free market Archives - Page 2 of 4

Capitalism Without the Capital

submitted by jwithrow.

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Capitalism Without the Capital

December 25, 2014
Hot Springs, VA

Merry Christmas!

The markets are closed today in honor of this wonderful holiday so we have no updates for you in this entry. Check back in with us tomorrow for market updates. We do have an important entry for you today, however. It’s not nearly as important as spending time with your family on Christmas Day but, since you are here nonetheless, we will carry on.

Earlier this month we watched as the U.S. national debt came up behind $18 trillion, whipped into the passing lane without signaling, and sped off into the distance. Where is the national debt going in such a rush? I’m not sure, but I’d wager it’s someplace not worth going to.

As the national debt raced past we noted that total credit market debt has ballooned up to 330% of GDP with considerable help from the Fed’s efforts to pump in $4.3 trillion worth of hot air.

The television analysts accept it all as normal but we must ask the question: How in the world did we get to this point?

Much of the apparent prosperity we have enjoyed over the last several years has been borrowed from the future. The world’s three major central banks – The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan – have each been engaged in an outrageous financial experiment; they have been creating massive amounts of currency out of thin air to purchase government debt by the boat-load.

Remember, debt is nothing more than a promise to pay for present spending with future earnings. These central banks, in collusion with their respective government, are really engaged in a scheme to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the public in the future to themselves in the present. There will be serious consequences to this madness.

It is important to realize that none of this chicanery has anything to do with capitalism… there’s no capital even in sight! The money created by the central banks of the world may act much like real capital, but it is just a clever impersonator.

Capital, according to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is defined as the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer’s needs. In short, capital is real savings and real resources.

Capital formation is actually quite simple – just save more than you consume and you will have capital.

We are currently doing the opposite – we are consuming way more than we produce. That’s how you end up with debt piled to the ceiling. This is true on the macro level (governments, multi-national corporations, etc.) and it is true on the micro level (individuals, local communities). The credit-based money and the massive debt have driven capital into hiding… we suspect for fear of being called a greedy capitalist.

And that, in a nutshell, is the answer to our question: we got to this point by embracing central banking and fiat money thus abandoning capitalism and its sound monetary system.

Sound Money once kept debt and the central planners at bay.

What was the secret?

Sound Money was like your grumpy friend that just won’t ever agree to do anything. You ask him to go to the movies and he says nope. You ask him to go to the ball game and he says he’ll watch it on T.V. You ask him to go to the bar and he says he has beer in the fridge at home already. Eventually you learn there’s nothing you can talk him into doing so you stop trying. That’s why governments and central banks hated Sound Money; it would never agree to any of their best laid plans.

You see, Sound Money could not be infinitely printed by governments or central banks. Originally, before governments got into the money business, money could not be printed at all; it had to be dug out of the ground and then minted into a coin. Later, governments took it upon themselves to stockpile gold in a vault and create paper currencies 100% backed by the gold. Always one to offer something it doesn’t have at a price it cannot sustain, Government reduced the gold backing of its currency over time and then, in 1971, it cut ties to gold altogether. That was the requiem for Sound Money and ever since then there has been absolutely no limits on the amount of currency central banks can create. Which means there has also been absolutely no limit on how much debt governments can rack up.

So here we are.

But just because there have been no limits to all of this economic madness in the short run does not mean there will never again be any limits. History shows that market forces cannot be perpetually suppressed and distorted – eventually the market will win out. The Day of Reckoning will come.

Until the morrow,

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.

Real Money

submitted by jwithrow.

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Real Money

December 4, 2014
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P is buzzing around $2,069, gold is back up over $1,210, oil is checking in just under $67 after OPEC announced that they would not cut production, bitcoin is hanging around $373, and the 10-year Treasury rate is checking in at 2.29% today.

How about those prices at the pump, huh? Some resource analysts think that oil won’t remain this low for long. They point to the fact that several OPEC nations are dependent upon high oil prices to run their social welfare states and suggest that, coupled with increased demand over the coming winter, oil will be forced to climb back up the ladder. Other analysts suggest there are numerous oil companies still profitable at current price levels thus supply will remain strong and oil will hang around current prices for longer than expected.

We can’t know which analysts are right and which are wrong but we do know that numerous well-run resource companies have seen their stock price hammered as a result of oil’s decline while the S&P has continued to escalate up its stairway to heaven. Speculators may see this as the best opportunity to get into resource stocks since 2009. Natural resource prices are especially cyclical – low prices drive marginal producers out of business which reduces supply and leads to higher prices which attract marginal producers back to the industry. Booms lead to busts which lead back to booms. Those disciplined enough to buy the bust and sell the boom tend to do well in the resource sector.

Speaking of natural resources, it is the rejection of real money backed by precious metals that, more than anything, has led to the disturbing macroeconomic trends we have been analyzing recently.

In October we examined fiat money and realized that it has always been a major drain on society when implemented throughout history. We agreed fiat money is any currency that derives its value from government law and regulation and we noted that legal tender laws are what force the public to use the government’s money rather than the market’s money.

The academic economists would have you believe we have a complex and sophisticated monetary system. They would suggest that you cannot possibly understand it so you may as well leave it to the experts. The economists will use strange terminology when discussing the economy in newspapers and on television in order to confuse and bore you. Want to know their little secret?

Our economy operates mostly on fake money.

I know, it sounds ridiculous. How is it fake money if you can spend it? That’s exactly what makes the fake money so insidious – you can’t tell that it’s counterfeit.

I will attempt to explain myself by asking a simple question: where does our money come from?

Take your time, I will wait…

If you said “from thin air” then you are the winner! For the last forty years or so our money has been loaned into existence. The Federal Reserve loans new money to its member banks and to the U.S. Treasury and the new money then eventually finds its way into the general economy. Where did the Fed get this money to lend? It created it! From nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

But wait, it gets better. This same process takes place every single time a bank originates a new loan. Say you go get a mortgage to purchase a new home. The bank supposedly lends its deposits to you at interest to finance your home. But this isn’t entirely true. First, the bank is only required to have a fraction of the loan in reserve – roughly 10%. So if your mortgage is $100,000 the bank is required to have at least $10,000 in deposits to support the loan. But does the bank actually take that $10,000 and give it to you? Of course not! That $10,000 in deposits stays right where it is. It could be spent tomorrow if the depositors took a trip to Vegas. So where does the money come from to finance your home?

Hint: it’s the same answer as above.

So you get $100,000 in fresh new money and give it to the seller in exchange for the house. The seller uses your new money to pay off his mortgage and often there is a little bit leftover. The seller calls this profit and puts it in his account and the economy’s money pool gets a little bit bigger: there is now more money in the system then there was before you financed your house.

The economists use terms like ‘M1’, ‘M2’, and ‘money multiplier’ to make this seem like a complicated system but as you can see it’s pretty simple. It’s just a journal entry and a few clicks of the mouse and… PRESTO!

No one noticed a little extra money sneaking into the system here and there at first. But the rate at which new money entered the system increased dramatically as the money supply grew. Forty years later we are starting to see the ill-effects of exponentially expanding credit-based money. This credit expansion has distorted all aspects of the economy because money is half of every transaction. Financial planning and analysis is extremely difficult if no one knows what one unit of money will be worth from one year to the next. It’s always apples to oranges.

So where did our money come from before the fiat money explosion? Money has taken on many different shapes and sizes throughout history but if you go back just a little bit in modern history, say to the mid-19th century, you will probably find yourself using the market’s choice for real money – gold and silver. A little bit later – the late 19th century or so – governments muscled their way into the money business and, instead of just minting gold and silver coins, they created national currencies but they fully backed these currencies with gold or silver. While fully convertible, the currencies operated much like real money but it didn’t take long for governments to reduce the real money backing. They found this so pleasant, they eventually got rid of all currency ties to real money altogether!

One of the big advantages to using real money is that it tends to maintain purchasing power over long periods of time. You can expect real money today to be roughly as valuable as real money ten years from today. You could actually save this real money if you wanted to! Saving leads to capital formation which can drive steady economic activity without the need for massive credit expansion which always results in booms and busts.

There are numerous other advantages to using real money but wife Rachel will fuss at me for making this post long and boring as it is so we will have to come back to them in a later entry.

More to come,

Joe Withrow
Wayward Philosopher

For more of Joe’s thoughts on monetary history and real money 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.

Preventative Care

submitted by jwithrow.

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Preventative Care

November 12, 2014
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P opened at $2,028. Gold, starting to recover from its recent mugging, is up to $1,165. Oil is down to $77.25 and contemplating testing its support level. Bitcoin is up to $396 per BTC, and the 10-year Treasury rate opened at 2.34%.

Precious metals are still the asset class that most warrants your attention in the financial markets today. The U.S. mint sold 5.8 million ounces of silver in October which was a 40% increase from September sales. The Mint then started the month of November off by selling another 1.3 million ounces.

Then it ran out of silver to sell.

But guess what happened to the price of silver? It dropped from $19.50 per ounce on September 1 to $15.72 per ounce as the closing bell rang yesterday. Concurrently, the gold forward rate has just gone negative for the sixth time in fourteen years which suggests the market is pricing for a physical gold shortage. Despite this, the price of gold has been systematically beaten down in 2014 as well. What was that old saying about supply and demand?

Both gold and silver will probably flop around a bit for a while longer but ten years from now you will look quite wise if you allocate some of your capital to precious metals at the current prices.

Shifting gears to continue with our recent health care theme…

Last week we pondered a new model for health care based on cash payments for personalized service in order to opt out of the big-government/big-insurance/big-pharma cartel. We reckoned such a model would be similar to the free market model of a bygone era where family doctors had the freedom to offer personalized service to patients without having to worry about an avalanche of insurance paperwork needing to be complied with or a legion of attorneys hiding in the bushes outside looking for a malpractice lawsuit. We also reckoned there will be a small but growing number of health care professionals willing to offer personalized service for cash as the health insurance industry in the U.S. continues to spiral down into a sinkhole of bureaucracy.

What we didn’t ponder last week was how to afford a cash-based model and keep the insurance company in the waiting room unless an emergency occurs. The answer is simple: preventative care.

No, not the preventative care where you run to the specialist and sign up for the latest and greatest test or screening every time you think you might have sniffled in your sleep the night before. We mean the preventative care where you actually take responsibility for your own health and wellness.

The general guidelines are really pretty intuitive: get a good night’s sleep, stay active during the day even if you work behind a desk, walk as much as possible, eat real food and avoid the fake food that comes packaged in boxes and bags, drink plenty of water and not much soda, consider natural supplements and stay away from pharmaceutical drugs, reject stress and negativity, and maintain a positive state of mind.

Do these things consistently and you probably won’t ever get sick. And if you don’t get sick you won’t feel the need to go to the doctor – not even for checkups if you trust yourself implicitly. Then you could take the money you would have spent on doctor visits and prescription drugs and work on your asset allocation model.

Of course it is still advisable to maintain a wellness network. There are plenty of people and groups out there in cyberspace discussing natural health topics and answering each other’s questions at any given time of day. Though I gave it up years ago, I understand there are plenty of active Facebook groups in this space also.

Wife Rachel and I are big fans of routine chiropractic care as well. Instead of pushing a pill for every ill, chiropractors embrace a more holistic approach to wellness by focusing on musculoskeltal health to ensure optimal functionality of the nervous system. We found chiropractic care to be an especially important part of Rachel’s prenatal and postpartum wellness and it is an excellent tool to monitor the development of little Madison’s nervous system. You know how the pediatrician taps infants on the knee with the little hammer tool? Chiropractors do that too along with numerous other more advanced bio-mechanical and reactionary measurements.

Fortunately for the sake of this journal entry, many chiropractors operate on a cash-only basis. That is, they do not deal with insurance companies (they will accept credit cards). This eliminates the extra costs associated with insurance paperwork and compliance which means lower prices for clients. Some insurance policies may cover chiropractic care but it would be up to the client to file for reimbursement in that case. Ask the chiropractor whether or not his services are covered by insurance and he will probably say “I don’t know” and explain that your insurance policy is a private contract between you and the insurance company and has nothing to do with him (or her). How refreshing to know there is still a sliver of honesty and respectability left in the health care field!

With the proper mindset, preventative care is really quite easy so why do most people ignore it? One cannot know for certain but I suspect propagated fear has a lot to do with it. We’ll save that for a later entry…

More to come,

Joe Withrow
Wayward Philosopher

For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset” and regaining individual sovereignty 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.

Hormegeddon Excerpt

submitted by jwithrow.

The following is a particularly truthful yet entertaining excerpt from Bill Bonner’s new book titled “Hormegeddon: How Too Much of a Good Thing Leads to Disaster”. For more information on the book, go here: http://pro.bonnerandpartners.com/BBLHORMV2P/WBBLQ800?h=true.

Today, truly independent thinking isn’t illegal, but it is rare. Psychologists have done a number of studies proving that most people will ignore obvious facts and conclusions in order to remain steadfast with the group. That is, they prefer solidarity to truth. They prefer public information to private information, even though the former lacks meaning, cannot be verified and often is contradicted by personal observation and experiences. That is why people stand in line in airports watching an old lady get patted down by TSA agents, even though everyone knows perfectly well the old gal poses no threat.

It is also why most people can see little difference between a sporting event and a war. In both instances an instinct—developed over thousands of years—causes them to support the home team without quibble or equivocation. Their brains are not adapted to the kind of abstract thinking required to separate one competition from the other. For 99% of our time on earth there was no need.

These instincts make people easy to deceive, especially when they are out of range of the herald’s voice. They are encouraged to believe that the collective projects are beneficial, whatever they are. Often, in a spirit of solidarity, they go along with the gag—for decades—even as the evidence from their daily lives contradicts its premises and undermines its promises. How else do you explain WWI, in which all major combatants continued making extravagant investments in a war, year after year, with no positive return? By the time the war ended there were 37 million casualties and the leading participants were bankrupt. What was the point? What was at stake that would justify such an investment of resources? Apparently, nothing. Nor did the Russians or Chinese readily give up their experiments with communism even when their schemes disrupted the private plans of nearly a billion people over three generations. And already, America’s War on Terror has loomed over us for more than 10 years, even though there have been far more sightings of Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa than actual terrorists.

Not everyone goes along, however. First, a few “out of the box” thinkers question the program. Then, the masses begin to grumble and complain. Unfortunately, that’s when the planners make even more plans. Typically, they urge people to make sacrifices. They promise that it will all turn out right in the end. “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs,” said Lenin. People go along with breaking a few eggs for a while, particularly if the eggs belong to someone else. But ultimately, the problem is not the eggs, it’s the omelet. It has the right shape, it appears sensible and rational. It should taste good. But it’s disgusting. When you cut into it, it’s burnt and runny. There are things inside you didn’t order. There’s probably a hair. And that’s when you realize that you never wanted an omelet. You just wanted some eggs.

Saving

submitted by jwithrow.

We have been hearing all about how most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and not saving any money as justification for the brilliant (*cough*) myRA government savings plans so we felt that it would be prudent to take a deeper look at what ‘saving’ is.

You see, we don’t think that saving is about money. Money is involved, but it is not the focus. Saving is really about storing our productive efforts.

It goes back to the days of barter…

Back then the fisherman would catch extra fish in the morning and take them to the market in the afternoon to trade his extra fish with the farmer for vegetables. His wife liked to have vegetables with her fish for supper so he had to trade for vegetables instead of the painted rock that he really liked.

The fisherman had learned that fish would start to smell bad the day after being caught so he had no choice but to trade all of his extra fish every afternoon and go fishing for more again every morning.

Until the fisherman discovered gold. Then the fisherman could trade his extra fish for gold and take the next day off. The fisherman didn’t really care about amassing gold; he just figured out that gold would let him store his production so he didn’t have to go fishing every single day to feed his family. And it turned out that three day old gold smelled much better than three day old fish – this was a bonus.

So saving was born!

Somewhere along the line we forgot this and started to think that saving was about amassing money. And on top of that we started to think that money was paper and not gold. We are so forgetful!

So when saving became about money and not about production we opened the door to debt. We started to think that instead of saving we could just borrow whatever money we needed. After all, the credit money still bought stuff just like the saved money except we didn’t have to wait to use it!

But then when we had to start using our entire paycheck to pay back all of the credit money we found out that we had to be even more productive now than before we went into debt. Our plan backfired.

We didn’t learn from our smart fisherman ancestor and now we had to go fishing both in the morning and in the afternoon to have enough fish for our supper and also enough to trade for vegetables so our wife won’t get mad and also enough to give to the banker to pay him back for the credit money that bought us the really neat painted rock.

Darn painted rocks.

Debt Impedes Economic Recovery

submitted by jwithrow.

Debt is nothing more than an obligation to pay for present spending with future earnings.

A little bit of debt used to increase future earnings is a good thing. A little bit of debt used to increase present spending at the expense of future earnings is not a very good thing. A lot of debt used to increase present spending at the expense of future earnings is a good way to make it very difficult for there to be any earnings in the future at all.

At the macroeconomic level, the U.S. has chosen option three. Japan and Europe have done the same.

The great thing about economics is that there is a ‘response’ system built in that maintains a sort of chaotic order in the general market.

When there is significant capital formation within the system, interest rates go down. Decreasing interest rates send a signal that it is a good time to borrow so homes are purchased and businesses expand.

Interest rates then rise as more debt is taken on and thus capital available diminishes. This sends a signal that it is not a good time to borrow so mortgages are paid down and business debt is reduced. This leads to gradual capital formation within the system that will trigger a decrease in interest rates and the cycle perpetuates.

But guess what happens when you have an Ivy League graduate that thinks it is his job to force interest rates lower and keep them suppressed?

That’s right! The market does not receive the proper signal and it looks like it is still a good time to borrow. So even more homes are purchased and businesses keep on expanding.

Then we get the idea that home prices should always go up, stock prices should always go up, businesses should always expand, and GDP should always grow.

And we end up with more debt.

U.S. debt has grown by more than 60% since the financial crisis began in 2008. Global debt has grown by more than 40% in the same time period.

It turns out that a problem of too much debt cannot be solved by taking on more debt.

The events of 2008 sent a signal that it was time to stop borrowing and to liquidate debt but we didn’t listen. The economy will undoubtedly blow up again and the next crisis will be even bigger because the debt is now even bigger.

The only way for the economy to truly recover is for a mass-liquidation of debt to occur. Until then we can expect the Fed to keep fudging the numbers and blaming economic stagnancy on the snow.

We happen to like snow and find it to be much more desirable than the Fed, both economically and ascetically.

Making the Income Tax Fair

submitted by jwithrow.

Well tax season is here once again and we have been hearing a lot about the need to make the income tax system more fair and equitable.

We couldn’t help but overhear a woman’s conversation the other day on the subject matter:

“Did you know that Mr. So-and-so’s tax refund was ten thousand dollars!? He doesn’t claim much of his business income but he claims all of his children, can you believe that!? It’s just not fair – that’s exactly what’s wrong with America!”

And that got us to thinking – maybe she is right.

Maybe we do need a more fair income tax.

After all, some people only pay 15% but some people pay 25% and even others pay 35%! And some corporations don’t even pay 10%!

You know what, we agree with our angry woman. We do need to have a more fair income tax!

We think the tax system should be structured based on our American heritage. Our income tax should foster liberty and justice for all. This is the land of the free, is it not?

Our income tax should make sure that every single American shoulders an equal burden, especially the rich! And our income tax should make sure that corporations pay the same amount as people!

Yes, dear friend, having thought it over more we are one hundred percent on board with a fair income tax.

Now we are not sure what our inspirational angry woman had in mind to make taxes more equitable, but we have thought of a pretty good solution.

Get rid of the income tax completely. Make it 0%.

Now it’s fair!

And now it’s modeled after our American founding principles. How can a man be free if he is not allowed to keep the fruits of his labor?

What’s that you say? How will we pay for all of our government operations?

Easy – we won’t. And we shouldn’t.

Oh, and it’s not ‘our’ government. If it were ours then we would be the boss. Instead, the government tags and monitors all of us at all times.

Mr. So-and-so has the right idea.

The Economy Can Never Fully Recover as Long as This Remains…

By Paul Rosenberg, Freemansperspective.com

When I was a young man, the older men I admired were the independent businessmen. Being a corporate suit issuing orders to underlings never appealed to me, but being a successful man who controlled his own life and business… that did.

Perhaps as a result, most of my friends are independent business people of one sort or another. Not long ago, I had a notable conversation with one of them, during which he said:

You know, Paul, business used to be fun. I’d take my children around and show them what we were doing, and explain the differences we’d make.

I waited just a beat as he winced and then continued:

Now, I don’t want to drag my kids into my business. Every time I move, there are regulations, permissions, forms to file. It takes up most of my time, for nothing. Business isn’t fun anymore. If I could find something else, I’d get out.

And this is a man who has been in his business since childhood, who loves to tell stories about it, and who used to enjoy his work immensely. If this guy is looking for the exit, the problem is dire.

It’s pretty obvious why

I have limited faith in government statistics, but there are a few informative ones on this subject:

The US Small Business Administration (SBA) recently reported that the annual cost of complying with government regulations is more than one trillion dollars per year and has been since 2005.

It goes on to report that big businesses (500+ employees), pay about $7,550 per employee to comply with the regulations. Small businesses, on the other hand (up to 20 employees) pay about $10,600 for every person they employ. And this is just one reason why small, independent businesses are being swallowed up by giant corporations.

Also bear in mind that this is just the cost of compliance with federal regulations. States also impose regulations on businesses. So do most of the county and city governments, especially large city governments.

New rules are produced constantly, and the cost of compliance rises constantly. In the US (and many other places), the cost of doing business has long since become prohibitive.

The Work-Arounds

Clever folks always find ways to get around this insanity, of course. But those ways are extra work and probably help relatively few people.

#1: They get rid of their employees

They find niches in their fields that allow them to escape the endless paperwork, penalties, and senselessly wasted time that comes with being an employer. (If you’ve ever had employees, you know what I mean.)

And what of the workers? Well, some get hired by the few related-industry employers that remain, while others have to take a mind-numbing mid-level corporate job just to pay the bills or get insurance. The rest are living on food stamps, disability, or a dozen other welfare programs.

#2: They go offshore

If your business is not resident where the regulators are, they usually can’t say anything about it.

Not many business people have moved abroad, but lots of them have set up offshore companies and are conducting business on the Internet. These people get their lives back… if they can find a way to make it work.

That is the dirty little secret of offshore companies, by the way: It’s not about escaping taxes; it’s about escaping all that ridiculous, insulting, pointless paperwork. No more spending days crunching numbers at tax time, no filing new reports every time you do something. You just take care of your customers and deliver good product. (Which ought to be enough.)

#3: They pay politicians for protection

Why would anyone donate thousands of dollars to a politician unless they expected to get something in return?

Big businesses pay politicians so that they can make a phone call to get problems that arise fixed. Small businesses can’t afford that, and most small business owners have moral problems with bribery.

Legit Is Dead

Unfortunately, the old “American way” of working hard, conducting honest business, and succeeding is gone, dead, and buried. It may still happen from time to time, but infrequently and off the beaten path.

Not long ago, I found this sign posted on a streetlight in Chicago:

The sign is right – the old “legit” way of doing business is dead. If you want to get ahead these days, you either try to play a game that is rigged against you, you pay politicians to bend the rules for you, or you avoid the situation entirely.

It seems that the best and brightest – the would-be drivers of the economy – are choosing the last option.

What does that say about where things are going?

Paul Rosenberg

[Editor’s Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of FreemansPerspective.com, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]

What We Forgot About Free Market Capitalism Part Two

submitted by jwithrow.

Failure is just as much a facet of free market capitalism as success is.

In a free market economy, well managed businesses with desired products and services will succeed and poorly managed business with undesired products and services will fail.

Consumers, when well informed, will make decisions based on their individual preferences; they will either buy the highest quality product at the lowest price for which that product is available or they will buy a lower quality product for a price lower than the higher quality product. Consumers are typically not very interested in paying high quality prices for low quality products.

So, in the free market, businesses must constantly strive to either offer the best product at the lowest price or a suitable product at a very low price. This requires businesses to focus on improving efficiency and decreasing costs without sacrificing product quality. If a business cannot offer competitive products at competitive prices then it will not be in business for very long.

This model aligns the interests of both businesses and consumers and creates a self-regulating incentive structure.

In the free market system, businesses have an incentive to offer quality products to customers at the best price and they have a disincentive to offer poor products at poor prices. While this is a simple representation, the incentive structure is one of the core principals underlying the free market system.

But what happens if businesses are not allowed to fail due to government intervention?

We have seen numerous cases of this scenario in recent years. The “too big to fail” banks were propped up by the federal government when they came to the point of failure. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken under receivership by the federal government when they came to the point of failure. General Motors was temporarily taken over and propped up by the federal government when it came to the point of failure.

This is moral hazard.

Oh, and we should probably mention that the federal government cannot actually bail anything out with its own capital. To fund the bail-outs, the government has to appropriate capital from the private sector in the form of tax dollars and it has to borrow money from the Federal Reserve that was created out of thin air.

So the business losses were socialized but the profits remained privatized – this is fascism in action.

By creating moral hazard in this way, the disincentive piece has been removed from the system and the incentive model has shifted away from a consumer focus and to a focus on generating high profits with no regard for risk. Such a model is a win-win for the favored businesses and the government cronies that they support. The losers are everyone else as the economy turns to mush.

Coming full circle, failure is a welcome facet of free market capitalism. Maybe not for the companies’ doing the failing, but failure is a force for creative destruction that serves to weed out the businesses that cannot offer quality products at reasonable prices.

This is why it is ridiculous to claim that any company is “too big to fail” as justification for bail-outs. Sure there would be temporary hardship were the major banks to fail, but this would eventually free up capital and clear the way for sustainable banking practices to be implemented.

Feel free to read more on the matter here and here.

Non-Profit Skepticism

submitted by jwithrow.

We think that the idea of non-profit organizations, as the 501(c) code exists, is un-American.

Hold on! Hear us out on this one before you call us heartless capitalists – we have a good reason. Actually several reasons.

The non-profit structure as it currently exists violates the equality under law principle upon which America was founded. 501(c) organizations receive favorable treatment by law relative to for-profit organizations.

But the American vision of limited government was such that it should protect equality under law rather than promote inequality by law. Equal opportunity as we used to say.

Additionally, the 501(c) structure reinforces Marxist principles in the minds of Americans in a very devious way. This we really don’t like.

The Marxist ideology is opposed to profit because it violates their “from each according to ability, to each according to need” credo.

In granting favorable status to non-profit organizations the government is actually supporting the belief that non-profits are more desirable than for-profit organizations. Think about it – why else would 501(c)’s be granted privileges if they weren’t seen as deserving of such favoritism? So in a sneaky kind of way this sows the seeds of Marxism by silently stating that the profit motive is not to be commended while the non-profit motive is superior ideology.

Which brings us to our last point:

The whole non-profit part of 501(c) organizations is fraudulent!

Sure, the organization itself does not show a profit but have you ever looked at the executive salaries at these “non-profit” organizations?

We have.

They are systematically much higher than average wages. MUCH higher.

Sure looks like profit to us.

Now there are some very good non-profit organizations out there. We have donated to some good ones that we knew were good because we knew the people running the show and we could see the charitable work being done. But most of the giant non-profits are frauds and we would steer clear of them. A good rule of thumb is that if a non-profit has a commercial on television then it is probably not worthy of your attention. Otherwise it wouldn’t need a commercial on television.

Also, don’t get us wrong, we like the fact that non-profits are tax-exempt. The less money appropriated by the Feds the better, in our opinion.

But we think that a much better idea would be to get rid of the corporate income tax altogether. Then you wouldn’t have a need for special non-profit treatment. And you might even notice some jobs sneaking back into America also – as long as the corporate income tax was repealed and replaced with nothing.

Of course this is just our humble opinion. Maybe the bureaucrats know better than we do.