Zimbabwe - Destruction by the Government

Gold For Bread - Video

This video just breaks my heart, especially the part with the small child scared and broken because he has no food to eat. This is what happens to a country whose government destroys the economy through monetary destruction. Twenty years ago Zimbabwe actually had a stronger dollar than the U.S. dollar. Today the money is as worthless as the paper it is printed on. There is no change in the countries people, or their production, but their money is worthless. They have to mine and pan for gold all day long just to buy a loaf of bread. This country has gone from developed to third-world overnight, all because of their central bank. A central bank that inflated the currency into a hyperinflation spiral.

Here's the scary part: inflating (or printing money) is exactly what our central bank (The Federal Reserve) is doing at an alarming pace.

What this chart shows is the unprecedented increase in Federal Reserve holdings of assets (namely AIG and other financials). But when the Fed buys these assets it doesn't use a store of cash from its vaults, it prints the money (or more specially enters the transaction on a computer) out of thin air. What happens is a major increase in the money supply, and according to the law of supply and demand this means the value of dollar has to drop due to the major increase of supply and no change in demand. Simply put, the Fed is causing every dollar in your wallet to lose its value. And with its recent actions, the possibility of a Zimbabwe like hyperinflation is becoming increasingly high.

$77 Billion - The true cost of the Drug War

More and more people are starting to question the so called "War on Drugs" and its true costs to society. In this above video, a Harvard (yes 'the' Harvard) professor of economics argues that around $77 billion could be saved if Marijuana was legalized. This issue has been a hot topic recently with videos like Ron Paul discussing Marijuana on Larry King. My question is: If Prohibition did not work in the 1920s with alcohol, how do we expect prohibition to work today with drugs?

This is a very interesting topic to myself because I use to scoff at arguments that drugs should be legalized. "How can we legalize hard drugs?" I would ask, "There has to be a limit to what people are allowed to take shouldn't there?". But then one has to ask, with prescription drugs now the fourth leading cause of death in america, is the system really working?

You can look at the issue a few different ways. One way is to say that by legalizing drugs would add enormous revenue to the government by way of taxes on the drugs, and by the amount of funds not spent on fighting drug cartels. Another way is to argue about the benefits drugs like marijuana have in treating pain especially in cancer patients, and how it lacks the dangerous side-effects of most prescription drugs. But I think the most important way to look at the issue is it is a matter of personal choice.

By creating a law the government is simply saying all the obvious side effects of drug abuse (loss of job, broken family relations, deteriorating health, addiction, extreme money cost, death...) are not enough for people. Instead the State has to pile on fines and jail time to add to such costs. But instead of all cost being put squarely on the individual who decides to take drugs, all of society has to pay for one persons choice through the funding of the "War of Drugs". But its ludicrous. If a person thinks they can avoid all the inherent costs already associated with taking drugs, what is a fine or jail time to them? If they think they can avoid the inherent costs, then they most assuredly think they can avoid any state induced costs. Why do I have to pay for a choice someone has already decided to take regardless of a law? I shouldn't because the State has no right to force someone not to make that choice.

By taking drugs, that person has made the choice to accept the costs inherent with drug use, and that is their choice to make. It is obvious that a 'law' does not keep someone from not making such a choice or we wouldn't spend billions fighting drug use. Whenever the State tries to tell people they cannot do something, they usually do exactly that. We should have learned our lesson with the failed policy of alcohol Prohibition (at least that was Constitutionally amended unlike the current drug prohibition). People will not stop taking drugs because of a law, just like people will not stop speeding or stealing because its against the law. The only way to effectively combat such aberrant behavior is through education and letting people make choices on their own. Sometimes letting someone fail is the only way they can learn. The freedom to fail is how we can only truly succeed.

Bailouts and Bull**** - 20/20 special

Youtube Link

John Stossel tells it how it is again. This special starts out by exposing the "consensus" opinion about stimulus packages then deals with other government influenced issues: roads, education, the American Dream, and immigration. Honestly I don't know how people actually think the government can do a better job than the private sector. I think its because people equate it this way: private=profits=evil.... But people fail to see the backward thinking this is.

Profits are not "evil" but actually serve the interest of the people much, much better than the public sector. When profits are the driving force it is the consumer who decides how well the company does. If the company cannot provide a service that suits a consumer their profits will drop and the company will either change for the better, change their business to something profitable, or fail. However, if the government is in charge they are not driven by profits, so they are not driven by the consumer. Instead they rely on tax dollars -- money that is not earned by providing a superior product but instead by forcefully taking money from citizens. What would you prefer? A company that responds to your decision to buy its product or not? Or a company that does not care whether or not its product is what's best for the consumer because it will get money for it regardless?

Contrary to popular belief, services such as roads, health care, and education do not have to be provided by the government. In fact, history shows us that when put in the care of the private sector all of these services are provided better, cheaper, and to more people. Again I think the best way to think about it is to change how we view "profits". To profit from something is not to take advantage of people. Profits are indications that people have chosen the goods or services a particular company offers over other companies. In order to keep profits companies need to keep providing this superior service or they will lose their consumers to competing firms. In a free society there can be no "taking advantage" of consumers because they can choose not to buy from a company that doesn't provide a superior good or service. However, when the government provides something we have no choice -- we have to pay taxes, regardless if we feel the good or service we receive is worth it or not. Now if that isn't "taking advantage" of people I don't know what is.

The 9-12 Project: Rebuilding America

I have been following the Glenn Beck program for oh… about a year now, and have enjoyed the commentary of the host, Beck. His common sense, no bull attitude towards major issues appealed to me in a way. Anyways, he recently moved from CNN Headline News to Fox News and his show is already one of the most viewed on the air. His show today was a special with a studio audience entitled "We Surround Them". The theme was that the government, media, and everyone else are not the real ones in control... we are, and there are people who believe in the principles and values that our country was founded on. I found the show inspiring because I actually felt connected to thousands of people I had never met but who shared in the same frustrations and hopes I had of this country. Glenn's call to everyone was to become the country we were on 9-12-2001 -- the day after 9-11 when we all stood together as Americans -- and forget about all the political parties and little games we play in Washington; the games that are destroying our country and ripping it apart. There's a website put up where people can connect and discover the principles and values our country was founded on and hopefully a grassroots movement can get started in getting our country back. I seriously feel like a Patriot in the Sons of Liberty movement started by Samuel Adams before the Revolutionary War. I'm ready to fight for this country, but more importantly I'm ready to fight for Liberty and Freedom for all people. I hope anyone who reads this feels the same.

Nationalized Citibank Commercial - Funny

The New F***ing Citibank - watch more funny videos

"Freedom Watch", amazing libertarian show

Sorry for the long delay (guy needs a break)

Well it looks like Fox News (aka Faux News) is actually beginning to do some things right. First with bringing on Glenn Beck, which you can see at 5pm, and his common sense apporach to politics. But this show takes the cake. Not on tv but on Foxnews.com/strategyroom, "Freedom Watch" is basically a Libertarian roundtable for an entire hour. Judge Napolitano hosts the show and regular guests include: Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Tracy Burns (I could do without her), Cody Willard, and so on... Basically every person I have been following the past several months and they finally have an outlet to speak without being called "crazy" or "doom and gloom". Please check out the show and support it--hopefully it will garner enough support to get on the air. It's on the website every Wednesday at 2PM

(This is just part 1 - follow the link and you can find the other parts on Youtube)

Youtube link

Obama's Budget: A Visual View

Visual Look at Obama's Huge Budget

Had to post something today. These link provides a very straight forward and easy to read overview of the Whitehouse budget. I could go into a long discussion of each line but I'd rather let you look and judge for yourself.

Don't you wish you could spend more than you earn and have it be perfectly fine? It doesn't work for individuals and it doesn't work for governments. It is the same result for both... bankruptcy. When that happens to a government, bad things happen (think back to World War II and Germany and you get the picture).

I Am So Fed Up... Why Aren't You!?

*Disclaimer* -- This is a rant, read with caution --

I really am fed up. I don't know how much more I can take. It seems every single day I am utterly amazed at the complete bullshit that comes from Washington. I can't count how many times I have said "this is ridiculous", only to have to repeat myself the next day. I'm so fed up at the obvious lack of common sense prevalent in our politicians, our media, our schools, and our country. I am so fed up at being called "radical" or having "interesting ideas". I am especially fed up with the complete lack of interest and knowledge shown by almost all of my peers.

I just don't understand why issues I find so vitally important to my future and our country's future go unnoticed by the vast majority of today's youth. So many people my age were so eager and excited to be involved in politics for the first time--especially when it came to Obama-- but trying asking them their stance on a particular policy or viewpoint I was met with a rather blank stare, or more directly, a honest "I don't really know". I don't know... but I have an opinion on it. I don't know but I'll cast my vote for him because I have to right? I mean... I can't vote for that other guy!

I guess I can't blame my generation that much. We are products of the culture around us. A culture that idolizes short-term pleasure and cannot plan any further than the weekend. We hold childhood beliefs, yet conform to the latest trends, never really decided on what we actually believe but rather letting our emotions guide our actions. We easily profess faith in leaders who promise everything, and disregard those who promise nothing they cannot do or should do.

Of course, many will say they aren't quite as shallow as I suggest, and they are correct. It's not so much that we're shallow but that we really aren't anything. We don't like to study things or take a particular stance that may be considered "out of the norm" because we like to fit in; "don't rock the boat" we are told, leave such issues to adults.

Well the adults fucked up... big time. I have lost all respect for any leader responsible for getting us into this situation, then having the audacity to tell us how to fix it. I refuse to let myself listen to the rhetoric one day longer, the lies, and broken promises have been spoken one to many times. Everyday I just want to scream at my tv, at the talking heads on the talk shows, at the corrupt politicians who make the situation worse everyday, at the mindless sheep who believe everything they are told without an oz. of mental effort put into really understanding it. But hey, why the hell do I care so much? There's nothing I can do about it right? Life's to short to be stressed out...

Well, I do care. I haven't cared about anything quite as much as this, and to ignore it would be an insult to my intelligence. These aren't irrelevant issues--they affect my life and the lives of everyone. I can't just sit still--or worse ignore--these people who are deciding things that will affect how I live my life. Damnit! Only I should be able to make those kind of decisions. I don't want some asshole in Washington who knows nothing about me telling me how to live my life!

People... wake up! Seriously, you have no excuses anymore. Research, discuss, debate, learn, admit when you don't know something, have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, and even more important, have the courage to actually put your belief in something. These are extraordinary times we are living in. Stop watching history and take an active part in it. You only have one life on earth... are you going to let the forces around you control your life? Or do you have the strength to determine your own path? I hope you do.

Taxes: Legalized Theft

Taxes are legalized thief, plain and simple. The government is “legally” forcing money from you and we are expected not only to peacefully comply, but we are actually told that it is patriotic to pay taxes. I think I might drown in the bullshit…

Let me tell you why taxes are legalized thief in a simple example. Say you are walking home one night and suddenly feel a gun pressed into your skull. A man then asks you to either give him your wallet, or he will take it from your dead body (to reference Godfather, he is making you “an offer you couldn’t refuse”). Now do you really have a choice in this situation? Not really. You either lose your wallet or you lose your life, and a high majority of people would chose to save their life. Now I’m going to do this same example but change it up a little bit. Again you are walking home and a man comes up to you. He tells you to give him his wallet but gives you the explanation that he will use your money to pay for your kid’s school, your roads, provide healthcare to the needy, and protect you from terrorists. If say that sounds great but I would rather get those services from someone who specializes in each of those services. The man replies that if you don’t hand over the wallet he will shoot you, once again bringing up the lack of choice you had in the last scenario. Now I think we can all agree that the situation is the same, the man is still forcefully taking your money, but in the second scenario the man claims his motives are for your best interest.

To bring this back to the topic at hand all one has to do is replace the man with the government in the second situation and you have what we call taxes. The government tells you that you must give a predetermined percentage of your wages to the government or you will face the consequences. First being fines, then if you refuse to pay the fines you face jail time, and if you try to refuse the jail time? When then you will actually find a gun pointed at your head, except this time instead of a thief pointing the gun it’s a policeman (who is controlled by the government, but I think you get the point). But just like the second situation the government tells you that this is necessary for them to provide all those wondrous benefits they bestow upon us; public roads, public education, Medicare & Medicaid, national defense (which has somehow extended to well beyond our national borders), and so on with the thousands of government programs implemented in today’s society. But hold on… I thought we determined in the examples that regardless of what the man’s intentions were to use your money, that it was still wrong for him to forcefully take it from you?

Logically my next question is then how do we make this major exception for the government? How is it when the government takes your money in the form of taxes and does so with the stipulation that if you do not pay you will face punishment, that we just lie back and accept it? Quite simply I think we are both ignorant and fearful. We are ignorant of the alternatives to taxation and government control in general. And we are fearful of the implications of not paying taxes and also what would happen if government was not given money to fund all of its programs. Also a major factor is that of inertia. The fact is as long as there has ever been an entity label “government”, that entity has collected taxes on its members and this has remained true for thousands of years. So, taxes, having been around for as long as current written history, this force of inertia makes most people not even stop and consider the implications taxation truly has and whether or not it is just or not. The force needed to stop something such as taxation is so great that most people do not even bother to worry about it.

Regardless, I feel that there are things people should know about taxation and the government in general – firstly, that taxes are inherently wrong (which I feel I’ve already made a simple case for); second, that the government should not provide all the services it does and thus should have no need for taxes in the first place; and thirdly, that private enterprise can both provide for all the services government offers but do so at an incredibly efficient and fair fashion.

New Music Spotlight: Mike Posner & the Brain Trust

iTunes Link

Shout out to Jack for the link. Totally free and totally awesome, check out this local talent. A great blend of pop and hip hop, this mixtape will definitely impress.

Unemployment: A Response to my Economics Class

I think this may have to become a daily occurrence because everyday I find something just wrong (substitute Keynesian) about what I'm taught in my Intermediate Economics Class. Today we dealt with Unemployment. I have no problem with the basic assumptions of what makes up the numbers and how such numbers are acquired, but I do have a problem with the "Policy Implications".

One implication was that in order for government to spur "job finding" they could force firms to pay most or even all of unemployment insurance. The absurdity of this statement made me almost gag in class. The theory is that if firms have to pay for unemployment insurance that they will be less likely to fire people. There is such a major flaw in this logic I cannot believe people actual think it plausible.

The goal of a firm is to make profits, not to employ people. Firms need people in order to produce or provide a good or service. Firms hire people based off their qualifications and if the marginal benefit (increased profits) provided by hiring them exceeds the marginal costs (their wage) a firm will hire additional workers. Part of this process involves firing workers whom a firm decides their marginal cost exceeds their marginal benefit. This keeps a firm competitive and thus keeps costs down, and ultimately establishes prices at their lowest possible levels. If a firm is unable to fire workers, or in this case has to pay an extreme price to do so, there is no way they can possibly find the most efficient workers and their costs will ultimately be higher in the long-run, which of course leads to higher prices.

What would logically happen is that firms would become extremely selective in their hiring process and I would assume less people would be hired. A firm would be extremely hesitant to take chances on prospective employees since the cost of firing them would be extreme. I do agree that firms may fire less people, but the amount of people they wouldn't hire would greatly offset such changes.

Such a policy would not spur "job finding" but rather would cause firms to hire less. However, most people (especially politicians) and even economists fail to see the huge logical flaws in such arguments, and in their desire to protect the worker in fact harm them even worse. Once again, the whole theory of "forcing" someone to do something, even in good intentions, never leads to the desired result. Freedom of choice is the only way for equality to become a constant in society.

What If? -- Ron Paul Speech

Great Video made about Ron Paul's "What If?" speech. This will be famous one day.

here's the link to the actual speech