Activists Arrested For Dancing
May 29th, 2011
Archive
Archive for May, 2011
Federal Reserve helps banks gain from crises
May 26th, 2011
While the rest of us were struggling to stay afloat back in 2008, many having done nothing wrong to be in such a position, many banks were getting very sweetheart deals from the Federal Reserve, and still are.
While we all are having to pay between 15% to 30% in interest, the bankers are paying fractions of a percent. This is a classic case of financial manipulation by the elites which redistributes money from the poor to the rich. Even to this day, banks are being helped, even through their reckless policies by easy credit from the Federal Reserve while we all suffer. The Fed, created in 1913, has since it’s creation steadily aided banks in looting the poor through credit and monetary manipulation.
Read the story here, see about an Audit of the Fed here.
Did you know: If you were to buy something in 1913 worth $20, it would cost roughly $440 today due to monetary inflation?
Note to Republicans
May 22nd, 2011
By: Arthur Thomas
Remember the “Contract with America” which was the GOP document of promises back in 1994? After almost two decades of chances to change things, the United States is still having the problems it always has. Only now we have the ‘Pledge to America’, which is the Republican’s newer set of promises based on the old ones. This is their version of ‘hope’. They seem to be good at making the promises but when they get the power to do so they fall quite short. Isn’t it time to stop waiting on promises and start relying on principle?
When given the power Republicans continually use it to grow government for their own interests. Whether it is yet another bipartisan promise to reform education, in the No Child Left Behind Act, or attacking free speech in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, they have worked towards the same goals as Democrats in many cases. When free to do as they will, our freedoms are attacked, as in the USA PATRIOT Act, which has detained US citizens without charge, or taking your money and funding corporatism and attacking the free market ideas they claim to adhere to in the TARP Program. They make promises to their base supporters while offering nothing to them. They never use their power to fulfill the wishes of their supporters. What they do quite well is to upset citizens to the point of creating blow back in the election cycles that the Democrats keep getting back into power. This only feeds the cycle because they can come make promises again and use it for their special interests while not meeting any of their pledges to America but certainly to their lobbyists.
From the Drug War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, Middle East hostilities, and the never ending War on Terror, Republicans have shown they are great at starting conflict but incapable of getting out of it. They grow government bureaucracy with expansions in security agencies while having little understanding of security. We are more threatened by the breaches of liberty and the dangers imposed by our government than really solving security concerns. The government puts troops overseas, spends your tax money on people that are not friendly to the US, and spends decades meddling in sovereign states that end up opposing us. All the while instead of being more secure we are told to worry more and that the threats are growing. What are these billions of dollars and thousands of lives going towards if we are not more safe now? Read more…
The Reckless Dismissal of Ideas
May 20th, 2011
Today I would like to take some time to talk about the reckless dismissal of ideas.
There has been many times where a person has had a good idea, but it was dismissed not because of any failings the idea might have, but simply because of who the idea originated from. This is very common in our society, and it spans many depths of bigotry. The irony of this, is that it is practiced by people who claim to be against all bigotry as well.
There are so many ways that this takes place, some forms that are unacceptable to most, and some that seem as if there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. In the end though, it is all the same.
Let’s begin with the basics that we all know and generally accept as bigotry. Say a person has a great idea, but that idea has trouble gaining traction among various people. The idea isn’t accepted or looked at in its own merit because it originated from a woman, a black person, a white person, an immigrant, a disabled person, a gay person, an old person, a young person, etc. When a person cannot simply look at an idea on its own because of who it originated from, this is bigotry.
There are other forms of bigotry though that we don’t see quite so clearly. A few examples are because of a person’s religion or lack thereof, political affiliation, nationality, social views, character, whether or not they are married, have kids, their choice of lifestyle, wealth, etc. These are the most commonly *accepted* forms of bigotry by a great many people, yet they are no different from the previously mentioned forms.
Some even believe that a person cannot have ideas about something unless they meet pre-requisites. A common instance of this is that a person cannot have any ideas about how to raise children, how to teach them, or even the things in society that should be legal or illegal when it comes to children. To not even consider someone’s idea because they don’t meet a certain pre-requisite is bigotry just as well.
Let’s get rid of refusing to discuss an idea because it came from an atheist, a muslim, a christian, a pothead, a rich/poor person, a gay person, a disabled person, a libertarian, conservative, liberal, socialist, pacifist, and whatever other things you can think of.
A good idea is a good idea, no matter who came up with it. By ignoring an idea, and even worse, bashing the creator of the idea instead, we gain absolutely nothing. In fact we lose, we all lose, because a good idea has been abandoned in favor of attacking one another instead of discussing logically the idea itself. Pride and ego cause many ideas to fall by the wayside because people aren’t willing to accept an idea from someone who is different from what they imagine an optimal person should be. We cannot have progress so long as these forms of bigotry are accepted in our society.
- Join us on Facebook!
The Myth of Natural Monopoly
May 13th, 2011
Most so-called public utilities have been granted governmental franchise monopolies because they are thought to be “natural monopolies.” Put simply, a natural monopoly is said to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers, thereby creating a “natural” monopoly. Higher prices will result if more than one producer supplies the market.
Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconvenience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., digging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total costs.
It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to “justify” franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.
The word “process” is important here. If competition is viewed as a dynamic, rivalrous process of entrepreneurship, then the fact that a single producer happens to have the lowest costs at any one point in time is of little or no consequence. The enduring forces of competition — including potential competition — will render free-market monopoly an impossibility.
The theory of natural monopoly is also ahistorical. There is no evidence of the “natural-monopoly” story ever having been carried out — of one producer achieving lower long-run average total costs than everyone else in the industry and thereby establishing a permanent monopoly. As discussed below, in many of the so-called public-utility industries of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there were often literally dozens of competitors.
How it affects you, when the government creates a monopoly
May 13th, 2011
Economist Robert Murphy recently put out an article discussing New York City’s requirement that all Taxi’s become uniform in that they all must be a Nissan mini-van by 2013, no other types will be allowed. He also goes into the issue of an artificial shortage of cab drivers through licensing restrictions, most costing no less than $700,000, and also tackles the issue of privatizing roads.
The major problems addressed here are linked, but not individually similar in nature. Putting the idea of privatized roads aside, since that is an epic discussion in itself, lets look at the other problems here, a government induced monopoly.
First of all, mandating that all taxi’s be a certain make and model vehicle constrains competition by automakers to make better taxi’s, and limits cab operator’s choices in providing a unique service for their customers. Since Nissan is being shielded from competition here, they’re not as quick to bring better products to market since they can milk old technology for as long as possible and charge a price that would be higher than normal. This is a law that effectively subsidizes Nissan, a foreign automaker to boot!
Secondly, by restricting the amount of cab operators, supply cannot keep up with demand. Since supply is lower than the demand, prices will go up as people are willing to pay more for a scarce service, or simply have to pay more because cab drivers know that they don’t have to compete against as many other drivers, so they can get away with charging more. On top of this restriction in supply, they also charge extremely high prices for the “privilege” of operating a cab. This also piles on the already high prices from the reduction in supply to make for ever higher prices. Here, the government has effectively subsidized cab drivers and companies, all at the expense of the consumer.
It really is a good thing, from an education standpoint, that this is being implemented. We couldn’t have asked for a clearer, more blatant example of a government induced monopoly, especially through licensing and mandate practices. If you look at this scenario and understand it’s implications on consumers, you can begin to look at other examples of government induced monopolies and mandates, and understand the issues with them and how typically a government intervention is going to harm the consumer in order to help a particular company, or group of companies or individuals. The consumer is the main driver of the economy, so we cannot help the economy by constraining the consumer.