Capitalism In One Lesson in less than 15 minutes, by Nielsio


This time I won’t say much. I’ll just let this video speak for real capitalism, the antithesis of socialism.

I will just point out that the section in this video that mentions Smith, Mises, Hayek, Rand and Friedman, I do not fully agree. I have studied much of Hayek’s writings and at this time find no truth in the statement about his advocacy of the state controlling anything. Also, Mises’s writings do not fully lend to this opinion so far as I have learned either. Both Hayek and Mises were ardently against state control and manipulation of the free market and both had written on this throughout their lives. I see no evidence YET, that supports this point of view. But otherwise the video is very well laid out in support of capitalism.

I will also add that though I agree with the example the video uses on democracy, It behooves me to point out that it is for this reason that America was originally established as a representative republic. Why the author of this video does not point this out is incredible to me.

Advertisements

Laissez-Faire Hallucinations


I suppose that what I am doing here is sharpening laissez-faire’s definition in regards to free market economy. This I find necessary largely due to the plethora of arguments on the subject that I have encountered within various books and articles that have either been based on pure economics or have simply used examples taken from the study of the subject of economics; that many of these writings misrepresent laissez-fair market theory.

For those who may have become confused by a tangled web of ambiguous misinformation on the study of economics served up by the daily news, T.V. news “programming”, irresponsible educators, apologist and propagandist historians, enthusiastic socialist politicians, enthusiastic war mongering politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, or even idiotic op-ed articles (and you may consider this one of those, that’s O.K.), I just want to clear the air a little.

If you disagree, that’s O.K. too, I’m just hoping you’ll at least return to the endless social, political and economic arguments that are so prevalent today with a fresh perspective of what is actually happening when the argument for or against laissez-faire economics comes up, that many of these arguments defy logic.

Laissez-faire :

–noun

1.

the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in economic affairs.
2.

the practice or doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, especially with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.

I present this definition as a way to illustrate to all the hobbyist economics students, including myself, as well as the would-be future and current economists who may consider writing on the subject of economics, that laissez-faire economic theory is and has been nothing more than theory and not truly in practice by American government, at least not for more than a century. And when the American government actually attempted to adhere laissez-faire policies to the fundamental method of governing its economic affairs, it was very short-lived. It’s simple, governments intrude, unless kept under control by the governed. This is obviously no easy task but the 20th century ought provide enough evidence of government intervention, regulation, protectionism, and monopoly at a pernicious detriment to the economic affairs of the entire world. Thus the 21st century is proving an ever-deepening plunge into the socialist abyss.

Technically speaking, we have had a socialist system in place since the Social Security System’s inception set in motion in 1935 by the Social Security Act. With so much information supporting this fact, I fail to understand how it is that so many are in denial of  this, but whatever the case, it is true and America as well as the entire world has not been the same since, from a social, political and economic perspective. What led America to this deteriorating system requires a much deeper study of its roots within the 16th amendment as well as the Federal Reserve Act. But we cannot ignore the most important facet in destructive role played by the 14th amendment and how it created a whole new system paving the road for such abilities of this government to usurp and destroy; I’ll leave that to you to study on further if you should choose. I want to keep this article simple and focused.

With such deteriorating socialist acts still in place, it is strange to me to see so much discourse on the subject of so-called laissez-faire economic policy. But, with the American economic system inundated in a myriad of mixed policies and statutes which pervert the very laws of economics and liberty, I suppose I expect confusion to some degree. Or is it pure denial? I’ll leave that for the politicians and the voters to continue fighting about.

For me I’ll just stick with what I know and do whatever I can to shed what light I can and hope for the best for all of humanity.  I’ll even concede defeat on any subject I’m wrong about, that’s more than I can say for our leaders. Though one can only hope political, corporate and military leaders experience some enlightenment and change their destructive ways. (That was a joke) Ultimately the average people are more than likely going to have to force the change by their actions…human action.

I would rather argue the case for liberty and free will and try to not be distracted. To attempt to avoid the argument for liberty and free will have its value detracted by the divisive tendrils of deception.

On the subject of money, please see one of my other articles “Earning Good money”. Also this one on government intervention and protectionism, “Pumping gas & politicians” .

I will also humbly refer you to this article at the Von Mises webpage. “The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis”, is an even deeper analysis on the subject of the laissez-fair blame game going on with our the current economic crisis. I discovered it while doing research for this article, it articulates further with deeper research points and current examples on this subject, enjoy.

Finding Sound Money and Domestic Terrorism


Here’s something to think about. Bernard Von NotHaus has been charged in federal court for domestic terrorism and counterfeiting for producing a coin called the “Liberty Dollar”. He is facing 25 years in a Federal penitentiary and several millions of dollars worth of silver bullion coins being confiscated. See the story :http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110319/NEWS01/110319006/1001/news/Liberty-Dollar-fake-currency-creator-convicted-federal-court?odyssey=nav|head

Ok, if this “Liberty Dollar” is .999 pure silver, what is counterfeit about it? Only that it had “Dollar” minted on it possibly creating a little confusion as to whether the mint these coins originated from were from a U.S. government mint or a private mint. Does this call for being charged with “domestic terrorism” and then being locked up for 25 years and then being robbed of $millions worth of private property? What is the Federal Government using the patriot act for anyways? Are those who are seeking a sound choice in their store of wealth and medium of exchange really going to become criminals under the auspices of this act?

What is so dangerous about using money that actually holds value and is acceptable to people as something tangible? How is this domestic terrorism? When the currency we work for is depreciating in value under the control of the very authorities who issue it, why then would we not be free to choose to work with another? What if we simply choose to barter between specific commodities we may hold with one another? Is this domestic terrorism?

Here is an excerpt from the above article:

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”

OK then…”legitimate currency“. Lets explore that for a moment. If this legal medium of exchange, or, mandated currency, is found among a  majority of people, or for that fact even a minority, unsound and untrustworthy, are we truly in a free system if one does not have a choice in finding a remedy to this problem? To be held to a failing currency by coercion and threat of imprisonment by your government?  To me these are the methods of a tyranny!

Anyone can buy various forms of silver and gold coins that are not minted by the government. Bullion along with coins that are .999 percent silver and gold. The only real difference is that “Von Nothaus did not make his product physically distinctive enough to avoid confusion between his coins and U.S. minted coins.”
Fine, then slap him with a fine and have him create the difference in his coins. But domestic terrorist?! Think deeply about this one everyone, please.

And then this quotation: “…represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.” Buzzwords for the masses against evil silver alchemists and economic sorcerers.  I  am certain the economic stability of this country has already been threatened by the booms, busts and depressions, of unstable money and not by some people trying to sort through a way to find a solution to this problem. On the contrary, America’s economic stability has already been undermined by the very politicians who refuse to publicly recognize failure in their myriad of policies and admit it. Unless, of course what we are seeing today in American policy is not actually failure but part of a continued effort toward a communist, (or whatever ism or ideology that molds the minds of the masses into becoming the final solution), world order. For more on the comparisons between American policies and communism see the Ten Planks. This article places focus on plank #5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Strange how America has been battling communism for so long and yet our government’s policies seem to mirror this enemy.

Let me illustrate something with a little scenario. What if you were left with being paid barely enough to support your family and there was little else you could do about it because you have exhausted your immediate means of generating income, or currency? What if you found a way to battle inflation and other forms of currency debauchery without resorting to welfare by using a commodity or any other good to exchange with others in your community? Does this then make you a “domestic terrorist”? Will you become a domestic terrorist if you invest in precious metals as well? Or are you undermining Democracy?
Wait a minute, I thought we were a Representative Constitutional Republic not a democracy. I’ll get into that later.

See my other article: “Earning Good Money”.

Earning Good Money


Interesting concept, right? It’s what everyone wants, everyone wants a paycheck. If only we actually had Good Money.

Are we the “honey-money bees” as Buckminster Fuller described in Critical Path? Working only for profit margin aggregates and figures. Seemingly not even stopping for a moment to think of the value of the money we work for. Sometimes we also seem to not even think of what the quality it is that the work we do brings. Does the work that we do have real value in the end? Are the goods or services provided a real value or a perceived value; a perception cauterised into our thinking by the media as well as the government agencies and other institutions they sponsor? Do these institutions even regard the localities they penetrate?

If the money we all work for has real value, why does it decrease in value by way of inflation, let alone excessive taxation? The simple answer is that the money we use every day is actually not money in the truest sense of the word. It is only currency. Currency mandated by government and procured through central banks. Currency has to keep moving by design, hence the name currency. Money in its truest sense is a store of value for exchange. Simple, right? But where is our money then? At least a stable money? Well, it is in many ways out of reach for most people. Due largely to bad monetary policy and its follies we are left with investment and or speculation to battle the ravages of inflation and taxation.

Well here’s where it gets really confusing when you really get to thinking about this. How can one truly invest, if the same powers that create and control our currency, actually own everything? This is largely due to the many perversions of equity law and in conjunction the subjugation of property rights, let alone monetary policy. If you do not understand what I am talking about, ask yourself who or what it is that actually owns everything. Government and banks. Even when you pay off the note you do not own your car or your home. Technically, true ownership is property unencumbered by any debt, many will argue against this I am sure. Try not paying your property taxes or your registration on your vehicle and you will quickly begin to understand what I am getting at.  You will only hold the “title” when the loan becomes satisfied in full. Therefore you are truly only the owner in the titular sense. As usual, I digress. But only to make a point.

Many astute economists circles see contemporary investment as actually speculative “bubble” chasing which is known as the main cause of booms and busts. In general, with bad money, malfeasance of investment creates booms and busts which then create an artificial need for more government intervention. The same intervention which by way of monetary policy, taxation and the resulting stagflation, help to create the economic crisis and instability to begin with.

For now, good money is investment in yourself and your education, working toward a business of your own, whether it is on the side or completely replacing your current employment, or the tools necessary to do your job better as an employee. The tools and machinery used to create, i.e capital, are actually money once you are able to create value and begin to market whatever you do. Investment is an area that needs care and diligence even when you use the services of so-called professional investment agents. If you do not understand your investments you tend to leave yourself prey to those who do.

Good money can also be something that you use or do that eliminates the need to spend elsewhere. I will cover more on this in other articles. Good money is also money that is not spent toward debt. If you have  liabilities it is always necessary to cut as much as possible to support income at a positive level. This allows you more freedom to choose where to place your earnings to stabilize the effects inflation has on your income. Debt usually eliminates your ability to choose much more than working longer hours to make its payments. The exception being positive debts on assets. So long as those assets earn more than their cost. This is just simple business sense and many already understand this. I am only adding it to illustrate to those who do not understand these subjects. Those who are prone to being burdened with business and its modern over-complications and in turn ignore studying on it are usually the worse hit in any recession or depression, as they cannot see it coming.

There really is not a great way for me to end this article because this is a subject I have only in the last year decided to study. And this idea that government might step back from their monopoly of money is somewhat Utopian. So I will end it here and follow-up with other connected articles to help articulate the point further.

*For an in-depth study on this subject see F.A. Hayek‘s Good Money . In the book “Good Money” Hayek presents a sound argument for the need for competitive money and banking. This interview with F.A. Hayek is a great introduction to Good Money.

Murphy’s Law, Pessimism and Cynicism vs Vision and Innovation


You have an idea. It’s a great idea and you know it, but not many others agree…at least not in the beginning. In most cases the first thing you encounter from others is negativity. Some of the negative reactions to your ideas are: “What’s wrong with the way things are now?” Or how about “This idea is too expensive.” Or ” No one will buy it, it’ll fail.” You have probably heard these and many more.

*I am only going to tackle these points in brevity, so I’ll be general. I will follow-up with details through other articles. You may already be beginning to see the direction most of this blog is going. At least I hope so.

Alright, “What’s wrong with the way things are?” Well, if the world is so OK as it is then why are we witnessing the financial so-called markets fail? The world seemingly aligning itself with another major war, poverty and famine still spreading and not enough being done to truly end these problems? And I’ll add that many in America are seemingly more upset about the price of gas than exploring the fact that we ought to have more choice in technology in regards to automobile manufacturing and the source of energy used any way, let alone the little thought about fact that the world is directly connected to what we do one way or another, and how much our “choices” do effect the rest of the world in a negative way. Many seem to refuse to even think of these subjects.

*For deeper thought on some of this see Buckminster Fuller’s CriticalPath.I largely agree with many of Fuller’s ideas and solutions. But his ideas are not the gospel to me…I’ll leave that for you to decide. I think he pointed out some major details of what I am trying to convey here.

“It’s too expensive !” This one is always interesting to me. The fact that advancing the human condition by way of a real free market enterprise system could never be too expensive is obvious to me. But because many do not understand what good money actually is and what a free market enterprise system truly is I will have to explore deeper in other articles, as I already have rough drafts on these subjects.

The fact that the gatekeepers of status quo, who all love to blame today’s economic and political follies on the “free market”, is largely a ruse. When more have discovered this lie, and hopefully I will help, they will realize there has been no true free market enterprise system and that any real attempt at one was, and still is, hobbled by a bulwark of government intervention and monopoly.

As usual, I digress…So my first response to this “too expensive” argument is simply: How can human advancement ever be considered ‘too expensive’? I’ll leave it at that for now.

Good economy requires a community to mobilize and support itself in as an autonomous a way as possible for real growth to occur. Think of it this way. It’s the old “give the man a fish he’ll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” approach. This of course also requires that communities are able, and have the desire to solve their problems locally. I mean, who knows better what a community needs then the community itself?

If “no one will buy it” is the argument against innovation, this is simply remedied by illustrating the values, covered above, in a more detailed way. Does a society survive without the ability and cooperation of all people? If people cannot individually manage their own affairs then how can they perpetuate society in a positive way?

If the Wright Brothers gave in to all the negatives they encountered, many simply in the design of their own creation, let alone negatives from other people, what do you think the outcome would have been? And I am only using this as an example as I understand the Wright Brothers were not the only ones working on flight. You understand what I mean, I’m certain.

I suppose what this article hopefully conveys is that when you, or someone else for that matter, has an innovative idea which strays from the general conventions of contemporary thought, before resorting to a negative reaction or train of thought, why not explore the process of what this idea is all about and what it can do for the world before succumbing to the onslaught of negativity. Find the values as well as its disadvantages and work through them to create a viable option for posterity. Then bring the idea to the surface and create a “market” for it. If the idea is a good one you will know because the market will decide. This of course seems contradictory to what I said about there not being a true “free market”. Well…make one.

Part of innovation is the ability to create. Helping people understand the value and responsibility of bringing an idea to the surface, and demanding it unencumbered by protectionism and regulation so that we decide what is good for us, is key to liberty and prosperity for us as well as posterity. So why not create a true free market?

To be continued…

What if…


What if you were the only one thinking of a solution to a problem? No really, what if that was true? Every now and then you find yourself upset about something in society, and you think it is largely ignored and you would like to see change, or in the least, awareness brought to this problem or possible crisis. Would you try to convince people one by one that there is something wrong? What if you managed to get more and more people on-board with your line of thinking and you became an activist with a following? What would your message be? Would you trigger people’s alarm mechanism and generate fear to get them to change? What values would you communicate to offer a satisfactory result in your activism? What do you offer?

These are only a few of the questions that come up when you suddenly become aware of something that you believe needs attention. I would myself always add the question:

What’s the up-shot of even knowing about a specific problem or crisis which may or may not affect someone or many people directly? Something that is possibly so out of the realm of a particular person or group’s current imagination and train of thought that they cannot even imagine any utility in your endeavor. What then is it that you offer as a practical solution or remedy to this problem?

Once you have answered some or all of those questions you are left with now finding resolution among the masses. How you go about this will decide whether your ‘revolutionary’ thinking will survive the onslaught of mediocrity and possibly fall to decay. Or worse still, your message gets out only to become devoured by a mob of unprepared, angry people of a similar ilk who are quick to grab up your idea and pervert it so much that it becomes dangerous. Or another possibility, you wind up inadvertently pushing some other person or group’s ideology which shares similarities to yours only far more radical and ill-conceived therefore harmful to your cause. There are examples of this throughout history.

Ultimately what I am asking is this: Does your ‘movement” create hysteria? Or does it calmly find solutions for Humanity? The way you go about your activism is sometimes far more harmful to your own cause if your plan of execution is not well thought out. Determine all the possible angles and plan your strategy accordingly. You’ll end up with far better results for yourself as well as all who are involved.