland of private landowners was Undersecretary of Agriculture, Mr. Murphy. Upon defeat of the project, all Mr. Murphy could up offer up was, “I had heard that we were running out of timber and I just wanted to help.” Murphy knew absolutely nothing about timberlands or the forestry world.

None of the concerns expressed by the program were true, but that fact doesn’t matter to these folks. They just talk to themselves within the “D.C. Beltway” andbecome believers in their own nonsense. During all my work on this project I discovered that the Department of Agriculture was under some severe criticism at that time and this program was created to divert attention from their real problem.

This all reminds me of Argentina’s efforts to reclaim the Falkland Islands in 1982. The real reason for the action was because of the horrible economic conditions in Argentina at the time and they needed a smoke-screen to divert attention from their economic misery. If you have seen one government idea, you have seen them all!

Yes, we defeated the attempt of takeover the timberlands of private landowners in the U.S.– but another program of like kind appears again and again and again! When will people ever learn?

 

There Is A Way To Change Your Financial World

Let’s go back to the WWI – August 1914 began the bloodiest century of all time. I am soon to turn 84 years old as I write this, and thus, have witnessed most of this irrational behavior.

Yes, we do live in some interesting and deplorable situations in the financial world – but, it doesn’t have to be that way for any one individual person. However, this is going to require a significant change in the way that one thinks.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explains the human nature of people to His listeners.

Matthew 7:13-14 says, “Enter through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

If Jesus were teaching us today, I think He would probably say, “Why do you folks want to follow those who are always wrong? – Is your mind really all that dull?”

While growing up in Athens, Georgia, I was amember of Prince Avenue Baptist Church. All churches encourage young folks to express their understandings of the vital things of life. I remember, at age 15, I was asked to make such a presentation at a Sunday evening service. I laid the foundation for my talk by pointing out that we know our world through our five senses that we all possess and that our brain determines our evaluation of what we experience. And that our attitude toward these things is all-important in determining outcomes in life. In other words, I could “change the world – my world – by changing my thinking.”

I continued, stating that, as you change your thinking, your attitude will change. As your attitude changes, your belief and actions will follow, and “a peace that transcends all understanding will guard your heart and mind in Christ Jesus.”

In Romans 12:2 St. Paul is teaching that we should not “conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.” I believe that Paul is teaching that we should secede from the way the world thinks. That you have to abandon the thoughts and behavior of the world in which you live. Here I am drawing on this ancient text to demonstrate to you that all of the relevant points of this article can be found there.

Furthermore, consider that the conscious mind can only entertain one thought at a time. Thinking is hard work and mankind is a lazy beast! The result of this idleness is rote behavior with most people. And so, we all have a paradigm by which we live our lives. This is the work of our sub-conscious mind.

When we ask, “Why is it that people behave the way they do?” The answer is quite obvious. It is all because of the way they think. That is the paradigm they have created for themselves sometime in their past. Most of our personal, everyday behavior, is determined by our untrained sub-conscious mind. It is as if we are on autopilot!

My personal observation reveals – that there is not all that much conscious mind thinking – going on in our world today.

However, we should take caution. There are certain caveats that appear in life. In other words, beware of an “open mind!” Without careful filtering you can get a lot of garbage thrown in there. We are totally surrounded by worthless noise! The financial world is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Develop the ability to recognize nonsense and don’t waste your valuable time on it!

On long airplane flights I use my “noise-cancelling headset” – a product manufactured by the Bose Company. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had such a device built into our minds to block the nonsense that dominates our every-day world? You can create one.

Consider what St. Paul counseled his followers to do a couple of thousand years ago in Philippians 4 verse 8. “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things.”

 

Confiscation

Now, let’s turn our attention to the Internal Revenue Code.

According to the Commerce Clearing House Standard Federal Tax Reporter, as of 2013, it now takes 73,954 regular 8-1/2” x 11” sheets of paper to explain the complexity of the U.S. federal tax code. Additionally, the IRS continually makes changes in the Code. These constant changes are sometimes humorously referred to as “The Accountants and Lawyers Relief Act.”

Personally, I don’t know of anyone who has read the entire IRS code. I have read that the first nine pages contain the definition of income. The next 1,100 pages describe exceptions to the code.

Read just a few of the exceptions to the code and you can very easily understand what the entire IRS Code is really saying. Essentially, “We own everything and we are going to allow you to do these certain things.”

The object of the IRS code seems to be the outright control of your life and make you think that your blessings come from government instead of from God!

For example, tax-qualified retirement plans were all created under the guise of “giving you a taxbreak.” First, there were pension plans for corporate employees, then came HR-10 plans for partners and sole proprietors, and finally, IRAs for individuals, and, lastly 401(k)s.

Now, everyone has an exception to the IRS Code available to them. Think about it. If the government really wanted to give you a tax break all they had to do is cut out the taxes! Do you really think they want to do that?

And so, I ask, “When government creates a problem (onerous taxation) and then, turns around and grants you an exception to the problem they created (such as in any tax-qualified plan) — aren’t you just a little bit suspicious that you are being manipulated?” That leads to another question – “then, why are you participating in them?”

This entire confiscation scheme is similar to the modus operandi of the Mafia! They create a problem and then sell their victims protection services against the problem they created! For an in-depth explanation of what I am saying here I suggest that you read The Income Tax: Root of All Evil by Frank Chodorov. Just how blatant can an activity become before people take notice? It is the perfect example of the elephant in the room, but no one seems to recognize it!

 

Now, Let’s Talk About How You Think

I was introduced to The Foundation for Economic Education in 1957 through its monthly journal, THE FREEMAN.

I was particularly drawn to the writings of Leonard E. Read, the founder of the organization – along with cofounder, Henry Hazlitt, plus several additional greatthinkers. Over a period of time Leonard became my good friend and mentor. What a privilege it was to know, to talk with, and learn from such great minds as these two! Neither of these two had college degrees but they were voracious readers.

Among many other great writers, Leonard admired the works of Albert Jay Nock. I urge you to read Nock’s book, Our Enemy the State, published in 1935.

Another of my favorite authors is Mike Rozeff, a retired finance professor, who is a frequent columnist on LewRockwell.com. On July 16, 2013 he wrote an article entitled, “Don’t Go Back to The Original Constitution.”

Mike observes that a great many Americans who are unhappy with various facets of America’s political system, laws, rights, and justice system think that the solution is to “go back to the original Constitution.”

They do not understand that the original Constitution is a major cause of our present woes and troubles. For further understanding of the validity of this observation, I suggest you read Tom DiLorenzo’s book, The Curse of Hamilton. DiLorenzo points out that upon separation from the mother country, England, in 1776, our Confederation of States became “Jeffersonian” – following the thoughts of the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. But, while Jefferson was away in France as ambassador, in 1789 we became “Hamiltonians” – right back into the mercantilism we escaped from while we were subjects of English rule!

Mike Rozeff continues to note, “One man who recognized and explained this – and related developments – many years ago is Albert Jay Nock in his 1935 book, Our Enemy the State.” In the following I will provide some quotations from Nock’s book, with my commentary in parentheses.

• “Every increase in State power necessarily accompanies a decrease in social power. Increases in State power – reduce the disposition among people to use social power – and it indoctrinates the idea that social power is no longer called for.”

• “Government conceptually is not the same as the State.” (This confusion of the two is so prevalent that I recently spent several hours trying to explain the difference to my wife.)

• “Government does not arise from conquest and confiscation. The State does.”

• “Moreover the sole invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another – every State known to history is a class-State.”

• “Statism is the concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.”

• “Whatever noble government protective of rights that the Declaration of Independence suggested the influential and leading colonists were after a State, that is, an instrument whereby one might help oneself and hurt others; that is to say, first and foremost they regarded it as the organization of the political means.”

• “The U.S. Constitution did not place the principles of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine in the Declaration concerning government into practice. To the contrary it intentionally set up a State, and a State that could become more and more powerful over time.” (For proof of Nock’s assertion, simply observe what has happened in our country since 1789.)

• “The ‘government’ was set up under this Constitution to do the work of the State — that is, to bring into effect the political means and exercise political power, was not from its birth a government consistent with the Declaration of Independence.”

Government schools do not teach this fact to your children! If they did so, then the agenda of Hamiltonians would be exposed.

 

The World In The Grip Of An Idea

As I began reading THE FREEMAN, the publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, I was also drawn to the work of Dr. Clarence B. Carson. My wife and I worked on his Board of Directors for over 20 years. He was a dear friend of ours. Among many other books Clarence was the author of The World In The Grip of an Idea (1977). On page 454 of that book he, like Rozeff and DiLorenzo, echoes Nock’s assertions:

“There is a crucial distinction between the state and government. The worship of government is attended by the same difficulty as the worship of humanity. The difficulty is that actual governments have flaws, or rather those who run them do. The state is an abstraction; it is pure; it can even be an ideal.”

Carson continues:

“Power vested in the state cannot be misplaced, for it is the natural repository of all power over a given territory. Sovereignty, absolute sovereignty, is its prerogative, its reason for being.”
On page 245, he says:

“The thrust of the idea that has the world in its grip is to take away the independence of the individual… the aim is to concert all human efforts for the common good.”

My mentor, Leonard Read once wrote a piece entitled, “There Ought To Be A Law” — that was not the way Leonard thought, he was merely being ironic. Leonard was reflecting on the confidence that most Americans have in the idea of The State. “Whatever the ideal an individual might have in mind the State must compel everyone to comply. We must force people to see the wisdom that I possess.”

Along the lines of everything we have said thus far, another of my favorite authors is Butler Shaffer who teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He makes these invaluable points that seem tosummarize everything:

“Whether mankind is to survive, or bring about its own extinction, will depend largely on the premises that underlie our social organizations. Will they exist as voluntary, cooperative systems through which individuals can mutually achieve their respective interests; or will they continue to function as herdoriented collectives that allow the few to benefit at the expense of the many?

The answers to such questions are to be found only within our individual thinking. Secession does not begin at the ballot box, or in courtrooms, or in signing petitions, but in the same realm where you lost your independence: within your mind, and your willingness to identify with conflict-ridden abstractions.”

And so, how do you secede without seceding? You simply don’t play their game!

All the foregoing in this article is evidence of mankind’s worship of the State — a mind-set that is totally irrational! The idea of “the State” is nothing more than mankind trying to play the role of God (in the pagan sense of the word). The book of Exodus in the Bible plainly tells us that, “God is a jealous God.” Obviously He won’t put up with that nonsense! History demonstrates that fact conclusively. All of mankind’s efforts to displace Him are doomed to failure. The fact that this takes place over a long period of time completely eludes mankind.

Look at what this mind-set has done to our present financial world.

•Unbelievable debt throughout the world. Financial slavery everywhere.

• People who are totally dependent on a government program.

• People who put confidence in a tax-qualified financial plan, even though all government programs have a perfect record of failure when compared with their stated objective.

• Mind-numbed robots that cannot seem to think for themselves.

 

Reclaim The Power

We hold the key through social power – voluntary and private social relations, including associations and economic exchange. And so, I ask, “Do you have the courage to examine your own thought processes and determine if you are, indeed, a STATIST?”

Or, do you have the courage to secede from the thinking that predominates in our world?

If you do then join together with those who have found the financial freedom that can be obtained through theInfinite Banking Concept (IBC) as taught by the Nelson Nash Institute. Your world will never be the same again.

Our mission is to educate and inspire the public to take control of their financial lives.

Our vision is a free society characterized by creative financial solutions independent of government intervention.

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

Markets Restrain Bank Fraud; Central Banks Enable It

by Frank Shostak – Mises Daily:Bank

Originally, paper money was not regarded as money but merely as a representation of a commodity (namely, gold). Various paper certificates represented claims on gold stored with the banks. Holders of paper certificates could convert them into gold whenever they deemed necessary. Because people found it more convenient to use paper certificates to exchange for goods and services, these certificates came to be regarded as money.

Paper certificates that are accepted as the medium of exchange open the scope for fraudulent practices. Banks could now be tempted to boost their profits by lending certificates that were not covered by gold. In a free-market economy, a bank that overissues paper certificates will quickly find out that the exchange value of its certificates in terms of goods and services will fall. To protect their purchasing power, holders of the over-issued certificates naturally attempt to convert them back to gold. If all of them were to demand gold back at the same time, this would bankrupt the bank. In a free market then, the threat of bankruptcy would restrain banks from issuing paper certificates unbacked by gold. Mises wrote on this in Human Action,

People often refer to the dictum of an anonymous American quoted by Tooke: “Free trade in banking is free trade in swindling.” However, freedom in the issuance of banknotes would have narrowed down the use of banknotes considerably if it had not entirely suppressed it. It was this idea which Cernuschi advanced in the hearings of the French Banking Inquiry on October 24, 1865: “I believe that what is called freedom of banking would result in a total suppression of banknotes in France. I want to give everybody the right to issue banknotes so that nobody should take any banknotes any longer.”

This means that in a free-market economy, paper money cannot assume a “life of its own” and become independent of commodity money.

The government can, however, bypass the free-market discipline. It can issue a decree that makes it legal (or effectively legal) for the over-issued bank not to redeem paper certificates into gold. Once banks are not obliged to redeem paper certificates into gold, opportunities for large profits are created that set incentives to pursue an unrestrained expansion of the supply of paper certificates. The uncurbed expansion of paper certificates raises the likelihood of setting off a galloping rise in the prices of goods and services that can lead to the breakdown of the market economy.

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 over-issuing 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.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

How Free Markets Enhance Freedom of Choice

by Hunter Hastings – Mises Daily:freedom of choice

Ludwig von Mises was careful to establish the individual actor as the basis for all economic analysis. An individual acts to improve his circumstances. To do so, he chooses among various available means in order to achieve his ends. Those ends are based on his individual values, which are subjectively established. Methodological individualism and dynamic subjectivism are distinctive features of Misesian Austrian economics.

The Importance of Economics Based on the Individual

Interventionists and Keynesians, on the other hand, use economic aggregates such as GDP and aggregate demand as their basis for analysis. By reducing economic activity to a matter of measuring aggregates, interventionists seek to justify the manipulation of those aggregates in order to establish policy goals, and to design interventionist policies that purportedly are intended to achieve those goals.

In order to manipulate such immense aggregates, Keynesians turn to powerful government institutions that, the Keynesian rationale goes, are necessary to manage such a huge economy. These institutions include not only government agencies and regulations, but also their favored partners including big banks (protected financial franchises benefiting from central bank policies and bailouts), big pharma (government-protected pharmaceutical monopolies), and big food (government-protected purveyors of government-approved diets).

This regulation and manipulation is supposedly done for the good of “the economy,” but in the face of so much government favoritism and management for the benefit of certain special interests, it is easy for individual economic actors to feel disempowered. And it’s not just a feeling. The more government intervenes to control markets, the less sovereignty the consumers have.

How Governments Destroy Competition

An example is the increasing domination of the major Wall Street banks in the US. Consumers and small businesses report in surveys that two-thirds of respondents consistently report dissatisfaction with big banks, and three-quarters say it is important to bank locally. Yet, the number of community banks has declined by 24 percent over 2000–2013, while big banks grew their share of deposits — the five biggest banks now hold 47 percent of deposits, and in some counties, as much as 75 percent of deposits. Their low consumer satisfaction scores are a result, at least in part, of higher prices. For example, Consumer Reports found that the ten largest banks charged a monthly fee of $10.27 for a non-interest checking account, compared to $7.45 at small banks and $6.00 at the ten biggest credit unions.

Professor Amat R. Admati of Stanford University stated in testimony to the Senate Banking Committee in July 2014 that Too-Big-To-Fail legislation provides an explicit subsidy to large banks in the form of a lower cost of capital, and bemoaned the “extreme opacity of large banking institutions” that grow “to inefficiently large sizes.”

Yet customers do not switch. Some of this can be explained by the convenience found in banking with a very large enterprise, but consumers also find it costly to switch to smaller banks in the face of market dominance facilitated by government protection.

Things would be different if big banks had to truly compete. In Liberty and Property Mises explained that the real power in the market lies with individual consumers who are making the choices that ultimately determine output and prices; he termed it “consumer sovereignty.” Murray Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State elevated the idea of individual economic power, emphasizing not only the right to choose, but also (and perhaps more tellingly) the right to refuse: “Economic power, then, is simply the right under freedom to refuse to make an exchange. Every man has this power. Every man has the same right to refuse to make a proffered exchange.”

To choose and refuse to make an exchange, i.e., to do business with any other economic entity, is the essence of individual economic power.

True Diversity in the Marketplace

True freedom in the marketplace can greatly shape a consumer’s entire lifestyle.

In their financial lives — if true market competition is allowed — individual economic actors can refuse to do business even with big Wall Street or global banks, and choose, instead, community banks or credit unions.

In their home lives, consumers can install solar panels or a home generator and disconnect from the regulated energy utility. This releases them from guaranteed price increases, often caused by the need for the utilities to support their excessive pension commitments, and the charges imposed by the forced redistribution of energy subsidies to low-income households.

Consumers can refuse to buy from the food companies that hide behind government food regulations and agricultural subsidies, and instead choose smaller, more local and healthier options. They can choose online education in the form of free MOOC’s (Massive Open Online Courses offered by top professors at many universities) or pay per course from online providers like Udemy, and refuse the offerings of pro-government biased content and tenured Keynesian professors. They can choose Uber and refuse the highly regulated local taxi monopoly, which is often typified by old, uncomfortable, and poorly maintained vehicles caused by the high cost of taxi regulations and lack of competition.

On the other hand, every government subsidy, every regulation, and every tax-code change that favors one group of businesses over another reduces consumer sovereignty. This interference results in monopolies and oligopolies which are typically the product of government intervention in markets.

Nevertheless, short of a total monopoly — such as those often enjoyed by the government itself in law and other areas — the individual economic actor does have freedom to refuse to do business with these government-favored industries.

A Partnership of Entrepreneurs and Consumers

Freedom of choice is best secured by allowing true freedom for both entrepreneurs and consumers.

Entrepreneurs “are at the helm and steer the ship,” Mises noted in Human Action. “But they are not free to shape its course. They are not supreme, they are steersmen only, bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.”

Not only is the exercise of individual economic power a choice, it is a powerful tool for directing change, one that we can wield with purpose. As Frank Fetter wrote in The Principles of Economics: “Every individual may organize a consumer’s league, leaguing himself with the powers of righteousness. Every purchase has far-reaching consequences. You may spend your monthly allowance as an agent of iniquity or of truth.”

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

Individual Solutions: Building Financial Resiliency

submitted by jwithrow.financial resiliency - individual solutions

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Individual Solutions: Building Financial Resiliency

February 12, 2015
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P opened at $2,071 today. Gold is down to $1,226 per ounce. Oil is floating around $49 per barrel. Bitcoin is hanging around $221 per BTC, and the 10-year Treasury rate opened at 2.03% today.

Ten central banks have cut interest rates so far in 2015. The list includes: Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, India, Egypt, Pakistan, Peru, Russia, and Turkey. Additionally, both the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank are actively buying sovereign debt… with counterfeited currency created from thin air. The Federal Reserve is taking a break from this exercise after nearly six years of creating currency to shop at the U.S. Treasury and go yard-saling on Wall Street. Of course the $4.5 trillion worth of sovereign debt and mortgage-backed securities still sits on the Fed’s balance sheet in the interim.

All of this economic intervention is a concerted effort to stave off a major credit contraction. The central bankers talk about hitting certain GDP and unemployment rate metrics but that is all part of their dog and pony show. If creating currency out of thin air could actually grow an economy and create jobs then we would already live in a utopian paradise. But that’s just not how the world works.

Try as they may to avoid it, the coming credit contraction is inevitable. You see, the global monetary system has been fraudulent for a little more than four decades now. Gold officially anchored the global monetary system for two centuries prior to 1971. Then, in 1971, President Nixon’s administration acted to break away from two hundred years of tradition and the U.S. ended direct convertibility of the dollar to gold. Of course the “Great Society” welfare programs and the Vietnam War had a lot to do with this decision.

“Your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today,” Nixon proclaimed on television with a straight face. “The effect of this action, in other words, will be to stabilize the dollar.”

Of course the exact opposite happened: the U.S. dollar fell off a cliff. Anyone living during the 70’s can attest to this. What was the price of a new home back then? A new car? A hamburger? The difference between what those items cost in 1971 and what they cost today represents how far the U.S. dollar has fallen in purchasing power.

How did this happen?

Well, with all ties to gold removed governments and central banks discovered they could conjure currency into existence to pay for anything they wanted. Tanks, fighter jets, food stamps, Medicare part D, $800 trash cans… no problem! So they embarked upon this historic credit expansion armed with a magical monetary system that provided them with money for nothing.

But governments weren’t the only beneficiaries. The companies making the tanks and the bombs made out like bandits. So did all of the bureaucrats who were hired as government expanded. And the people receiving welfare benefits found the system quite palatable as well. Pretty soon smart people learned that the best business in the world was to sell something to the U.S. government because it had unlimited money to spend. So they descended upon K Street like buzzards on road-kill and pretty soon the suburbs surrounding D.C. claimed home to six of the wealthiest ten counties in the U.S.

The champagne has been flowing up on the Hill and in the lobbyist offices on K Street for four decades now thanks mostly to the fraudulent fiat monetary system in place since 1971. The establishment hails their elastic currency system as a major success but theirs is a self-serving and short term view. Credit has been constantly expanding since 1971 but do we really think this can go on forever? Can we continue to run up debt, print money to pay interest on that debt, and then buy all of the fighter jets, disability checks, politicians, and cheap junk from China without ever having to think twice about it? If not, what happens when the credit contracts and we can no longer afford all of these expenditures?

The Austrian School of Economics tells us what the result of this madness will be: a “crack-up boom” followed by a monstrous bust as all of the bad debt and malinvestments are finally liquidated.

The crack-up boom occurs as the prices of assets and real goods are driven up to the moon by enormous amounts of excess currency conjured into existence in an attempt to perpetuate the credit expansion. After all, that new currency has to go somewhere. This scheme will work to stave off the credit contraction… until it doesn’t. Then cometh the bust.

While Austrian Economics can make the diagnosis, the timing of the bust cannot be predicted. There are too many interconnected factors at play. What’s important is that there is still time to build financial resiliency in advance. The cornerstone of financial resiliency is knowledge and understanding. Understand fiat money is an illusion. Understand the difference between money and wealth. Study Austrian Economics to get a feel for what’s really going on in the economy.

Once you understand how the monetary system actually works you can formulate a customized asset allocation model based upon your personal circumstances.

A resilient asset allocation model will consist of cash (20-30%), precious metals (10-30%), real estate (30-60%), and strategic equities (10-15%).

At minimum you should carry enough cash to cover at least 6-12 months of expenses. Distressed assets will go on sale when then bust hits so any cash in excess of your reserve fund can be used to acquire these distressed assets (real estate, stocks, businesses, etc.) when they are cheap.

Your precious metals allocation should consist of physical gold and silver bullion stored at home or in a legal segregated account overseas. Never store precious metals in a domestic bank vault – Americans learned this the hard way back in the 30’s when the banks closed and FDR raided the vaults to confiscate gold. Remember, precious metals are insurance not speculation. The price of gold (and silver) will skyrocket in terms of fiat currency, but its purchasing power will remain relatively constant just as it has for thousands of years. Those who save in fiat currency will see their wealth evaporate as the credit contraction unfolds while those who hold precious metals will weather the storm. J.P Morgan testified before Congress in 1912: “Gold is money. Everything else is credit.” Don’t be fooled.

Real estate presents a unique opportunity currently as we are living during a period of historically low interest rates and lenders are willing to offer long term mortgages at these low rates. This provides a tremendous opportunity to lock in these low rates on real estate for thirty years during which time interest rates will inevitably rise significantly.

We firmly believe stocks should make up the smallest percentage of a resilient portfolio under current economic conditions. Stockholders have been the primary beneficiaries of the massive credit expansion and all of the easy-money chicanery over the past several years. Financial institutions have poured new money into the equities markets and publicly-traded companies have used a ton of excess cash to buy back shares of their own stock. As a result current stock valuations do not reflect the underlying health of the economy. Though stocks will run for a bit longer, we are closer to the end than the beginning of the bull cycle. We think the exception is in the resource and commodity sector, however. The stocks of well-managed companies in this sector could do extremely well over the next few years as the global financial system continues to falter.

Nobody can control macroeconomic conditions but we can each control our individual response to them. Building financial resiliency by constructing a diversified portfolio across several asset classes is an individual solution to a collective problem. Financial resiliency is just half of the picture, however. Tomorrow we will look at what we call home resiliency.

Until the morrow,

Signature

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Withrow

Wayward Philosopher

For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset” and the paradigm shift underway please read “The Individual is Rising” which is available at http://www.theindividualisrising.com/. The book is also available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle editions.

Education is Too Important Not to Leave to the Marketplace

by Ron Paul – Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity:Ron Paul

This week, events around the country will highlight the importance of parental control of education as part of National School Choice Week. This year’s events should attract more attention than prior years because of the growing rebellion against centralized education sparked by the federal Common Core curriculum.

The movement against Common Core has the potential to change American education. However, anti-Common Core activists must not be misled by politicians promoting “reforms” of the federal education bureaucracy, or legislation ending Common Core while leaving all other federal education programs intact. The only way to protect American children from future Common Core-like programs is to permanently padlock the Department of Education.

Federal programs providing taxpayer funds to public schools give politicians and bureaucrats leverage to impose federal mandates on schools. So as long as federal education programs exist, school children will be used as guinea pigs for federal bureaucrats who think they are capable of creating a curriculum suitable for every child in the country.

Supporters of federal education mandates say they are necessary to hold schools “accountable.” Of course schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom?

Several studies, as well as common sense, show that greater parental control of education improves education quality. In contrast, bureaucratic control of education lowers education quality. Therefore, the key to improving education is to make schools accountable to parents, not bureaucrats.

The key to restoring parental control is giving parents control of the education dollar. If parents control the education dollar, school officials will strive to meet the parents’ demand that their children receive a quality education. If the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will bow to the demands of Congress and the Department of Education.

So if Congress was serious about improving education it would shut down the Department of Education. It would also shut down all other unconstitutional bureaucracies, end our interventionist foreign policy, and reform monetary policy so parents would have the resources to provide their children with an education that fits their children’s unique needs. Federal and state lawmakers must also repeal any laws that limit the education alternatives parents can choose for their children. The greater the options parents have and the greater the amount of control they exercise over education, the stronger the education system.

These reforms would allow more parents access to education options such as private or religious schools, and also homeschooling. It would also expand the already growing market in homeschooling curriculums. I know a great deal about the homeschooling curriculum market, as I have my own homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a rigorous program of study in history, economics, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. It also provides intensive writing instruction and an opportunity for students to operate their own Internet businesses. Of course, my curriculum provides students with an introduction to the ideas of liberty, including Austrian economics. However, we do not sacrifice education quality for ideological indoctrination.

It is no coincidence that as the federal role in education has increased the quality of our education system has declined. Any “reforms” to federal education programs will not fix the fundamental flaw in the centralized model of education. The only way to improve education is to shut down the Department of Education and restore control of education to those with the greatest ability and incentive to choose the type of education that best meets the needs of American children — American parents.

Article originally posted at The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

How the Fed Grows Government

by Hunter Hastings – Mises Daily
Article originally published in the January 2015 issue of BankNotesEccles Building

We are told that elections are important, but the most powerful state institution, the central bank, is totally out of reach of the voter.

Ludwig von Mises viewed democracy as a utilitarian concept. It was the form of political organization that allowed the majority to change the government without violent revolution. In Socialism, Mises writes “This it achieves by making the organs of the state legally dependent on the will of the majority of the moment.” He identified this form of political process as an essential enabler of capitalism and market exchange.

Mises extended this concept of utilitarian democracy to citizens’ control of the budget of the state, which they achieve by voting for the level of taxation that they deem to be appropriate. Otherwise, “if it is unnecessary to adjust the amount of expenditure to the means available, there is no limit to the spending of the great god State.” (Planning for Freedom, p. 90).

Today, this utilitarian function of democracy, and the concept of citizens’ limitations on government mission and government spending, has been taken away by the state via the creation and subsequent actions of central banks. The state carefully created a central bank that is independent of the voters and unaffected by the choices citizens express via the institutions of democracy. In the case of the US Federal Reserve, for example, the Board of Governors state that the Federal Reserve System “is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

Independent from Voters, But Not from Politicians

Importantly, the central bank is independent of the citizens in this way, but, in practice, not independent of politicians. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is quoted as asserting, “I never said the central bank is independent,” alluding to similar statements in two books he has written, and pointing to one-sided political pressure significantly limiting the FOMC’s range of discretion.

This institutionally independent, but politically directed central bank spearheads a process that enables largely unlimited government spending. It expands credit and enables fiat money, which is produced without practical limitation. Fiat money enables government to issue debt, which, at least so far, also has been pursued without restraint. The unlimited government debt enables unrestrained growth in government spending. The citizenry has no power to change this through any voting mechanism.

Thus, the state is set free from having to collect tax revenue before it can spend, and as Mises explained, in such a case, there is no limitation on government at all:

The government has but one source of revenue — taxes. No taxation is legal without parliamentary consent. But if the government has other sources of income it can free itself from this control.

In other words, when faced with the possibility of voter reprisals, members of Congress are reluctant to raise taxes. But if government spending no longer necessitates taxes, government becomes much more free to spend.

Without restraints on government spending, there are no restraints on government’s mission, or on the growth in the bureaucracy that administers the spending. The result is a continuous increase in regulations, and a continuous expansion of state power.

Has The Central Bank Limited Itself?

In the one hundred years since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, US federal government spending has grown from $15.9 billion to a budgeted $3,778 billion in 2014 (a number we now refer to as $3.8 trillion to make the numerator seem less egregious). Spending as a percentage of GDP has advanced from 7.5 percent to 41.6 percent over the same period. A comparison of regulation growth is more difficult, but over 80,000 pages are published in the Federal Register annually today, versus less than 5,000 annually in 1936.

The evidence, therefore, is that voting makes no difference to this lava flow of spending and regulation. Whatever the will of the majority of the moment, government spending and government power will continue to expand, with consequent reduction in the economic growth that is the primary goal of the society that is being governed.

John Locke opined that, when governments “act contrary to the end for which they were constituted,” they are at a “state of war” with the citizens, and resistance is lawful. (Two Treatises of Government, p. 74). The theory and practice of unhampered markets and individual liberty are particularly relevant at election time.

Hunter Hastings is a member of the Mises Institute, a business consultant, and an adjunct faculty member at Hult International Business School

Please see the January 2015 issue of BankNotes for this article and others like it.

Capitalism and Creditism and Corporatism, Oh My!

submitted by jwithrow.The Fed

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Capitalism and Creditism and Corporatism, Oh My!

December 26, 2014
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P opened at $2,084 today. Gold is flat around $1,198 per ounce. Oil is still checking in at $56 per barrel. Bitcoin is at $326 per BTC, and the 10-year Treasury rate opened at 2.24% today.

All is quiet in the markets this holiday season. We may look back on this time period in a few years and say that we were presented with a tremendous opportunity to buy beaten down energy and commodity stocks during the tax-loss selling season of 2014. We probably will say that we had a great opportunity to accumulate some gold throughout 2014 as well. Just be sure to follow your asset allocation model if you decide to capitalize on these opportunities.

Yesterday we examined our current economic circumstances and realized that we were employing capitalism but we had no capital! Today we must ask the question: How can you have capitalism without any capital?

The obvious answer is you can’t. It’s like making potato soup without potatoes – try as you might it just won’t work.

So if we don’t have capitalism then what do we have? My answer is that we have some weird blend of creditism and corporatism. Governments have colluded with large corporate interests, especially in the commercial banking sector, to rig the economy in their favor.

Though we could go back further, let’s start our story (from the American perspective) at the end of World War II. Prior to the war governments didn’t think they could do everything they wanted due to financial constraints. That didn’t stop them from doing half of what they wanted to do but it forced them to make a choice. Did they want guns (warfare) or butter (welfare)?

The U.S. came out of WWII looking like gold… literally. The U.S. economy was the least damaged by the war which ravaged Europe and it came out holding the world’s largest stash of gold reserves. This relative economic strength gave U.S. politicians the wrong idea: they started to think they might not need to make any choices. Then President Lyndon Johnson came along and he wasn’t shy about it – guns and butter it will be!

So we got the Vietnam War and the Great Society together! And gold steadily flowed out of the U.S. Treasury until President Nixon pulled the switch-a-roo in 1971 and closed the gold window. All of a sudden the international monetary system became elastic. With no more gold restraint, dollars and yen and pounds started to pile up as central banks and commercial banks discovered they could conjure money into existence largely at will. But this was a different kind of money than the gold-backed variety – it was credit-based.

This credit-based money was extremely popular and the money supply grew 50-fold between World War II and 2008. Everyone got used to a constantly expanding money supply and now both the economy and asset prices are dependent upon it. It is the expansion of credit, not real capital, that supports all of the federal spending programs, all of the wars in the Middle East, the mass imports from China and Vietnam, the new housing developments and shopping malls in Middle America, the massive car lots across the country, most of the skyscrapers dotting the city skies, and current real estate and stock market valuations.

Here’s a fun example: do you know how much debt is still owed on the tax-funded Meadowlands Sports Complex in New Jersey? I’ll tell you: more than $100 million is still owed on the facility. Oh, and I am talking about the old Meadowlands Stadium that was closed and demolished in 2009 to make way for a new $1.6 billion facility now known as MetLife Stadium. New Jersey taxpayers are still on the hook for $100 million on a sports complex that no longer exists! New Jersey built the stadium, used the stadium, and demolished the stadium but never bothered to pay for it.

Such nonsense can only occur in a world of ever-expanding credit-based funny money.

This applies to the massive bank bailouts and banker bonuses that one side of the fictitious aisle rails against just as it applies to the massive welfare programs that the other side of the false political-divide takes issue with. None of it exists without perpetual credit expansion; none of it exists without creditism and corporatism.

Capitalism would have nothing to do with any of it.

It is important to understand that we have only seen one side of the credit cycle within the current monetary system. Credit has been expanding constantly for more than forty years now. But if we look around our world we can clearly see that nothing expands forever. Waves rise then fall. Trees grow then mature. Balloons inflate then pop.

One day credit will have to contract; it is inevitable. What happens when that day comes? Ludwig von Mises, the late Austrian School economist, offered some insight:

“There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

Was he right? Time will tell.

More to come,
Signature

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Withrow
Wayward Philosopher

For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset” and the fiat monetary system please read “The Individual is Rising” which is available at http://www.theindividualisrising.com/. The book is also available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle editions.