As I write this fat check to Uncle Sam, I've always wondered... What if elections were held immediately after we paid our tax bill every year?
What if taxes weren't withheld from everyone's paychecks every year and they had to come up with thousands each April? What if my tax bill was itemized every year? Rapper Cardi B famously noted that when she gives millions to private charities, she gets emails showing the schools she's helping to build and the kids she's assisting, why doesn't Uncle Sam? What if your tax bills were itemized? Of the XXX you owe: $251 goes to Egypt for foreign aid $14 goes for treadmills for shrimp $149 goes to govermental printing costs that could be avoided by changing font $110 goes to Air Force One for unofficial vacations $.48 on an unused monkey house $29 fraudulent tax reimbursements to prisoners $410 on 'improper payments' or fraudulent payments due to lack of financial controls $1.89 on a 3-week long FAA party $42 NSA and other gov't use of World of Warcraft as collections platform $4 U.S. Census commercial that appeared during the Super Bowl $.22 On a laundry-folding robot $17 On a study about baby names (and "The astounding conclusion: Popular names are popular with parents.") Do you think people would be more active in holding politicians/bureaucracy accountable?Who cares more about your money? You or the Government? Of course it's you. Looking at the list above, would you better invest that money in your life or are you glad it went to countries where they openly burn our flag? 50 Examples of Government Waste The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:
See also, 13 Silliest Uses of Taxpayer Money
Since you made it this far down the post, I'll let you in on a little secret. This 4th of July, we're going live with a new website www.Liberty.wiki. We're building out the infrastructure at the moment and learning wiki markup from scratch! Please bookmark it and, once up and running, contribute of your own free will, with an article or two on something that you're an expert at! 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 Taxation is Theft Bot
0 Comments
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
There are many problems with cryptocurrencies. That is all starting to change.
One criticism of cryptocurrencies is their highly speculative nature which has a roller coaster effect on their market value. Extreme returns can be met with losses just as quickly. Determining the true value of a cryptocurrency is extremely difficult to ponder, especially if the crypto doesn't have any clear legitimate use in the real world. There are also barriers to entry in the public's adoption of cryptocurrencies. It takes savvy to understand blockchain technology, research and select an appropriate online wallet, use private posting keys, etc. It's amazing how few crypto-investors have ever even read a white paper. The Latium Platform solves for these valuation and these barriers of entry by creating an easy to use market place where anyone willing to complete a task is rewarded with LATX tokens based on smart contracts. Think of the emergence of the 'gig economy' since the recession of 2008. Services like Uber, Lyft, AirBNB, Fiver, Upwork and others have connected those who want services to those who can provide it worldwide. No longer is employment limited to a local or state employee pool. The Latium Team will be releasing the Alpha version of the Latium Platform Friday, December 29th, 2017. Even though many who aren't crypto-savvy won't be purchasing tokens outright, they will be able to create a Latium account and receive crypto from completing tasks. By implementing a smart contract-based, global reputation system, Latium aims to disrupt the multi-billion global labor market through the blockchain and make the employer-employee relationship more transparent. 
The Latium platform can be used for task creation, meaning that anyone needing a task completed (logo design, ride-share, assassination) can now use LATX to pay for the labor. This gives LATX an intrinsic value within the system rather than the purely speculative value given to most cryptocurrencies and tokens.
This platform will also integrate a reputation system which will make the entire employee/employer relationship much more transparent while also filtering out spam and unwanted content. Of note, John McAfee, Founder of McAfee Anti-Virus, has joined the Latium team in an advisory role. I foresee a couple results in this use of blockchain technology. 1. Lower unemployment rate 2. Higher level of efficiency in output for platforms like social media sites and apps 3. Reduction in the rate of spamming in community driven platforms 4. Most importantly, the widespread adoption of LATX as it is more utilized in commerce by common-folk. Go check out Latium's platform and get in on their token sale while they are still offering bonuses! 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:
There's some good news and some bad news as we roll into Christmas vacation.
Since I like to end with good news whenever possible, I'll start with the bad. 
The first topic I wanted to mention is the GOP tax plan. Actually, the news isn't all bad. For this one, it's both good and bad--a mixed bag. There are two parts to this: how the plan was constructed and the merits of the plan itself.
The way in which the plan was constructed is one of the universally negative aspects of the bill and is a prime example of how poorly Washington functions. The bill, whose partial initial purpose was to simplify our tax code, ballooned in a matter of weeks to nearly 500 pages and many hundreds of thousands of words. (So much for simplification, right?) On top of that, it was written entirely by Congressional Republicans. There was no attempt to reach across the aisle. There was no attempt to seek the CBO's input. In fact, the bill was thrown together so quickly that the CBO didn't have time to score it, most think tanks didn't get a chance to weigh in on the entire text, and members of Congress--Republicans--were admitting that they didn't have time to read much of it. This is a reform effort that will dramatically impact both our economy and our government's finances, and it appears to have been done in haste and without much due diligence. As evidence of this, consider what happened 20 December. Only after having voted for the bill did the House discover that portions of it violate Senate rules. Now the House will have to vote on it again on 21 December. Businesses don't run this way. Most Americans don't run their lives this way. Our government shouldn't run this way either. That said, the bill that emerged actually wasn't all bad. So what about its merits? First and foremost, it thoroughly overhauled our corporate tax system. It may well be the most significant corporate overhaul ever. Among other things, it reduced the corporate tax rate to 21% and switched the U.S. to a territorial rather than a global tax system. It created incentives for companies to bring cash back to our country too. This is universally a good thing. Our corporate income tax system was incredibly uncompetitive. Even with these major changes, we're not even close to the most competitive country out there. We're in the thick of the pack now though. These changes were long, long overdue. This will promote growth, increase the number of jobs, and could increase investment as well. (That part remains to be seen. There are good arguments both ways.) There were also substantial changes to the personal income tax system. This is where the both-good-and-bad part starts to come into the equation. There were many changes to the way that our personal income tax system works. For the first few years after the bill's passage, most Americans will see a very small reduction in their tax bills. That's where the good part ends though. Some Americans will actually have their tax burden increased. Even though their income tax rates may fall, the fact that so many deductions are being eliminated means that they may still end up having to pay more than they did before this bill (we're looking at you Californians). Even for those Americans who do experience a reduction, it is likely to be relatively small. After around 2020, almost half of Americans could actually be paying more in taxes than they would have under the "old" system. Unfortunately, the half of Americans who are having their tax burden increased are the half who earn the smaller amount of income. Those who earn more will get to keep their reduced burden for longer. By 2025, almost all of the personal income tax changes will then expire. That's right: The personal income tax deductions were not made permanent. They are temporary. This means that whether the personal income tax changes were a good or a bad thing isn't immediately obvious. Clearly most Americans would agree that having more money--even in one year--is good for them. There's quite a bit of evidence, however, that temporary tax cuts have very little impact on the economy, can create imbalances and even bubbles, and can even harm Americans who plan their budgets around their new tax rates only to find them shoot up again shortly thereafter. I believe that politicians at that time will just extend the tax cuts permanently (they are seeking reelection, after all). This will throw off all of the accounting tricks that make this bill ONLY cost an additional $1Trillion in debt... It will then cost more. On the whole, the bill makes a large number of necessary, long overdue changes. I can't shake the feeling that this was also an enormous missed opportunity though. The original goal of simplifying the tax code wasn't met. Both the corporate and individual codes remain as long and as complicated as they've ever been. On top of that, as I said, many of the bill's provisions are temporary anyway. This brings me to my last point and the one point that is unquestionably bad: Why are those provisions temporary? The short answer: They almost certainly had to be. This last point is my primary concern with the bill and is the only true reason that I question the wisdom of the bill as it is currently written. (There are ways to reform our tax code without piling trillions of dollars in additional debt onto our backs.) The previous sentence is the point: This bill adds a tremendous amount of new debt to our government. At an absolute minimum, it will add an additional nearly $500 billion to our national debt (according to The Tax Foundation). Most other analysis puts that total closer to $1 trillion or even $1.5 trillion. Bear in mind that that is debt above and beyond what we'd have already accumulated. We'll still be accumulating the "other" debt too. Republicans are now up against a harsh reality. They've campaigned for years on cutting the tax burden. For years--decades even--our government had a small enough debt load that we could easily have done this without significant adverse impact. The cold, hard reality now though is that we have such an enormous debt load (105% of GDP) that we're actually quite constrained in how much--and for how long--we can reduce people's tax burdens without causing government solvency problems. Thus, Republicans opted to have most of this tax bill's changes expire in less than a decade in order to slow the accumulation of debt.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
This is why Republicans have actually added more to the national debt than Democrats have. We want to increase military spending, increase infrastructure spending, and keep welfare spending the same (apparently) but reduce the government's revenue. If that's what you plan to do, then there's only one way to fund it: more debt. In other words, young people today and people yet to be born are having their futures mortgaged. This is IMMORAL, even if it means we save 4% on our tax bills, personally.
After all of this new debt is accumulated, what will happen? Well, our rates will go right back up again. We'll be back where we started, only with a lot more debt. What, then, did we really accomplish for individuals? In all likelihood, we've hurt them over the long term for one reason. Mark my words: Our debt load is so large and growing so quickly, that bickering over the temporary nature of tax cuts will one day seem to be a luxury. Unless we get our fiscal house in order, we are only borrowing from people's futures. A day is coming when our tax rates will have to be RAISED in order to keep our government solvent. Eventually our debt will impose realities like that. This is what we are setting ourselves up for. The Republicans like to think that their tax cuts generate enough new growth to pay for themselves. The reality, of course, is that they don't. Even the most politically conservative analysis supports me on this. They do cause some additional growth, but they don't cause enough to fully pay for cuts, and they never have. Not a single tax cut package has ever fully paid for itself with new growth. That's why you must cut spending. Cutting spending is how you make the equation balance. We tell ourselves that our tax cuts mean that we don't have to cut spending because the lower tax rates will generate enough new growth to pay for themselves. This is only a psychological need: We tell ourselves this so that we feel better about the long-term problems we know that our debt accumulation will cause. We want to believe it. The problem is that it simply isn't true. (On a side note, we're likely to experience even less growth from this tax bill now than we would have a couple of decades ago when we first started talking about it because our labor force is now shrinking. Regardless of tax rates, there's only so much new growth that can be generated from a shrinking labor force. We don't have enough babies and now also discourage immigration. There isn't a third way to grow a population or a labor force over the long term.) 
Anyway, I said that I'd end on a positive note, and I will. The new national security strategy that Trump announced yesterday is tremendous. It places additional emphasis on jihadist networks, as well it should. It shines a spotlight evermore directly at North Korea, as well it should.
The most important aspect is this though: It labeled China a "strategic competitor." You can bet that that is absolutely true. China is not a friend of the United States or of the global trade and sovereignty rules whereby the U.S.-led system operates. China sees themselves very much in competition with the U.S., and it's time we stepped up to the plate. China plays on a market field that has no foul lines. It's time for us to level that playing field. While many Americans are complaining about Mexico's impact on our economy (which, contrary to much of what is shared on Facebook, actually provides an enormous boost to our economy), China steals our long-term prosperity. When it comes to engaging with the rest of the world, China looks out for China first. Thus, when it comes to engaging China, we should look out for ourselves first. Sometimes diplomacy is called for, but most of the time you need to call something what it is. The era of holding China's hand and pretending that they're are our friend must end. China is a competitor that plays by its own rules at the expense of Americans' economic interests, and it's time for us to meet that challenge head on. I applaud Trump for making this change. It's time. Let's gear up and fight for our long-term economic wellbeing. 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:
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
The elections last night were, to be honest, a disaster for Republicans.
This should serve as a wake-up call to the GOP and to Republicans everywhere. There are two problems here. 1. Republicans like to campaign on fiscal responsibility, cutting spending and repealing ObamaCare. Once in power, we find it's business as usual. 2. There is now a remote possibility that these results were only a prelude of what's to come in the even more significant mid-term elections just one year from now. The problem isn't that we might have less Republicans (or conversely more Democrats). The problem is the messaging that will be shoved down our throats when Democrats begin to re-balance power back in their favor. "The People Have Spoken!" "Conservatives can't Govern!" "Single Payer for All!" Virginia used to be a largely conservative state. Then for many years, it was a reliable swing state. Now it is probably more a Democratic state than anything else (not solidly so--but still). The point: Virginia is continuing its long-term slide to the Left and won't be the last state to do so. As has been said many times, the Republican Party must think about their strategy and, crucially, about how they communicate with the public. It's a challenge for Google to find a time when Republicans actually reduced the size of government but that might be a starting point. Republicans cannot expect to overcome that challenge by doing the same things they've always done. They need to give serious thought to how we should be reaching out to voters in this day, time, and environment. For those of you who still support the Republican Party, I understand why your allegiance hasn't shifted to the Democratic Party. But when do you think the Republicans will start to represent you? At what point will you realize that reducing the size of government and reducing spending isn't going to happen? At this rate, I assume it's when we either a) hit $23 Trillion in Debt (2020) shortly followed by a Democratic President or b) $28 Trillion in debt (2024) and shortly followed by a Democratic President. At that point, it will be too late and the Republican Party will have to take a long look at itself and decide if it even holds limited government as a principle, or if it ever did. My worry is that, when the Republican Party goes through it's next soul-searching period, the Democratic Party (shortly to be the outwardly proclaimed "Socialist Party") will wreck havoc on this great country. Vote Libertarian in the meantime.
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:
LIBERTARIAN BOOK CLUB: Organized Crime - The Unvarnished Truth About Government by Thomas DiLorenzo10/13/2017 
We are a monthly book club for anyone who wants to learn more about Libertarianism. We will discuss each book's chapter/section in separate posts, so everyone will be able to read along at their own pace. We typically also focus on books which are available for free so that everyone can participate. Join the Private Facebook Group and follow us on Twitter as we seek to learn more about Libertarianism. Other books we've reviewed can be found here. 
Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government by Thomas DiLorenzo
Located here for free. Politics and thieves, coercion and regulation, fascism and the Fed, centralization and liberty, workers and unions, trade and freedom, free-market achievements and government disasters in American history — this book covers it all! Section 1: Coercion and Regulation I thought his synopsis and examples from Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Control: How NOT to Fight Inflation was solid. I’ll be adding it to my reading list. Unfortunately, no AudioBook version! The “DiLorenzo’s Laws of Government” are pretty solid. I’ll need to expound on them later in a longer article and have them somewhere where I can share them easier when I’m arguing with people who want bigger government. They resounded with me as I think they will with others. • DiLorenzo’s First Law of Government- In government, failure is success. Welfare Bureaucracy, Government Schools, NASA tragedies and the Federal Reserve, etc. • DiLorenzo’s Second Law of Government- Politicians will rarely, if ever, assume responsibility for any of the problems that they cause with bad policies. • DiLorenzo’s Third Law of Government- With few exceptions, politicians are habitual liars. • DiLorenzo’s Fourth Law of Government- Politicians will only take the advice of their legions of academic advisers if the advice promises to increase the state’s power, wealth, and influence even if the politicians know that the advice is bad for the rest of society. I also agreed that the price control section was timely after the debate we just endured following Hurricane Irma. I've written EXTENSIVELY about it here on my Steemit blog. How is it that The Continental Congress wisely adopted an anti-price control resolution on June 4, 1778 but it's still up for debate the negative effects? That Resolution read: “Whereas it hath been found by experience that limitations upon the prices of commodities are not only ineffectual for the purpose proposed, but likewise productive of very evil consequences—resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to repeal or suspend all laws limiting, regulating or restraining the price of any Article.” If they knew price controls always failed 240 years ago, why is it even a question today? I blame education, or lack thereof. Chapter 3 Who Will Regulate the Regulators The logic on ‘providing more power to the Fed in order to prevent another Great Recession” was spot on: “One of the biggest governmental lies is that financial markets are unregulated and in dire need of more central planning by government. Laissez-faire is said to have caused the “Great Recession.” Fed bureaucrats have lobbied for some kind of Super Regulatory Authority to supposedly remedy this problem. Th is is all a lie because according to one of the Fed’s own publications (“The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions”), the Fed already has “supervisory and regulatory authority” over the following partial list of activities: bank holding companies, state-chartered banks, foreign branches of member banks, edge and agreement corporations, U.S. state-licensed bank branches, agencies and representative offices of foreign banks, nonbanking activities of foreign banks, national banks, savings banks, nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies, thrift holding companies, financial reporting procedures of banks, accounting policies of banks, business “continuity” in case of economic emergencies, consumer protection laws, securities dealings of banks, information technology used by banks, foreign investment by banks, foreign lending by banks, branch banking, bank mergers and acquisitions, who may own a bank, capital “adequacy standards,” extensions of credit for the purchase of securities, equal opportunity lending, mortgage disclosure information, reserve requirements, electronic funds transfers, interbank liabilities, Community Reinvestment Act sub-prime lending “demands,” all international banking operations, consumer leasing, privacy of consumer financial information, payments on demand deposits, “fair credit” reporting, transactions between member banks and their affiliates, truth in lending, and truth in savings.” 
I had never heard of the non-profit libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute nor its annual product Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State. It outlines the annual effect of regulations on business in the United States. Just checking out the fact sheet was valuable. As someone who thinks government spending and the national debt are keystone issues of our time, I also want to check out Underground Government: The Off-Budget Public Sector, his book written with James Bennett in 1983. Maybe we can get that book into the hopper for the Book Club! 
Chapter 5: Our Totalitarian Regulatory Bureaucracy “In chapter 5 of F.A. Hayek’s 1944 classic, Th e Road to Serfdom, the Nobel laureate warned that the state need not directly control all or even most of the means of production to exert totalitarian control over the economic life of a nation. He cited the example of Germany where, as of 1928, “the central and local authorities directly control 53 percent” of the German economy. In addition to this, wrote Hayek, private industry in Germany was so heavily regulated that the state indirectly controlled “almost the whole economic life of the nation.” It was through such totalitarian controls that Germany traveled down “the road to serfdom.” As Hayek further stated, “there is, then scarcely an individual end which is not dependent for its achievement on the action of the state, and the ‘social scale of values’ which guides the state’s action must embrace practically all individual ends.” In other words, government regulation was so pervasive that the pursuit of profit, driven by consumer preferences, was mostly replaced by the whims of regulatory bureaucrats.” Well Said: “First, construct a totally unrealistic theory of “perfect” competition that assumes away all real-world competition with assumptions of perfect information, homogenous products and prices, free or costless entry and exit from industry, and “many” firms. Second, compare real-world markets to this utopian Nirvana state and condemn the markets as “imperfect” or “failed. The third characteristic of market failure theories is to recommend intervention by presumably perfect government that is assumed to suffer from no failures and which will correct the failures of the market.” When I read that, it reminded me of this. 
Section 2 I read DiLorenzo's Real Lincoln which I highly recommend. I like how in chapter nine he describes Rod Blogajevich as an amateur crook compared to Honest Abe. It is not just a matter of businesses contributing to campaigns to get political favors but politicians using threat of regulations to extort contributions. Chapter 11 Good point on the housing bubble: “So when the Fed’s expansionary monetary policy caused the real estate bubble, the extraordinary increases in property values were accompanied by equally extraordinary property tax increases. (After the bubble had burst, local governments were eager to raise property tax rates so as not to lose property tax revenue." Chapter 12 “A principle of public choice economics is that politicians will always do all they can to disguise subsidies to less-than-meritorious groups, such as millionaire corporate farmers. If they can subsidize them through protectionism, or price supports, this is much preferred than simply writing the millionaire businessman a check.” Chapter 13 He discusses Hamilton and I recommend the Tom Woods vs Michael Malice debate (in which I side with Tom. 
Chapter 15 He expands a bit on the idea he expressed earlier of why exactly mainstream media is so pro-government. Section 3 I agree with DiLorenzo that secession, nullification, decentralization and localism is more effective at achieving liberty than nationalism or universalism, but it is important to understand, “Of course “states” don’t have rights; only individuals do." Since he understands that I think it is confusing that he keeps using the phrase. I definitely agree with him that repeal of the seventeenth amendment would greatly improve our situation. But that that seems highly unlikely to ever happen. Chapter 17 The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. I read this short book a few years ago and highly recommend it. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their Legacy 
Chapter 21
“The Lacrosse, Wisconsin Democrat newspaper advocate assassination when it editorialized in November of 1864 that “If Abraham Lincoln should be reelected for another term of four years of such wretched administration, we hope that a bold hand will be found to plunge the dagger into the tyrant’s heart for the public welfare.” (Does that violate the NAP?) Chapter 22 DiLorenzo basically says that Abraham Lincoln and Adolph Hitler were brothers from another mother. Chapter 23 He points out that governments are by far the worst killers in history and that in that regard Abraham Lincoln was worse than Pol Pot. Chapter 25 DiLorenzo eviscerates Paul Krugman, which is always fun. “Krugman is right about democracy in a sense: Democracy is essentially one big organized act of bullying whereby a larger group bullies a smaller group in order to plunder it with taxes. The “Civil War” proved that whenever a smaller group has finally had enough, and attempts to leave the game, the larger group will resort to anything—even the mass murder of hundreds of thousands and the bombing and burning of entire cities—to get its way.” 
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Chapter 26 and 27 In these chapters he does still more debunking of the Lincoln mythology. I did notice though that he doesn't claim that the War of Northern Aggression was an unmitigated evil - just mostly evil with terrible consequences, but he does acknowledge that the abolition of slavery was the one positive outcome of the war. He also discusses how American government is both fascist and socialist. Chapter 30 – 33 These chapters are all about the evils of central banking. I agree completely and have nothing to add except that coincidentally yesterday, before reading chapter 30, I used a very similar article by DiLorenzo to counter a commenter on this post who was saying that all economists think the Fed is great and that basically Ron is a crank. That post and Brion's book should be of interest to anyone who liked that chapter. Ch 32 reminded me of this meme. 
Chapter 34
This chapter debunks the notion that the Federal Reserve is in any way libertarian just because Alan Greenspan was head of it once. Chapter 35 Debunks the myth that the Fed is in any way independent - Fed chairmen basically do the bidding of the president in order to maintain their jobs. President wants loose policy? President gets loose policy, and vice versa. I liked his discussion on the damage done by typical college economics textbooks, particularly Paul Samuelson's, which is most popular. Chapter 36 Explains how government caused the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. This is useful because people often try to blame DE-regulation when nothing could be further from the truth. As an aside, I found The Big Short an entertaining movie on the subject if you have not seen it, but it largely leaves unmentioned government as a cause and this chapter definitely fills in the blanks. Section 5 Chapter 47 Macroeconomists Discover Economics and Debunk the New Deal (Again) is probably the most intriguing to me. Seven decades of economists who have sold us the line that the New Deal and large-scale government spending is what got us out of the Great Depression. It took several decades but macroeconomic model builders, who consider themselves to be the elite of the economics profession, have finally discovered freshman-level principles of economics and have used that discovery to finally debunk FDR’s New Deal. (Beginning in the 1930s Austrian School economists like Henry Hazlitt recognized the truth about the New Deal: It made the Great Depression deeper and longer lasting.) The only wise thing to have done was to have allowed the liquidation of hundreds of overcapitalized businesses to occur, cut taxes and spending, and deregulate. Instead, the Fed increased the money supply by 100 percent in a failed attempt to create another bubble while the president and Congress implemented an explosion of government interventionism. That was the first time in American history that a depression was responded to with government interventionism rather than governmental retrenchment, and the result was a seventeen-year long Great Depression, the worst in history. The essay is solid and I'll need to look into Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression to learn more. That mainstream macroeconomists and their modeling have come around against governmental interventionism during a depression is great. Now, if the citizenry can learn that before the next bubble pops. I foresee politicians and special interests will use the next crisis as an opportunity to line their pockets. CHAPTER 48 Will Socialism Make You Happier? The Trojan Horse of “Happiness Research”I hadn't heard of this statist argument before but basically "...statists around the world are changing their tune and saying that prosperity doesn’t really matter after all; what matters is how happy we are. And, they say, that is what government can be really, really good at—making us happy. Consequently, they argue, there should be no more limits on governmental powers, for limiting governmental powers will limit our very happiness." In the year this book was published, Bhutan was the 'Happiest' according to the UN-sponsored "World Happiness Report". Yes, Bhutan. This hellhole, ahem, I mean paradise: As an intelligence officer which has experience in this part of the world... No. This year's winner is Norway, which is much more beautiful and bearable.Source:WORLD HAPPINESS REPORT 2017 It's also a lot more socialist, which to be fair, is the point. It's edited by leftist academic Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, what else would you expect? As F.A. Hayek commented in The Road to Serfdom, the end of socialism was always egalitarianism; only the means changed over time, beginning with government ownership of the means of production and transforming to income redistribution through a welfare state and a “progressive” income tax. These happiness researchers never make any mention at all of the well documented pathologies created by welfare statism, such as the destruction of the work ethic, family breakup, the growth of dysfunctionality caused by a welfare state that removes people from the working population, etc. Thus, “happiness research” is part of a crusade to persuade the public that poverty and servitude to the state are superior to prosperity and freedom. It is a new version of what twentieth-century communists referred to as “socialism with a smiling face” during the last, dying days of totalitarian communism. Chapter 49 The Canard of “Asymmetric Information” as a Source of Market FailureGood information on the Nirvana Theory of Markets. I tried to look more into it, but it is unique to only this writing. Nirvana Fallacy— comparing real-world markets to an unattainable utopian ideal (perfect competition), and then denouncing markets because they fall short of utopia or Nirvana. Having “proven” that markets “fail,” the analyst then proposes government intervention under the assumption that no such failures will infect government. Markets may not be perfect, but government is assumed to be. Overall, I liked Section 5 the best. The ease at which he demystifies economic myths is extremely understandable. I just wish it was taken onboard by many voters who refuse to heed the empirical evidence against government intervention. Asymmetric information problem really applies to government not the free market: “In this case we are dealing with the well-established fact that, in their capacity as voters, people tend to be “rationally ignorant” of almost all of what government does. In fact, government is so pervasive that no human mind could possibly comprehend the tiniest fraction of one percent of what government in a country the size of the U.S. does. Consequently, special-interest groups dominate all democratic governments;” A related problem I think is that "public servants" are allowed to keep secrets from their supposed masters. Chapter 51 “Politicians perpetuate the myth of government job creation because the government jobs that are created are seen by the average voter, whereas the private-sector jobs that are destroyed (or never created) are not.” I.e. Hazlitt's seen and unseen as described in Economics in One Lesson Chapter 52 DiLorenzo shoots down the gender wage gap myth. Tom Woods has done a couple of shows on this subject as well, as I recall. Summary DiLorenzo lays out a decent criticism of how Government, corrupted by size and motive, has engaged in forceful and deceitful acts against the populace. To be honest, I really dislike collections of articles such as this and found in other "books". If an author is still alive, such collections are always better to be formed in to a true book that is able to cleanly explain a subject from start to finish. While DiLorenzo's articles are well written (and are quite often sourced with citations! Such a rarity among articles), the execution of the message would have been much better had he taken the time to write these out in to full chapters of their own. The topics covered in the book were good ones to discuss (though I think that the mentions of the Civil war would be better served in a separate book), but I do wish that the author had expanded more on the topics of taxation, subsidies, and the enforcement of victimless crimes. Overall a good read, and some articles were absolutely fantastic. If only the author could have written this out as an actual book and added another hundred pages or so, this could have been something especially fantastic. edit: I've decided to give the book 5 stars, from the original 4. I find that I often go back to the book to re-read certain articles when I come across various topics of discussion. I still wish that the author had written a proper book instead of just compiling a collection of his articles, though. 
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:
I have my own business. It's about as simple as a business can be. We want to hire our first employees. In case anyone has any doubt whatsoever about how much more difficult/worse the government makes things for employers and employees (excluding income taxes and 15.3% Social Security & Medicare taxes!), check this out: We have to worry about "wrongful termination." Federal, state, and city law prohibit discrimination/harassment on the basis of the following protected categories: Race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, ethnicity, sex (including pregnancy), gender (including gender nonconformity and status as a transgender individual), age, physical, mental, or perceived disability, alienage or citizenship, past, current, or prospective service in the uniformed services, genetic predisposition or carrier status, familial status, marital status, sexual orientation (including actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality), partnership status, and victim of domestic violence status. We have to comply with the "Fair Labor Standards Act," NY labor law, and the NY minimum wage ($12/hour effective 12/31/17). We have to comply with the "New York Paid Family Leave Act," and the "NYC Paid Sick Leave Law." We've been advised by both an accountant and an employment lawyer that we must retain a payroll provider just to be able to keep up with the constantly changing government rules. We have to register with NY State as an employer. During the process, they ask questions that you literally can't know the answer to at the time you're registering. They also ask probing questions such as, "Does anyone work for you that you don't consider to be an employee?" And guess what? The guidelines around what constitutes an employee versus a contractor are so vague that a lawyer who specializes in employment and a lawyer who specializes in our field can't definitively advise us on what we can do to know whether we're complying with the law. We have to report to the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, comply with the "Wage Theft Prevention Act," and the "Immigration Reform and Control Act." We have to purchase workers' compensation insurance, "NY State Disability Insurance," and "Unemployment Insurance," which "starts" as a 4-5% tax (you have to wait for the State to tell you after you register) and, presumably, goes up from there based on how well our company is doing. (There's also another business tax on top of everything else that kicks in once we hit some arbitrary amount of profit.) We need to deliver "workplace postings" to every employee, even though we don't have a physical office. There's a whole industry around this because the government doesn't even provide the information in any kind of easily accessible way. (Check out complianceposter.com for fun.) What a productive use of our time, energy, and the valuable resources we need to grow! I'm sure our customers love paying higher prices, since they have plenty of disposable income. I bet the people we hire actually prefer having chunks of money taken out of their pay before they get it, because they know they're going to get every inflation-adjusted dollar back someday, and more! Hey, at least we have a government making sure that we don't do anything "wrong." Otherwise we could lie, cheat, and steal, since that's how you succeed in business! And at least we have a government doing everything possible to encourage our business to grow so that we can create jobs and prosperity! Can't wait to discover what other nonsense we have to deal with. These things do nothing but hurt everyone involved. 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:
What is the most important issue facing the United States, today?
If you had to rank the most to least important issues to you in regards to liberty in the United States, how would you rank them?
A. US foreign policy, interventionism, war B. US Monetary Policy, The Fed, etc C. Govt spending, taxes, etc. D. Govt regulation and interference in the economy. (Min wage, ACA, etc) E. The War on Free Speech (if you don't know what this is, you're a hate-filled, racist, misogynist, xenophobe!) F. War on Drugs G. The "Cultural Marxist" threat (Image Below) H. Immigration I. States rights/Succession I. Energy Sustainability and Future Green/Renewable Policy J. "muh roads" K. Taco Tuesday only one day a week (Editor's Note: should be higher?) L. Climate Change M. Other (comment below) Let me know your order! Mine are in order. Cultural Marxism: 
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:
Do you remember what Candidate Trump's Healthcare Reform Plan looked like? I'll remind you that it was glorious. It was as if his campaign consultants hand-selected numerous Libertarian, free-market policies and listed them out in bullet points.
Anyone who has read Economics in One Lesson, or passed any Econ101 course cheered it. Unfortunately, it's long been forgotten. Of course it would necessarily be better than the current tripe which is funded by millions of dollars worth of insurance company lobbyists and currently debated on the Senate floor, but we won't even hear its merits debated in a public forum. Our legislation process has devolved intoyelling down one another with more and more politician's talking points. "Millions will Die" is obviously all that is needed to be said to defeat any change to the ObamaCare disaster. Not worth mentioning is other politician talking points such as "The average American Family will save $2500 annually under ObamaCare" and, of course, "If you like your doctor or plan, you can keep your doctor or plan."
An overview:
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. 2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. 3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. 4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). 5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. 6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. 7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Either way, if you want to read a quick 4-page primer on health care reform, here it is. It's appealing because it was designed to lure you into voting for Trump. Unfortunately, once you're in power, ceding that power to the free market is a tougher task than any president can accomplish. President Trump should go back and demand legislators FULLY REPEAL ObamaCare and institute a concise version of this: 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:
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of (politicians), too plainly prove a deliberate and systematic plan of reducing us all to slavery." -Thomas Jefferson
The problem with the news today is they no longer provide an objective look at what happened. Instead, they provide a biased point of view and then tell you what to think and how to feel about it.
Instead, I'll cover two competing views on Republican Representative Justin Amash's YES vote on the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and allow you to make up your own mind. Haven't read it yet? I'll post it at the bottom of the article in an effort to declutter. We'll first look at his decision and validate it against our Principle of "Constitutionalism". This allows us to determine whether the new AHCA bill is even valid, legal or constitutional. The second way to critique Representative Amash's decision and look at his reasoning. We can then determine if the new AHCA incrementally takes us 'Closer to Liberty' or 'Closer to Tyranny'.
Is AHCA even Constitutional?
There is no gray area on this question. The AHCA Bill is either constitutional or it's not. If it's not, Rep Amash took an oath to uphold the constitution and failed by voting YES. A NO vote on an unconstitutional bill is a constitutional vote. A YES vote for an unconstitutional bill is an unconstitutional vote.
The argument from those who uphold this principle of Constitutionality will claim that we even if AHCA is incrementally better than ObamaCare, his vote on a law that violates the Constitution should be an automatic NO. They would also claim that just because this unconstitutional law is slightly better than the previous unconstitutional law, Libertarians have never been about voting for the lesser of two evils, Quite the opposite. So is AHCA unconstitutional? Again, I won't tell you what to think but reading more on it should color your favorability (or not) or Rep Amash's vote. No one has ever been able to clearly articulate to me why the Robert's precedent made ObamaCare constitutional so I'm not the guy to give legal advice. Might I suggest a couple great articles: Is Ryancare’s ‘Lapsed Coverage’ Surcharge Unconstitutional Under Roberts’s Obamacare Precedent? Why I voted NO on the American Health Care Act - Representative Andy Biggs
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Does AHCA Take us Closer to Liberty or Closer to Tyranny?
Those who support Rep Amash's YES vote because "AHCA is incrementally better than ObamaCare" will typically claim that they are 'realists' in the room. They understand that we won't wake up tomorrow living in a libertarian society with a perfectly Free Market Health Care system. They argue that libertarians have to do what we can, when we can, to reduce the size of government, even if incrementally.
Rep Amash knows that a NO vote doesn't repeal ObamaCare, it's the law of the land. Realistically, he notes, a YES vote can at least get us started in a new direction, one towards Liberty. This might be true even though I believe AHCA to be a monstrosity of legal code atop another monstrosity of legal code. The problem is that for for the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. And now, even though they claim this is it, they are only amending ObamaCare, retooling the subsidies, taking out the individual mandate, and ensuring the government is the one who maintains power of the health care market. The AHCA is bad politics for the Republicans and bad policy for Amash's name to be tied to. Why risk putting your name on a slightly better turd sandwich than the one you inherited? The one they all got elected on promising to repeal? The one they passed very clear Repeal Legislation on more than 50 times when they knew President Obama would just veto? It seems to me that allowing the ill-effects of government intervention into the health care market only empowers those calling for Single Payer, a death knell for individual liberty and one that ensures increased scope of government and decreased quality of product. My principles of Limited Government and Free Markets refuses to support AHCA. Part of me cheers knowing that it's not likely to pass the Senate in it's current form. Conclusion
This is a tough one. I'd love to hear your thoughts below on whether your support the AHCA because 'at least it's a slightly better turd sandwich' or if you'd prefer a NO vote on it because 'Repeal ObamaCare or NOTHING'.
Would you be happy living with ObamaCare for another few years in an attempt to try to get full repeal? I'm not optimistic that any power given to the government is one that you'll see them give back without a long fight and without multiple electoral consequences for politicians. Rep Justin Amash's Response
This is not the bill we promised the American people. For the past seven years, Republicans have run for Congress on a commitment to repeal Obamacare. But it is increasingly clear that a bill to repeal Obamacare will not come to the floor in this Congress or in the foreseeable future. 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:
Both big-ticket news items out of the Trump administration today remain largely speculative in many ways, so it's too early to draw firm conclusions about them. That said, based on what I heard today, I want to offer a few points for consideration.
TAX CUTS: It is no secret that our corporate tax code is grossly uncompetitive. It is among the most expensive on the entire planet and is structured such that it discourages investing, hiring, and other key facets of a healthy economy. It discourages entrepreneurialism, encourages companies to move their headquarters to other countries, and creates an incentive for American corporations to leave large amounts of their cash overseas--cash that could be brought home and put to work in our own economy. This is what happens when you have a very archaic and outdated corporate tax system. When I say "outdated," I mean it literally: the U.S. is one of the last remaining developed countries with a world-wide tax system (meaning that money corporations earn around the world, not just the income they derive from the U.S., can be taxed here). Most of our peers got rid of world-wide tax systems decades ago. I agree with Trump: 15% is a reasonable corporate income tax rate. (There are strong arguments to be made for its elimination entirely, but that's for a post another day.) This is the hallmark of his plan, and I like it. I need to point out two grave concerns I have though. (1) It isn't clear that his plan will dramatically simplify the corporate tax code. Rates do need to come down, but that's far from the only problem. The code's complexity creates an additional tax in and of itself because complying with it is such an expensive legal and accounting endeavor. Any major reform must include simplifying and streamlining the tax code. (2) Trump said that he doesn't care about revenue, and this plan seems to bear that out. This is a plan that, when combined with Trump's high levels of proposed spending, would add mightily to our national debt. Any tax and spending plans Republicans pass through Congress MUST seek to reign in our exploding national debt. You cannot increase spending while cutting tax rates and narrowing the tax base. The base should be broadened, the rates lowered, and the spending brought to heel. There is a myth floating around the White House that cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% will lead to enough economic growth to offset tax revenue losses at current rates. That is not true. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher growth, but it will not lead to enough growth to stem the rising tide of national debt. (Corporate tax rates are but one of many headwinds our economy faces.) Any tax plan must be, at a minimum, revenue neutral and passed in conjunction with LOWER spending plans. Otherwise, you're essentially mortgaging your future for a little short-term relief. Additional government debt can quickly crowd out additional private investment, after all. NAFTA: Rumors are circulating that Trump may be planning to sign an executive order expressing our intent to leave NAFTA. This would be an error of historic proportions. It is a good idea to occasionally revisit old agreements. Our economy and the world in general are very different places than they were when NAFTA was negotiated. We should never consider economic frameworks to be entirely permanent. Thus, re-opening negotiations could be a very good idea. Re-negotiating and leaving are very, very different outcomes though. If we left NAFTA, three realities are absolutely certain to set in: (1) a small number of jobs would come back to the U.S.--far too few for most people even to know someone who held one of those new jobs; (2) far, far more jobs would simply be automated--no one would hold them; and (3) the prices that ALL Americans pay for many goods and some services would increase sharply. It wouldn't end there though. This would be catastrophic for Mexico and Canada and near-catastrophic for the U.S. Stock markets would be hammered. GDP growth would slow--possibly even reverse (which means lower standards of living for many people). Anyone who has a 401(k), an IRA, or simply invests a little in the stock market to plan for retirement would find his retirement calculus suddenly looking less rosy. The world is a different place today. Taking another look at NAFTA's terms is a good idea. As I said though, the world is a different place today, and whereas whether to join NAFTA was a good question in the 90's, two decades later, whether to leave it shouldn't even be up for discussion. 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:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
February 2018
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!  |
