A Must Read

This piece, from Anthony Gregory courtesy of Lew Rockwell, might take a half-hour to get through, but it is extremely important to read this.

My favorite kind of recycling

Some may wrongly believe I’m against recycling, especially if you’ve read my last few posts on the matter.  However, this isn’t the case.  I’m very much for recycling, just not my garbage.

This week the City of San Antonio puts some of that tax money that I send them to use.  Monday begins “bulky-item” pick up.  This service includes such things as old washing machines, water heaters, worn-out couches, and pretty much anything except brush.  Not only does the City come by to pick up my “useless” items, so do scavengers.  

Yesterday, I placed out to be picked up an old metal filing cabinet and my front gutter (aka - leaf catcher).  I had to cut the gutter into sections with shears to make it somewhat easy to collect.  Today those items are gone!  Instead of sitting in some landfill, I have (proudly, mind you) recycled those items.

Transactions costs = zero!  Taxpayer money involved = zero!  Lesson in recycling = priceless!

Stagflation ahead?

Stagflation is a nasty combination of stagnant growth, which we’re experiencing, and inflation, which has already crept into food and energy prices – (I don’t care what the Fed says!)  Could we be headed for a long period of stagflation?  I certainly hope not, but all signs suggest the chances are high and they keep increasing.  Inflation was up 3.6% from last year and first quarter growth was a lame 1.9%.  Unemployment nowstands at 9.2%, which is the official rate and much lower than the actual rate.

Job growth is non-existent at the moment.  Private employers see no reason to be optimistic about the future, due in large part to regime uncertainty, and are neither hiring workers nor expanding plant and equipment.  But part of the problem (maybe a BIG part) is not private firms, but government. 

 

Canada was blessed with tar sands – lot’s of tar sands.  Normally, cheap oil makes turning tar sands into useable oil uneconomical.  However, with $100/bbl oil, Canadian tar sands become viable, and our northern friends are churning out the oil for us.  Private firms would like to build a pipeline to transport that oil to thirsty refiners in America.  This massive undertaking has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs.  So why are they not building it?  Our government (EPA and State Dept) have failed to bless the project over environmental concerns.  No surprise, but to the unemployed Americans who would benefit from this project, it’s a slap in the face, and another example of government’s misguided priorities.  See here for the WSJ article (OpEd) on the Can-Am pipeline.

When private firms undergo mass layoffs that always makes the news.  In all fairness, it’s time government makes the news when its stupid and misguided policies prevent mass hiring. 

Learn Liberty - by video!

Here is a website for an excellent project. The videos by Prof. Skoble put the whole idea of rights into understandable form.

Protecting the public or their own interest?

I’m in the accounting profession, and make my living as an auditor.  And my employer encourages the workforce to pursue higher education and obtain relevant certifications, which lend our agency the credibility needed to satisfy our clients and stakeholders.  In this profession, the crown jewel is the certified public accountant or CPA.

I have toyed around with the idea of sitting for the CPA several times throughout my extensive and venerable career.  I have other credentials, but the CPA would open other opportunities, and so I’ve looked into the requirements to sit for the exam here in Texas.   I was quite surprised at what I found.

Beginning just recently, applicants must take a Board approved ethics class.  The Board is the governing authority for the public accounting profession, and each state has one.  Each state Board has the authority to set whatever requirements it deems necessary to “protect the interest of the public.”  And I guess the Board feels the accounting profession is somehow lacking ethically.  Not only do all new applicants have to take this 3-hour class at a considerable expense, only certain classes taught bycertain professors/instructors are acceptable.  And I just learned of two new impending requirements.

Beginning shortly, new applicants must have 2 hours in “accounting research”, and must have taken business communication.  Why, you ask?  Apparently to reduce the number of public accountants in Texas, as these requirements serve only to restrict and limit the supply of applicants.  Additionally, many board members are university professors, and increasing the academic requirement of public accountants funnels more money into the university.

I question whether these new requirements will enhance the public interest, or only hurt consumers by reducing the number of available CPAs in Texas and driving up prices.  Naturally, the board probably envisioned a more ethically, researched-enabled CPA with honed communication skills, but they overlooked the diminished workforce ready and able to serve the public that these expensive requirements will leave in its wake.  Unfortunately, the unseen is all too often – well, overlooked.

Independence from what exactly?

Suppose you were a little confused about the origins of the United States (because you went to public school), and suppose you looked to the Declaration of Independence to understand why the original 13 colonies wanted their independence.  What would compel this new band of settlers to declare independence from England?  What could you glean from reading this historic document?

From my reading, I think the men and women of the New World had grown very weary of the King.  England, ruled by a monarch, offered no constitutional protections that we enjoy today.  And it seems the King had turned into somewhat of a despot, and those valuing freedom had suffered long enough and a bold new course of action was needed.  What were some of the chief complaints, you ask?

Here are but a few complaints the newest Americans found utterly objectionable:  (see any similarities today?)

·         He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:

·         For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

·         For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

See here for the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.  It’s a short read.  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The new Americans got it right.  Instead of slogging along, abiding the wishes of the King, they declared an end to tyranny and laid new claim to what was rightfully theirs: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Alexander Hamilton Is Smiling.

And that's good reason why you shouldn't be. This is a response to this editorial in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The author wants us to celebrate the federalists, especially Alexander Hamilton, for ensuring as strong a federal government as possible. The author suggests that the policies favored by Hamilton are largely to thank for our prosperity and are largely good. The author makes the logical error of supposing that big government and large taxes to finance the government are good, therefore any policies directed towards enlarging government and increasing taxes are good. But the point is that there is much disagreement about the proper size of government, and its proper role. So it is a logical fallacy to say Hamilton is someone we should thank. If you think large government is bad for prosperity, then you should be anti-Hamilton, and favor Jefferson.

As the author of the editorial discussed why we should revere Hamilton, I'm going to discuss why we shouldn't. First, despite the author's intimations to the contrary, Hamilton had a very poor understanding of economics. He was a mercantilist and sought to establish the English economic system of tariffs and cronyism in the U.S. Hamilton established the first national bank, and set the stage for central banking in the U.S. generally.

The first national bank was an unmitigated disaster. In the first five years of its existence, it created 72% inflation where there had been none before. It also instigated several bank panics, and eventually failed. But, as I said, central banking was here to stay and as we are starting to find out, central banking is hazardous to our financial health. Of course, Austrians have known all along that any monopoly is bad news, and money production is no different. But I digress.

Hamilton also favored a large public debt, something the author of the editorial thinks is good because it lets the government provide more services. But Hamilton didn't favor a large public debt for this reason. Rather, he wanted to use the debt as a way of tying the interests of the wealthy to the interests of the state.

The author indicates the ability to issue debt is important to pay for wars, as indeed it has been used for that. Lest I misread the author, I hope he is not favoring war itself, but rather saying that if a war is necessary, then having the debt available is important. That may be, but I can see the argument easily on the other side: if a country is debt-constrained, it cannot wage wars against other countries, and so must seek peace. Isn't peace preferred to war? Well, not for Hamilton.

Hamilton, as the author approvingly mentions, himself led a "small" (actually 15,000 conscripts) army to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion" and arrested around two dozen men. Hamilton wanted to hang them, Washington pardoned them. First, conscription is slavery, and second 15,000:24 is a little ridiculous, no? I'm finding it pretty hard to like Hamilton, but I'm not really surprised he is favored by big government types.

Finally, the author indicates that Hamilton wanted a "strong presidency." Indeed. Hamilton favored a permanent president (read "king") who would appoint state governors. The president would also be able to veto all state legislation. This is anathema to the concept of a voluntary union. Hamilton wanted a country like what he saw in Europe. His vision was counter to the vision of the revolution.

My take on this whole thing is that when we look back at the founding fathers, we look with our own eyes, and our own prejudice and our own values. People who value freedom will find that Jefferson is their man. People who value big government and cronyism like Hamilton. I suppose these are the battles we are doomed to fight.

Well, in the words of Virgil: Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito: "do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it." I oppose crony capitalism; I oppose the warfare state; I oppose stealing from the productive to give to the indolent; I oppose the police state; I oppose wealth transfers from the poor and middle class to the politically favored businesses. Give us freedom and we will be strong.