Tag: free market economics

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.

The Scary Truth Behind Friday’s Jobs Shocker

by Bill Bonner – Bonner and Partners.com:jobs

On Friday, the Labor Department released a shockingly weak March jobs report. The feds and their cronies on Wall Street spent the weekend trying to put a bag over its head.

Former Pimco CEO and Bloomberg columnist Mohamed El-Erian gave this quick reaction:

The US employment machine notably lost momentum in March, with just 126,000 new jobs added – far fewer than the consensus expectation of around 250,000 – and with revisions erasing 69,000 from the previous two months’ total, according to the Labor Department. The lackluster result ends an impressive 12-month run of job gains in excess of 200,000.

Yes, the employment numbers were ugly. They confirm the other evidence coming in from hill and dale, industry and commerce, households and homesteads all across the nation, and all the ships at sea: This is no ordinary recovery.

Nip and Tuck

In fact, it’s no recovery at all. It is strange and unnatural, like the victim of a quack plastic surgeon.

But the damage was not an accident. No slip of the hand or equipment malfunction produced this horror. It was the result of economic grifters plying a fraudulent trade.

The Dow rose 118 points in Monday’s trading. A 0.7% increase, this was neither the result of honest investing nor any serious assessment of the economic future. Bloomberg attributed it to scammery from the Fed:

New York Fed President William Dudley said the pace of rate increases is likely to be “shallow” once the Fed starts to tighten.

His comments were the first from the inner core of the Fed’s leadership since a government report showed payrolls expanded less than forecast in March.
While data signaling rates near zero for longer have previously been welcomed by American equity investors, concern is building that economic weakness will worsen the outlook for corporate profits.

Get it?

“Shallow” rate increases. Translation: Savers will get nothing for their forbearance and discipline for a long, long time.

Instead, the money that should be rightfully theirs will be transferred to the rich… and to gamblers and speculators… as it has for the last six years.

A Frankenstein Economy

Back to El-Erian who, having seen the evidence of this botched operation, then goes goofy on us. He calls upon the authorities to “do something.”

As if they hadn’t done enough already!

The feds were the ones who injected the credit silicon, hardened the upper lip and created the Monster of 2008.

And then, when the nearest of kin started retching into the hospital wastebaskets, they went back to work. Now, the economy is more grotesque than ever.

But here’s El-Erian, asking for more:

The report is a further reminder of how much more the US economy could – and should – achieve if it weren’t for political dysfunction in Washington and a “do little” Congress that preclude more comprehensive structural reforms, infrastructure spending and a more responsive fiscal policy.

El-Erian is not the only one. One of our favorite knife men, Larry Summers, is suggesting more nip and tuck on the whole world economy.

It was Summers, as secretary of the Treasury between 1999 and 2001, who helped stitch this Frankenstein economy together.

He and his fellow surgeons are responsible for its unsightly lumps and inhuman shape. Their trillions of dollars of EZ credit leaked all over, causing bulges almost everywhere.

Does China have too much industrial capacity? Does the world have a glut of energy? Are governments far too deep in debt? And corporations?And households? Didn’t nearly every central bank in the world try to stimulate demand with cheap credit… thus laying on a burden of debt so heavy that it now threatens the entire world economy?

Poor Larry Summers

Now, Summers waves his scalpel in the air and can’t wait to get the patient back on the table.

He worries that the US should have given the International Monetary Fund more money, which would have “bolstered confidence in the global economy.”

He thinks the world’s problem is that “capital is abundant, deflationary pressures are substantial, and demand could be in short supply for quite some time.”

Poor Larry can’t tell the difference between capital and credit.

Capital – what you get from saving money and investing it wisely – is an economy’s real muscle. EZ credit – what the quacks pump into flabby tissue to try to make things look more fetching – is what has turned the economy into such a freak.

Alas, failing to give more money to the IMF, says Summers, may mean “the US will not be in a position to shape the global economic system.”

That would be a real pity.

Article originally posted at Author Joe WithrowPosted on Categories Finance & EconomicsTags , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment on The Scary Truth Behind Friday’s Jobs Shocker

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.

How Truly Free Markets Help the Poor

by Ryan McMaken – Mises Daily:free markets help the poor

Discussing poverty as an advocate of free markets is tricky business in today’s world. If one takes poverty seriously and points out the very real plight of the impoverished, it is often assumed that one must therefore be advocating for government “solutions” to the problem. The knee-jerk reaction of many defenders of free markets is to simply deny that poverty exists much at all, or that if the poor just try a little harder, or aren’t so lazy, they won’t be poor anymore.

This sort of reaction is natural for one who labors under the mistaken impression that the American economy is a free-market economy. Since the American economy is so free and filled with opportunity, they think, there’s really no excuse for being poor.

But, of course, the American economy isn’t even a mostly free economy. The entire financial sector is heavily subsidized and regulated. The regulatory costs imposed on small businesses are enormous. Trade of all types is regulated, and many goods are prohibited outright. Minimum wages make many entry-level jobs illegal, and one can’t even drive people around for money without facing a bevy of government regulations — and sanctions.

With all these millstones tied around the necks of poor and low-skilled workers, it’s a bit nonsensical to declare that poor people should just try harder. Perhaps they did try, and the government sent them the message loud and clear: “just give it up, because we’ve made everything you’re qualified to do illegal.”

Yes, it’s true that, to the extent markets are still free, they have led to an abundance of conveniences that even the poor can afford: air conditioning, television, household appliances, cell phones, and more. But at the same time, it would be wrong to sit back and say “they have enough” when an even greater abundance is to be had if the poor were simply given the freedom to work and own businesses without navigating a myriad of government requirements and regulations that often pose an insurmountable opportunity cost.

There are several ways that a turn to freer markets would open up a whole world to low-income families and unskilled workers immediately.

End the Minimum Wage

This is one of the worst offenders since it renders jobs illegal for the most unskilled workers, and hits the poor the hardest. As explained in the pages of mises.org, the primary effect of the minimum wage is to make the lowest-skilled workers legally unemployable. In other words, if the minimum wage is $10 per hour, and a worker only produces $8 of goods or services per hour, he will never be hired. Naturally, with a little experience, an unproductive (in the economic sense of the word) worker becomes more productive with job experience. But with a minimum wage, how is the worker supposed to get his first job? He can’t. As a result, many workers caught up in this catch-22 become long-term welfare recipients or they turn to black markets where they are branded criminals by the legal system.

Abolish All Income Taxes (Including Payroll Taxes)

Even low-income wage earners pay taxes on income. Social Security and Medicare taxes are nothing more than income taxes that go straight to the general fund — the “social security trust fund” does not exist. That claim by Mitt Romney that half the country doesn’t pay income taxes was never anything more than disingenuous political hair-splitting. Payroll taxes are income taxes, and we all know they take a big bite out of our paychecks, at all income levels.

Thus, even the poor pay taxes to finance TARP and various bailouts of the ultra-rich. As if this insult were not enough, the federal government then punishes the poor further with a central bank that punishes them for saving what little they can.

End the Fed

The Federal Reserve — and central banks in general — have in recent decades functioned largely to push down interest rates and devalue the currency.

The Federal Reserve — in addition to giving us the gift of the boom-bust cycle — has been key in bailing out huge too-big-to-fail corporations and has facilitated endless government spending on wars, corporate welfare, and social programs. Whether the amount of money poured into low-income households via social programs rivals the amount of money sucked out of them — in the form of devalued currency and below-inflation interest rates for low-income savers — remains to be seen.

What we do know is that the Fed’s commitment to low interest rates has made it almost impossible to save money through savings accounts and other low-risk traditional investments. Once upon a time, it might have been possible to put money in a savings account or CD and receive a respectable amount of interest on those funds, and at least earn an interest rate that exceeded the inflation rate. That certainly isn’t possible today. If you’re poor and try to make any returns off a savings account or CD, you’re out of luck. You’ll be very lucky to get 0.9 percent, and you’ll probably get lower than that. Meanwhile, the official low-ball inflation rate is well above that. So, your savings lose value in real terms constantly. You might as well keep that money in your mattress — where your money will also constantly lose value. On the other hand, if you have $100,000 to put in a CD right now, you might be able to get 1.5 percent at some banks. But poor people rarely have that kind of money lying around. People with more money are able to hire financial advisors and stock brokers and better keep up with an inflationary economy. The poor are just on their own.

Stop Regulating Small Businesses

Starting small businesses are often the preferred way for low-income, non-white workers to find work and build capital. Immigrants often turn to small businesses because they offer flexibility and work for people who are unattractive to larger established operations. While the wages and incomes associated with small businesses are often lower than they are in larger businesses, many turn to small business employment because they offer many non-monetary advantages over other types of income.

Governments work to crush small businesses on a daily basis. Every small business owner must deal with a myriad of government agencies from the IRS, to OSHA, to the EEOC, Obamacare, and beyond. Every new regulation and every new tax makes it harder for a small business owner to make payroll and to turn a profit. The net effect, of course, is to both restrict growth of small businesses and to restrict the number of small businesses. The decrease in competition then lessens benefits for both consumers and wage workers in the communities where these businesses are likely to spring up — in low-income communities. Instead, governments make sure that only large, well-capitalized companies can afford to open new businesses in many cases — probably miles away in higher-income areas.

Legalize Poverty

Everywhere the government intervenes to “help” we find not more choice, but less. Not more jobs, but fewer. Do you want to start up your own taxi service by driving people around? Forget about it if you have not obtained all the applicable (and costly) government licenses. Do you want to rent out your converted garage to tenants for cash? Too bad. Zoning laws don’t allow it. Do you want to get a job at five bucks per hour for your teenage son who has no skills? Sorry, that’s illegal too. Do you need a loan, but you’re a high risk borrower? Get lost. We’d have to charge you a high interest rate. That’s usury, and it’s not allowed.

We’re told every day that the only solution to poverty is more government power, more government regulation, more central planning, bigger deficits, and less freedom.

The true solution, however, is better described by a left-wing slogan: “Legalize Poverty.” The left usually says this when homeless people are being thrown off government property, but it’s better applied to the many types of free enterprise that are placed out of reach to the poor by government edicts. So many low-income workers must turn to black markets and low-wage semi-legal work because that’s all that’s open to them. It’s simply illegal for them to find entry-level work in mainstream enterprises, keep all of their meager wages, or start up small enterprises. Needless to say, these assaults on free markets help no one but the government agents paid to enforce them.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

The US Has Become a Nursing Home Economy

by Bill Bonner – Bonner and Partners.com:

The key feature of age is that it happens no matter what you think.

What does this mean?

It means the “old countries” – their assets and their institutions, at least the ones that depend on population, income and credit growth – are “fastened to a dying animal” and are not likely to survive in their present form.

Today, these countries, including the US, are victims of demography. Older people get more money from the government. And they pay less in taxes. Old people also slow the rate of GDP, for obvious reasons: They are not adding to output; they are living on it.

As people age, the whole society – its institutions, its laws, its customs, its economy and its markets – ages, too. They all become as familiar, comfortable and shabby as a well-worn shoe.

An economy is not independent of the people in it. The economy ages with them. And when they reach retirement age, the economy gets arthritis.

A Nursing Home Economy

Even the Congressional Budget Office has noticed how government debt slows growth:

Increased borrowing by the federal government generally draws money away from (that is, crowds out) private investment in productive capital in the long term because the portion of people’s savings used to buy government securities is not available to finance private investment.

The result is a smaller stock of capital and lower output in the long term than would otherwise be the case all else held equal (CBO, July 2014, p. 72).

Why does the federal government need to borrow so much? Before the invention of the welfare state, almost all large borrowing was done for war. Since the end of World War II, however, most developed countries – with the exception of the US – have borrowed heavily only to pay for social programs.

But neither debt nor spending contributes to a dynamic, innovative and growth-oriented economy. Instead, they produce an economy that looks like the people in it – old, creaky and in need of around-the-clock care.

As people age, they begin fewer new businesses. “The Other Aging of America: The Increasing Dominance of Older Firms” is the title of a major study from the Brookings Institution. Done by Robert Litan and Ian Hathaway, it showed that American business was becoming “old and fat.”

Taken together, the data presented here clearly show a private sector where economic activity is sharply concentrating in older firms – a trend that is occurring in a nearly universal fashion across sectors, firm sizes and geographies…

An economy that is saturated with older firms is one that is likely to be less flexible, and potentially less productive and less innovative, than an economy with a higher percentage of new and young firms.

Young people try to create new wealth. Old people try to hold on to the wealth they believe they have in the bag. They are less entrepreneurial. They are also, perhaps, more eager to protect their businesses and professions from competition.

Part of the reason for fewer business start-ups is that it has gotten a lot harder to launch a new company in America.

That was the conclusion of a study by John W. Dawson and John J. Seater (“Federal Regulation and Aggregate Economic Growth”). What they found was that there has been a huge increase in economic regulation and restrictions in the US since World War II. They point out that these regulations have an economic cost. Like debt and demography, regulations reduce output.

In fact, they estimate that had the level of regulation remained unchanged since the year I was born – 1948 – today’s GDP would provide every man, woman and child in America with about $125,000 more in income per year.

A Glorified Ponzi Scheme

It was Alexis de Tocqueville who observed that democracy was doomed. He said it would soon degrade into tyranny. As soon as politicians realized that they could win elections by promising the voters more of other people’s money, it was just a matter of time until they overdid it.

Had he imagined how old people would get, he wouldn’t have been so optimistic.

As things developed, politicians noticed two important things: that young people (especially those who hadn’t been born yet) didn’t vote… and old people’s votes could be bought fairly cheaply, at least so it appeared at first.

When the US Social Security program was first put in place, for example, the typical American male could expect nothing from it. He was expected to live to 61. He’d be dead before benefits kicked in. But as the 20th century led to the 21st, his life expectancy increased, and so did the burden of old people.

Early Social Security participants paid in trivial amounts and got a very good return on their money. My mother, for example, only worked a few years at a low-paying job, from which she retired in 1986. She has been collecting Social Security ever since.

“Don’t you feel guilty about getting so much more than you put in?” I teased her.

“Not at all. That’s just the way the system works.”

The way the system works would be illegal for a private annuity plan. It would be labeled a Ponzi scheme. Its promoters would be fined or put in prison. The money that goes into the system is not locked away in wealth-producing investments so that the cash will be available to finance the retiree’s pension. Instead, the contributions of new participants are used to pay benefits to old ones.

This has the obvious and fatal flaw of all Ponzi schemes – eventually, there is not enough new money coming into the system to meet its obligations. This point was reached in the US system in 2010. Since then, the system has been running an annual deficit.

You’ll see why in the chart showing the retirement-age population.

economy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everybody knows Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, veterans’ pensions and other support programs are dangerously underfunded. What is not appreciated is the effect that this has on GDP growth and stock market prices.

The crankshaft of age leads to the universal joint of social spending, which then goes to the axles of debt. Finally, where the rubber meets the road, the wheels turn more slowly.

This is not just a problem for government finance. Companies make money by putting out products and selling them. But when people grow old or population growth declines, so do both supply and demand.

Then, companies earn less money. Their shares are worth less. Personal incomes go down. Capital gains retreat. And tax revenues fall, too.

When this happens in an economy that is already deeply in debt, it triggers a crisis.

Article originally posted at Bonnerandpartners.com.

Government Regulation is a Hidden Tax

by Brady Nelson – Mises Daily:Regulation

Perhaps due to it not being as readily quantifiable as government taxation, debt, welfare, and money creation; regulation has too often been superficially dealt with. In many ways, the largely “hidden tax” of regulation is a bigger threat to liberty, economy, and morality than other weapons of forceful government intervention.

What Is the Problem?

The total number of restrictions in federal regulations has grown from about 835,000 in 1997 to over one million by 2010, and the number of pages published annually in the Code of Federal Regulations, never substantially declined, and in fact has consistently grown. It has been estimated that regulatory compliance and economic impacts cost $1.863 trillion annually. This amounts to US households paying $14,974 annually in regulatory hidden taxes, with households thereby spending more on embedded regulation than on health care, food, transportation, entertainment, apparel and services, and savings.

However, this is just the proverbial tip of the regulatory-burden iceberg. The tangible burdens above are a quite manageable list of the more immediate impacts such as extra money spent by business to comply and government to enforce regulation. However, the intangible burdens are an almost infinite list of the less immediate impacts, such as lower performance throughout the economy in terms of entrepreneurship, innovation, growth, customer service, and jobs. The intangible burdens do not readily lend themselves to quantification like the tangible burdens do, and thus it is harder to understand the magnitude and even the exact nature of the almost infinite potential problems caused-and-effected. This is made harder due to the fact that value is always subjective (and ordinal) to each individual at any one point in time and, thus, there are no objective (or cardinal) opportunity costs and benefits of regulations as a whole that can simply be observed, calculated, and compared using cost benefit analysis (CBA).

Why Is There a Problem?

The most important of these intangible burdens of regulation are the unintended negative consequences on decentralized and dispersed knowledge and incentives. As Frédéric Bastiat pointed out: “In the economy … a law gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen.”

Thus, in terms of regulation and other policies: “[I]t almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse.” The unintended consequences of regulation are usually even worse than this, as they usually — unlike in free markets — promote a relatively small group of private interests at the expense of a relatively large group of individuals.

From a Public Choice school perspective, the regulation problem is essentially one of government failure andrent seeking, noting that: “(1) individuals in government (politicians, regulators, voters, etc.) are driven by self-interest, just as individuals in other circumstances are, and (2) they are not omniscient.”

Worse still: “[S]pecial interests are disinclined to seek direct wealth transfers because their machinations would be too obvious. Instead, regulatory approaches that purport to provide public benefits confuse the public and reduce voter opposition to transfers of wealth to special interests.”

From an Austrian school perspective, the regulation problem is essentially one of economic calculation and bureaucracy. Ludwig von Mises explains: “Without market prices for the means of production, government planners cannot engage in economic calculation, and so literally have no idea if they are using society’s resources efficiently. Consequently, socialism [and regulatory interventionism] suffers not only from a problem of incentives, but also from a problem of knowledge.” Mises said regarding the latter that: “A bureau is not a profit-seeking enterprise; it cannot make use of any economic calculation.” And this inevitably leads to regulatory failure as: “… [t]he lack of [profit-and-loss, price and customer-oriented] standards [which] kills ambition, destroys initiative and the incentive to do more than the minimum required.” All of this is, of course, the antithesis of consumer-driven entrepreneurialism.

At perhaps a still deeper level, Murray Rothbard reasoned:

When people are free to act, they will always act in a way that they believe will maximize their utility. … Any exchange that takes place on the free market occurs because of the expected benefit to each party concerned. If we allow ourselves to use the term “society” to depict the pattern of all individual exchanges, then we may say that the free market ‘maximizes’ social utility, since everyone gains in utility.

On the other hand:

Coercive intervention … signifies per se that the individual or individuals coerced would not have done what they are now doing were it not for the intervention. … The coerced individual loses in utility as a result of the intervention, for his action has been changed by its impact. … [I]n intervention, at least one, and sometimes both, of the pair of would-be exchangers lose in utility.

What Is the Solution?

The solution is of course deregulation — as much as possible, as fast as possible. However, both special interests (as emphasized by the Public Choice school) and bad economics (as emphasized by the Austrian school) will need to be overcome.

This combination was colorfully dubbed the “Bootleggers and Baptists” phenomenon. It has been observed that:

[U]nvarnished special interest groups cannot expect politicians to push through [regulation] that simply raises prices on a few products so that the protected group can get rich at the expense of consumers. Like the bootleggers in the early-20th-century South, who benefited from laws that banned the sale of liquor on Sundays, special interests need to justify their efforts to obtain special favors with public interest stories. In the case of Sunday liquor sales, the Baptists, who supported the Sunday ban on moral grounds, provided that public interest support. While the Baptists vocally endorsed the ban on Sunday sales, the bootleggers worked behind the scenes and quietly rewarded the politicians with a portion of their Sunday liquor sale profits.

More dauntingly, Murray Rothbard reminds us that, in many ways, the history of humanity can be seen as a race between bigger government versus freer markets:

Always man — led by the producers — has tried to advance the conquest of his natural environment. And always men — other men — have tried to extend political power in order to seize the fruits of this conquest over nature. … In the more abundant periods, e.g., after the Industrial Revolution, [freer markets took] a large spurt ahead of political power [including over regulation], which ha[d] not yet had a chance to catch up. The stagnant periods are those in which [such] power has at last come to extend its control over the newer areas of [freer markets].

It will not be easy to slow, stop, and reverse the century-plus growth of the regulatory state in the US and around the world. The crucial job of pursuing deregulation cannot just be left to politicians from the top down. It will need to come more from as many voters and seceders as possible from the bottom up and every direction in between.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

Employment Does Not Drive Economic Growth

by Frank Shostak – Mises Daily:economic growth

For the head of the Federal Reserve Board Janet Yellen — and most economists — the key to economic growth is a strengthening in the labor market. The strength of the labor market is the key behind the strength of the economy. Or so it is held. If this is the case then it is valid to conclude that changes in unemployment are an important causative factor of real economic growth.

This way of thinking is based on the view that a reduction in the number of unemployed persons means that more people can now afford to boost their expenditures. As a result, economic growth follows suit.

We Need More Wealth, Not Necessarily More Employment

The main driver of economic growth is an expanding pool of real wealth, gained through deferred consumption and increases in worker productivity. Fixing unemployment without addressing the issue of wealth is not going to lift economic growth as such.

It is the pool of real wealth that funds the enhancement and the expansion of the infrastructure, i.e., an expansion in capital goods per individual. An enhanced and expanded infrastructure permits an expansion in the production of the final goods and services required to maintain and promote individuals’ lives and well-being.

If unemployment were the key driving force of economic growth then it would have made a lot of sense to eradicate unemployment as soon as possible by generating all sorts of employment.

It is not important to have people employed as such, but to have them employed in wealth-generating activities. For instance, policy makers could follow the advice of Keynes and his followers and employ people in digging ditches, or various other government-sponsored activities. Note that the aim here is just to employ as many people as possible.

A simple commonsense analysis however quickly establishes that such a policy would amount to depletion in the pool of real wealth. Remember that every activity, whether productive or non-productive, must be funded. When the Fed or the federal government attempt to increase employment through various types of stimulus, this can result in the expansion of capital goods for non-wealth generating projects which leads to capital consumption instead of growth.

Hence employing individuals in various useless non-wealth generating activities simply leads to a transfer of real wealth from wealth generating activities and this undermines the real wealth-generating process.

Unemployment as such can be relatively easily fixed if the labor market were to be free of tampering by the government. In an unhampered labor market, any individual that wants to work will be able to find a job at a going wage for his particular skills.

Obviously if an individual demands a non-market related salary and is not prepared to move to other locations there is no guarantee that he will find a job.

For instance, if a market wage for John the baker is $80,000 per year, yet he insists on a salary of $500,000, obviously he is likely to be unemployed.

Over time, a free labor market makes sure that every individual earns in accordance to his contribution to the so-called overall “real pie.” Any deviation from the value of his true contribution sets in motion corrective competitive forces.

Purchasing Power Is Key

Ultimately, what matters for the well-being of individuals is not that they are employed as such, but their purchasing power in terms of the goods and services that they earn.

It is not going to be of much help to individuals if what they are earning will not allow them to support their life and well-being.

Individuals’ purchasing power is conditional upon the economic infrastructure within which they operate. The better the infrastructure the more output an individual can generate.

A higher output means that a worker can now command higher wages in terms of purchasing power.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

Private Enterprise versus Free Enterprise

by Logan Albright– Mises Daily:free enterprise

The United States Export-Import Bank is scheduled to expire at the end of June 2015, and the elected representatives of both parties are tripping over themselves to reauthorize it, citing the importance of exports and strong private enterprise to the American economy.

“I’m a very strong supporter of the Ex-Im Bank, because it is a tool for us to be competitive in order to support our businesses exporting,” said Hillary Clinton. “[F]ailure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to unilateral disarmament and cost tens of thousands of American jobs,” commented Harry Reid. It would seem that Democrats are eager to claim the mantle traditionally applied to Republicans of “The Party of Business.” But there is a difference between being pro-business and being pro-markets.

In his book, Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, libertarian attorney and historian John V. Denson observes, “Many businessmen and bankers believe in private enterprise but do not believe in free enterprise” (emphasis in the original).

It’s an important distinction to make. Free enterprise is the laissez-faire, free-market ideal, with the peaceful interactions between individuals being wholly unregulated by government. Under free enterprise, anyone can trade with anyone else on mutually agreeable terms. Since all interactions are voluntary, all traders necessarily benefit, and both wealth and welfare are free to increase without the imposition of artificial limits.

Private enterprise, in contrast, means merely that business and the means of production are held in private hands, although the government may make any number of demands on how these individuals go about their business. The fascist governments of Europe in the past century maintained a system of private enterprise, while simultaneously exercising near complete control over business operations. Similarly, the Roosevelt economy during World War II was marked by extensive private enterprise serving at the pleasure of government.

This is not to say that private enterprise is bad — it isn’t — but merely that it is insufficient for economic liberty, and prone to be corrupted by the political process. At first glance, one would think that business owners would favor free enterprise. After all, who wants to be pushed around by the government? But in fact, we see just the opposite. James Buchanan, founder of the Public Choice school of economics, was famous for exposing the incentives for private companies to attempt to manipulate government into playing favorites in the marketplace. A free enterprise system benefits everyone who is willing to be productive. Government controls on business, on the other hand, benefit the few at the expense of the many, which means the few who benefit have every incentive to lobby for, and support such a system. Thus, we see everywhere lip service being paid to free enterprise, but an actual promotion of private, unfree enterprise.

The U.S. Ex-Im Bank is a perfect example of this. Founded as part of FDR’s New Deal eighty years ago, the Bank has been providing taxpayer-backed loans to private companies. We are told by supposedly pro-business politicians that the program is needed to stimulate exports, even though competition unhindered by corporate cronyism has always proved a superior economic stimulant. Especially egregious is the fact that most of the money the Bank hands out goes to huge corporations that certainly do not need the government’s help to export their goods.

While defenders of the Bank like to claim most of the Bank’s activity is devoted to helping small business, in fact, 97 percent of the Bank’s loan guarantees go to just ten corporations, with the top two being Boeing and General Electric — hardly mom and pop enterprises that need handouts to keep running. While these companies are not owned by the government, the fact that they are private entities does not justify this kind of interventionism, which stifles competition and creates perverse incentives.

If it is reauthorized, the Ex-Im Bank is estimated to cost taxpayers $2 billion over the next decade. It wastes millions on self-promotion and PR, and, due to specific mandates handed down from the Obama administration, it disproportionately rewards political interests, such as the green energy boondoggle known as Solyndra and foreign companies mired in corruption like Abengoa. It would be hard to imagine a less free market approach toward supporting business. Meanwhile, government guarantees of loans to companies that could not secure them on the open market ensures that the money will be poorly invested, serving special interests rather than sound economics.

This sort of protectionism is perhaps the most seductive and insidious example of the lure of private enterprise at the expense of free enterprise. Despite being thoroughly debunked as effective or wise by virtually all credible economists, protectionist policies have been among the most entrenched and difficult to dismantle. The Ex-Im Bank remains a drop in the bucket compared to other protectionist policies, such as the mammoth farm subsidies Congress cheerfully votes for every few years. But even this relatively small program has proven remarkably hard to kill. Part of the reason for this is that Republicans and Democrats alike can vote for protectionist measures while simultaneously claiming to be “pro-business.” The distinction between supporting business freedom and supporting business directly through government action is rarely made.

Private enterprise is a subset of free enterprise; All free enterprise is private, but not all private enterprise is free. The failure to bear this distinction in mind is what leads to public support of indefensible programs like the Ex-Im Bank. The support of private enterprise at the expense of free markets results merely in corporatism, where business becomes an extension of government instead of the agents of competition and choice.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

The Coming College Collapse

submitted by jwithrow.college

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
The Coming College Collapse

March 19, 2015
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P opened at $2,093 today. Gold is checking in at $1,166 per ounce. Oil is floating around $46 per barrel. Bitcoin is down to $262 per BTC, and the 10-year Treasury rate opened at 1.94% today.

Big news this month… two colleges died! Sweet Briar College in rural Virginia recently announced its own funeral scheduled for the end of the 2014-2015 academic year. Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga also pronounced its coming death scheduled for May 1, 2015.

Sweet Briar is a small liberal arts women’s college with less than 750 students and Tennessee Temple is a small Christian university with less than 500 students so these are certainly niche schools that faced challenges not yet encountered by their larger peers. I think it would be unwise to dismiss these closures at outliers, however. Instead, this may be foreshadowing the coming student loan bubble collapse and the growing obsolescence of traditional higher education. Beware bubble, the needle approacheth.

Indeed, the Obama administration is now pushing a “student aid bill of rights” chock full of government regulations, controls, and oversight… what could be a better sign of the impending college collapse than that? And the federal government already finances or guarantees ninety-some percent of all student loans as it is.

College is still the holy grail of success in many American minds but that sentiment is gradually changing. Colleges, in most cases (specialized fields of study being the exception), are little more than glorified diploma mills. Everyone goes to college primarily to receive a degree that is seen as a ‘certification’ of sorts to work a corporate job. That’s why college graduates list their degree at the top of their resume and they mention it first thing in job interviews – having a degree demonstrates that they are qualified to hold a job.

So the system works like this:

1. Kids are told to get good grades in high school so they can get into college.

2. As high school graduation approaches, kids are hustled through the college application process. They are encouraged to apply early to as many schools as possible to give themselves the best chance of getting in. Critical thinking and introspection can wait.

3. Once accepted into college, the kids are walked through the student loan process. It is understood that they don’t have enough money to pay for tuition so someone else must lend it to them. And that someone else is probably the federal government.

4. Colleges raise tuition each year because the federal government is willing to finance or guarantee nearly all student loans sans sound underwriting guidelines.

5. Students apply for new student loans at the higher tuition rate for each subsequent year in college.

6. Students graduate with massive student loan debt and face a competitive job market because nearly all of their peers have a bachelor’s degree as well.

As you can see, the student loan racket is perpetuated by cheap money supplied by the Feds. The only reason colleges can raise tuitions significantly each and every year is because a very large percentage of the population attends college. The only reason a very large percentage of the population attends college is because the Feds supply them with cheap money to do so with few questions asked.

But there’s a catch. When we talk about this cheap “money” supplied by the Feds we are really talking about credit. This credit is created ex nihilo (out of nothing) – it only exists as an electronic record on a computer network somewhere in the “cloud”. Unlike real money, credit can vanish just as quickly as it appeared in the first place. You can’t put it in a safe. You can’t put it under your mattress for a rainy day. Credit is intangible.

The current model of higher education depends on constant credit expansion. Students don’t pay for college up front; they finance it as they go by obtaining multiple loans over time. Their continued enrollment depends upon their ability to get the next loan. It is assumed by pretty much everyone – parents, students, guidance counselors, professors, university presidents, Wall Street CEOs, government officials – that this system of constant credit expansion can continue into the future.

The word credit is derived from the Latin credere which means “to believe”. Credit depends on trust; it’s all a confidence game. And we are starting to see the trust in American higher education teeter. This trust will continue to degenerate as student loan debt continues to pile up and the job market continues to be flooded with bachelor’s degrees. This process is accentuated by the mountain of debt being accumulated by the federal government – the same group that finances the student loan bubble.

When the trust disappears, so does the credit… probably to the tune of trillions of dollars overnight. What happens then? Common sense suggests that colleges would be forced to reduce tuition drastically if students actually had to pay for college themselves. But have you been to a college campus recently? The campuses are pristine, the buildings are luxurious, and the amenities are plentiful. Have you looked at your alma mater’s annual financial statements recently? What does its long-term debt look like? How about its pension liabilities?

The fact is most American colleges would be insolvent if it weren’t for the Fed’s exponential credit expansion. If you think the credit can expand forever then this fact doesn’t really matter. But if you think the credit will eventually dry up then we are likely to see many more Sweet Briars and Tennessee Temple’s to come.

So do not despair, dear Vixens and Crusaders, you will not be the only alma mater-less Americans for long.

Until the morrow,

Signature

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Withrow
Wayward Philosopher

For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset” and the paradigm shift currently in motion 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.