Since the election, the Left has been hysterical about every Executive Order, every Cabinet and Supreme Court nomination, even perceived wrongs that haven't even been committed.
As it turns out, all it takes for Pro-Choice Liberals to flinch in their principles is to be confronted by an Education Department nominee who supports school choice. After a strong resistance to Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos, you'd think the world was going to end. One of my newest Twitter follows laid out a hilarious case of everything that could go wrong with Secretary DeVos' confirmation. Imagine what will happen when the Trump administration does something notably treacherous? The Boy that Cried Wolf might cause the hysteria-numbed masses to miss it.* *PS. Tariffs, Drone strikes, and federalistic intervention in Chicago are all very bad Trump ideas/policies. This was not to assert that he's been infallible! \n
With all this confirmed madness, I have to say it... The Liberals were right.
Guess we should educate our kids quickly while everyone can still read! "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Don't forget to check out our Drain the Swamp Tracker here!
If you ask what worries me about the incoming Trump Administration, I’ll immediately point to a bunch of policy issues.
Others, though, are more focused on whether Trump’s business empire will distort decisions in the White House. Here’s what Paul Krugman recently wrote about Trump and potential corruption.
I’m tempted to ask why Krugman wasn’t similarly worried about corruption over the past eight years. Was he fretting about Solyndra-type scams? About the pay-to-play antics at the Clinton Foundation? About Operation Choke Point and arbitrary denial of financial services to law-abiding citizens? He seems to think that the problem of malfeasance only exists when his team isn’t in power. But that’s totally backwards. As I wrote back in 2010, people should be especially concerned and vigilant when their party holds power. It’s not just common sense. It should be a moral obligation. But even if Krugman is a hypocrite, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. At least not in this case. He is absolutely on the mark when he frets about the “incentives” for massive looting by Trump and his allies. But what frustrates me is that he doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion, which is that the incentive to loot mostly exists because there’s an ability to loot. And the ability to loot mostly exists because the federal government is so big and has so much power. And as Lord Acton famously warned, power is very tempting and very corrupting. Which is why I’m hoping that Krugman will read John Stossel’s new column for Reason. In the piece, John correctly points out that the only way to “drain the swamp” is to shrink the size and scope of government.
As you can see, Stossel understands “public choice” and recognizes that making government smaller is the only sure-fire way of reducing public corruption. Which is music to my ears, for obvious reasons. By the way, the same problem exists in many other countries and this connects to the controversies about Trump and his business dealings. Many of the stories about potential misbehavior during a Trump Administration focus on whether the President will adjust American policy in exchange for permits and other favors from foreign governments. But that temptation wouldn’t exist if entrepreneurs didn’t need to get permission from bureaucrats before building things such as hotels and golf courses. In other words, if more nations copied Singapore and New Zealand, there wouldn’t be much reason to worry whether the new president was willing to swap policy for permits. Republished from Dan Mitchell's blog. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
It can be easy and tempting, especially during a presidential campaign, to listen only to opinions that mirror and fortify one's own. That’s not ideal, because it eliminates learning and makes it impossible for people to understand what they dismiss as “the other side.” If you think that Barack Obama has been a terrific president (as the author does) and that Hillary Clinton would be an excellent successor (as he also does), then you might want to consider the following books, to help you to understand why so many of your fellow citizens disagree with you:
Having read these books, you might continue to believe that progressives are more often right than wrong, and that in general, the U.S. would be better off in the hands of Democrats than Republicans. But you’ll have a much better understanding of the counterarguments -- and on an issue or two, and maybe more, you’ll probably end up joining those on what you once saw as “the other side.” To contact the author of this story: Cass R Sunstein at csunstein1@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Flavelle at cflavelle@bloomberg.net Originally published at Bloomberg.com MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
There is so much wrong with the American healthcare system. It is hobbled by mandates, subsidies, price controls, and every manner of middleman standing between you and what you want. Fixing all of this – and the bad regulations date back decades if not a full century – requires far more political courage that D.C. has mustered in my lifetime. Or we could just take the easy route: let insurances offer to willing buyers whatever kinds of healthcare they want. I explain this in the video below. There were many bad features of Obamacare, as people are now fully discovering. It combined a mandate that insurers not discriminate against preexisting conditions with community pricing, factors which caused the so-called death spiral. It put too many restraints on competition across geographic lines. It imposed what amounts to a new tax. But one of the worst features is hardly mentioned. It prepackaged what precisely must be insured, and allowed no room for flexibility. This is one reason premiums rose so much so fast. Insurers simply tallied up the benefits and the risks and dished out new terms. You had no choice in the matter. We don't do this in any other part of life. If you go to McDonald's and ask for fries, they don't say, "Sorry, we can't sell those separately. You have to buy the double Quarter Pounder Value Meal with a dessert, or else we can't sell you anything." My proposal is simple. Get rid of the government mandates over what can and cannot be part of what is called health insurance. Let consumers and insurers get together and decide this for themselves. This would immediately create a variety of new lower-priced options. I explain more below.
Matthew B. KibbeMatt Kibbe is a leading advocate for personal, civil and economic liberties. An economist by training, Kibbe is a public policy expert, bestselling author and political commentator. He served as Senior Advisor to Concerned American Voters, a Rand Paul Super PAC. He is also Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Austrian Economic Center in Vienna, Austria. He is a member of the FEE faculty network and cooperates in running Free the People.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin!
Six Bullets Dodged with Hillary's LossThe current news cycle is monopolized by two narratives. In one, Trump supporters are cheering the great and promising future. In the other, oppositional progressives are screeching about how hateful and daft he and his supporters are. But in the midst of this chaotic national quarrel, one important person has managed to slip away: Hillary Clinton. Not only metaphorically but literally. Maybe she’s seeking asylum in Russia. Anyway, while Trump’s impending reign isn’t anything to be ecstatic over, a relief of what America avoided in a Clinton presidency is definitely warranted. So let’s take a moment to examine some avoided disasters that likely would’ve happened had Hillary Clinton won. The Death of the Sharing Economy Last year Hillary pledged to "crack down" on companies like Uber and Airbnb.Democrats and even some Republicans have expressed their disgust of the abusive exploitation that’s found in the sharing economy. And by abusive exploitation, they mean disgust at innovative markets that are free from their regulatory micromanagement and competitive to their lobbied interests. Hillary Clinton is on the same track. Last year she pledged to “crack down” on companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Lending Club, Dogvacay, etc. These are companies that are frowned upon by taxi and hotel cartels, street corner title loan shops, and many more awful, out-of-date institutions. With Hillary out of office, the sharing economy and all those who benefit from its employment opportunities and convenience get to live to see another day. Minority Unemployment Minimum wage increases, overtime rules, high corporate taxes; all these policies have historically and presently had a negative impact on employment opportunities among minority communities. This is particularly true of youth and blacks in middle- and lower-class America. Hillary Clinton supports all of these initiatives and more. Her policies included manufactured outsourcing of labor due to uncompetitive corporate tax rates, which disincentivizes businesses to stay in the States, and, instead, offsets the insane tax by employing workers in other countries like China and Mexico. So when it comes to the American labor force and those who are un- or underemployed, they may have dodged a huge bullet. Globalism and Imperialism War with Russia is bad, m’kay? Hillary’s foreign policy mainly consisted of the same hawkish neoconservative interventionism as George W. Bush. It also included expansion of mass surveillance, the continuation of illegal execution of civilians via drones, and hostile sanctioning of world powers. This would likely end in the same results of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen spread throughout the Middle East. In addition to terrible military strategy, she’s also a staunch globalist, using government to achieve it. This is not to be confused with the internationalization of cooperative cultures and markets. She wants global governance, which means increased concentration of elitist wealth, power, and bureaucratic controls over our everyday lives. Healthcare It was she who reminded voters that Obamacare used to be Hillarycare. This is not something you want to brag about in the same month the government announced premiums would rise between 10% and 60%, adding to a bill people are forced to pay, for healthcare they can’t afford to use. This program is a disaster. It’s no wonder that 83% of voters who hated the program rejected her at the ballot. Whatever comes after – and everyone knows that Trump already walked back from his promise to repeal – it is not likely to be as bad as it would have been if a Hillary-in-denial shepherded this program out of its current morass. Guns Hillary has made no secret of her opposition to the Second Amendment.Hillary has made no secret of her opposition to the Second Amendment. She wants increased restrictions on ownership, use, and distribution of firearms. For people like me who value their ability to defend themselves and their neighbors, and partake in a fun recreational sport, Hillary Clinton’s defeat is good news. And with her out of the way, things like the Hearing Protection Act, which calls for the removal of suppressors from the NFA registry, and the Annual Defense Authorization bill, which would allow military personnel to carry their firearms on base, have a chance of success. This is what should be meant when referring to common sense gun laws. The removal of bureaucracy and infringement, not the expansion of it. Energy Clean energy development is a necessary and beneficial innovation that should be, and is being, supported by various companies such as Tesla Motors, Shell, British Petroleum, General Electric, Boeing, etc. But while these green energy investments are awesome, they’re also expensive and often come at your expense. Clinton favored artificially inflating costs on many industries, like oil and coal, causing higher energy prices for average Americans. She also favored increasing already-challenging barriers for developing nations to afford the vital energy to jumpstart their economies. Trump may have said green energy is a Chinese hoax, but chances are he’s not going to prohibit private companies from continuing their investments in renewable alternatives. In contrast, Clinton definitely would’ve sanctioned the fossil fuel industry, leading to even more financial hardship for the already-crippled middle class. Some may have their fingers crossed for Trump's promise to make America great again, while others are finding ways to numb their fears in dismay. Regardless of your prediction of what the future yields, one fact remains true. The guaranteed continuation of progressive attacks on enterprise, growth, and liberty was avoided. And I think that warrants a bit of relief for all of us. TJ BrownTaleed J. Brown is a content intern at FEE and hosts the popular YouTube channel "That Guy T". This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Now that Donald Trump has been elected, one of my main goals will be to convince him and his team that it would be wrong to leave government spending on autopilot (and it would be even worse to spend more money and increase the burden of government!). Since Trump semi-endorsed the Penny Plan, I don’t think this is a hopeless quest. But it will be an uphill battle since populists have a “public choice” incentive to appease interest groups. But we have a very powerful weapon in this battle. It’s called evidence. And now there’s even more data on our side. The Institute for Economic Affairs in London has just published an excellent new book on fiscal policy. Edited by Philip Booth, Taxation, Government Spending, & Economic Growth is must reading for those who want to understand the deleterious impact of the modern welfare state. The IEA’s Director General, Mark Littlewood, explains the goal in the book’s foreword.
The most depressing part of the book is contained in Chapter 3. As you can see from Table 7, the burden of government used to be rather modest in western nations. Indeed, I’ve made the point that it was during the era of small government that the western world became rich. But now look at the numbers. Pay special attention to the period between 1960 and 1980, which is when the welfare state exploded in many of the countries (aided and abetted by the value-added tax). But let’s not cry about unfortunate historical developments. It will be more productive if we measure the harm so we can educate policy makers about the need for spending restraint. And the book is filled with lots of useful information in that quest. In Chapter 4, David Smith explains the interaction between fiscal policy and economic performance, noting that excessive government not only reduces the level of economic output, but also the future growth rate.
He provides a micro-economic explanation for why various government activities hinder growth (I offer eight reasons in this video, by the way).
In other words, he’s saying that not only is government too big. He’s also pointing out that much of the spending is seemingly designed to impose economic damage by discouraging the productive use and allocation of labor and capital. I also like that he explains that the real problem is spending, not just red ink (a point I often make, but not always successfully, when talking to politicians).
He then reviews some of the research on the “Rahn Curve.”
Incidentally, I like and dislike what he wrote in this section. I like it because the obvious conclusion is that the burden of government is excessive in both the United States (37.9 percent of GDP according to OECD fiscal data) and the United Kingdom (43.3 percent of GDP). And we can use this data to argue for much-needed spending restraint. But I don’t like the above passage because I think the growth-maximizing size of government is well below 20 percent of GDP. As I’ve previously explained, academic researchers are constrained by the lack of data for small-government economies. So when they crunch numbers (relying in all cases on post-WWII data, and in most cases on much more recent figures), they basically find that Hong Kong and Singapore grow the fastest and they think that implies the public sector should consume 20 percent of economic output. But that implies, if you recall the data in Table 7 from above, that nations would have enjoyed more growth in 1870 if they doubled the burden of government spending. I think that’s nonsensical. What’s really happening is that researchers are simply measuring the downward-sloping portion of the Rahn Curve. But just because Hong Kong and Singapore are the first two jurisdictions that can be plotted, that doesn’t mean the Rahn Curve peaks at that point. But I realize I’m nit-picking, so let’s go back to the book. In the following chapter, Professor Patrick Miniford shares some additional research on the link between government spending and economic performance. I especially like how he shares a very useful table looking at some scholarly findings on the relationship between the overall fiscal burden and national prosperity. He also shares the conclusions from additional research.
And he discusses some new statistical findings, along with the potential implications for the United Kingdom.
I’m sure the data and conclusions also apply to the United States. Which brings me back to where I started. I fretted yesterday that Trump’s election will be a challenge to advocates of economic liberty. Indeed, he explicitly called for more infrastructure spending and implicitly called for more VA spending in his acceptance speech. Combined with his apparent rejection of entitlement reform, this doesn’t instill much confidence. But that’s all the more reason to disseminate this new research on the bad consequences of letting America become more like France. Republished from Dan Mitchell's blog. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Ok so Trump won.
Now that the election is over, what do we do now? Those of us searching for a Hero of Liberty during the primaries held our noses Election Night or didn't vote at all. Jason Stapleton tells us that we need is to be uncompromising. Now. Progressivism has slowly eroded our freedoms. They demand all guns be banned and then compromise toward a position that has less freedom and liberty than where we started. Our goal should be what some would call 'obstructionist'. Not one more inch. Progressivism is successful becuase they are playing the long game.
Check out Jason Stapleton's quick take on how we should be orienting ourselves as Liberty Lovers who believe in Free Markets, Limited Government, Peace, Tolerance, and Individualism:
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Before I fly to Boston tomorrow for the Mises Institute event there (it's sold out, I'm simultaneously sorry and happy to report), I wanted to pass along a gift.
It's my latest free eBook, Education Without the State. Would we really be illiterate morons without public education? (Heck, plenty of people are illiterate morons with public education.) Would only the super-rich be educated? Libertarians get these questions all the time. Here are the answers. Want it? Download it here: http://www.NoStateEducation.com More from LibertyLOL:For those who understand free markets and The Federal Reserve's impact on our future economy and money supply it was exciting when Trump started railing against The Fed during last nights debate. We all waited for him to really hammer the point home. Then he didnt. Watch his response to Clinton at 2:14 below.
Yeah, he just kinda faded there at the end too.
He didn't even say "Federal Reserve"; he just kept mentioning the Fed. He really needed to spell it out for an electorate that is highly unqualified to even know what they are voting for or against. Simplify Donald. Here's what you should have said: "Look, you want to know why you can't get ahead!? This entire game, it's rigged against you. There's this Federal Reserve that isn't Federal at all. It's a private company. It's a cartel. It's cozy with politicians and cozy with banks and it prints free money so the banks can lend it out. That's right, free money so the banks can make money off something they get for free. The biggest tax you can ever imagine is when inflation hits you the little guy. Your money isn't as valuable as it used to be and it's the Federal Reserves' money policies continued by lousy lifelong politicians. Don't take my word for it. Go research. Go read The Creature from Jekyll Island. It'll blow your mind and you'll never vote for a lifelong politician again." -what Donald Trump should have said. #messaging There is a messaging problem here but Liberty is one of the easiest ideas to sell. (Not that I expect the Donald to be the standard bearer of Liberty, that's our job) It it all starts with knowledge, though. We can't be beholden to the news media's narrative and their biased headlines for knowledge. Quite the opposite, in fact. More from LibertyLOL:
Central Bank Failure
Since the Brexit vote, panicking Central Banks have flooded the world with more money in attempt to stabilize the financial system. Over thirteen trillion dollars of bonds around the world are yielding negative interest rates, which means nearly 30% of all worldwide government debt is at negative rates. This is a historical first. I believe that the policy of the money kings of the global central banks is starting to fail. Over the last ten years, the United States has averaged 1.8% GDP growth, the worst in US history. The only success the Federal Reserve and other Central Bankers can point to is an artificially high stock market. Underneath the glow of record highs lies a ticking time bomb of over-extended consumers, decreased industrial production, European-banking problems, Brexit, a massive debt bubble in China, ISIS, deflation and a contentious US presidential election. If there is a recession in the United States, the Federal Reserve will have a very difficult time cutting rates. It is this reason that a Fed rate hike could be in the cards. It would at least give The Fed some room to maneuver back down if recession strikes. The Fed should have raised rates over two years ago. At zero rates leading into a recession, The Fed only really has three options: fiscal spending, deregulation or currency depreciation. Fiscal spending has been an emphasized topic from both US Presidential candidates, particularly infrastructure spending in the United States. Both candidates agree that the United States has lacked infrastructure spending and is in need of a big build-out. This will be one of the big themes in the stock market over the next couple of years. One positive aspect about potential infrastructure spending is that current record low interest rates allow for cheap borrowing. I believe we should require infrastructure bonds to be established as mortgage bonds that pay down the debt at the end. This will eliminate the open-ended borrowing where debt spirals even higher. Instead the projects will be paid off in thirty years just like a home. The final way for a central bank to control inflation at zero interest rates is currency depreciation. I am expecting a major currency problem in the next 6-18 months that will likely lead to higher inflation. Evidence of the transition from deflation to inflation appears as central banks overplay their hand and currencies begin to fall. Over time, this will be good for gold and hard assets. Aspin Speech Long time readers of the MaxOut Savings Report know that I believe Stanley Fischer, the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is the most respected member of the Fed. Over the weekend, Fischer delivered an influential speech at the Aspin Institute laying out some important points on US economic standing. First, he made the case that over the last two years the United States has weathered a number of economic shocks. The events in China, a 20% rise in dollar value, and the Brexit vote have had little effect on the US economy and the labor market. I believe this could translate to a more hands off Fed. The next time the stock market falls, don’t expect the Fed to rush in and talk it up. Regarding negative interest rates Fischer stated that it is “something that the Fed has no plans to introduce”. That was a clear statement. Stanley Fischer also commented on the “exceptionally slow labor productivity growth….Business productivity growth is reported to have declined for the last three quarters, its worst performance since 1979”. Negative productivity is potentially a result of incorrect measurement or poor business investment. Stanley stated the key to boosting the productivity growth and long run potential of the economy is likely found in effective fiscal and “more-effective regulatory policy.” This statement hints the Federal Reserve is concerned that government regulation has become over reaching and is now negatively affecting economic growth. Regulatory Policy is an area that the United States can make tremendous headway. The beauty of deregulating the economy is in the resulting increase in growth and hiring. Deregulation and regulation efficiency are low cost compared to big ticket deficits such as tax cuts and infrastructure spending. Remember deregulation will grow the economy at no cost!
Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports
libertyLOL and doesn't cost you a penny more at checkout! More from LibertyLOL: |
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |