Apropos Austrian Aphorisms : ron paul

It's (always) the economy, stupid!

thedo — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:29:00 GMT

The timing is odd. John McCain has suspended his campaign indefinitely to hammer (and sickle) out the current "economic crisis." Though I believe McCain should suspend his campaign definitely, a-la Mitt Romney, I offer little other disagreement about this "political move"—a vacuous pejorative people are using to describe their contempt for McCain's choice when, as a politician, every move is "political." After all, McCain is an elected senator—by the people no less! thank you 17th Amendment. He has a duty to represent his constituents in Washington D.C. and make sure their voices are hard. For all of the pandering people are putting behind that old hitching post to "call your representatives in Congress and tell them you oppose the bailout!" there sure seems to be quite the criticism of McCain for somewhat assuming this role. He wasn't elected to run for president by his constituents after all. Even Ron Paul, after all, temporarily suspended his presidential bid to shore up his congressional re-election.

Yet, the timing is odd, and people are associating McCain with ducking the presidential debate this Friday—a curious notion because the debate concerns foreign policy, arguably McCain's stronger point over Barack Obama. With few weeks left before the election, both candidates have some alleged duty to better inform citizens of their views to help them choose whom to vote for. Here's all the help you need: They both support warfare across the world. You can say tomato and I can say potato, and that's about how much these two candidates differ when you replace tomato with Iraq and potato with Afghanistan.

Regarding the debate, others lament that, unfortunately, the debate is not about the economy when the US economy is in such "dire straits." But here is the misdirection, again. The debate, whether it's Friday or another time, about foreign policy is inextricably linked to and cannot be removed from the economy. That "other" debate concerns domestic policy. You know, education and the like. Both debates—here's the kicker—concern the economy. For how can the US government pledge billions, nay, trillions of dollars into war venturing across the planet without affecting the US economy as a whole?

This was the beauty of Paul's cohesive arguments in the Republican presidential debates. He tied everything back to monetary policy, the economy, because nothing can be separated from the economy—that is, economics: human action. How the government acts oversea, how it spends its war venturing, directly impacts the economy. Where does the government get so much money to fight overseas? They sure don't tax US citizens, at least in the commonly perceived sense. The government either borrows or prints money, and both means increase the government's total debt, which, in the end, must be financed by US taxpayers. When the government is so financially invested overseas, in 160 countries, it directly impacts the home front, leaving less to spend at home. At least it should, but it doesn't, because if any domestic financing is needed the government, again, borrows and prints.

All of this leads to a reckless financial policy. When people demand more for bailouts, or health care, or whatever they want more money for, education, drug wars, etc., and the government is strapped, all they need to do is look at the overall financial policy: foreign and domestic. The debate Friday will concern foreign policy, and it should also concern financial policy. It won't, though, because both candidates are incapable of linking foreign policy with financial policy.

From the mouth of a wolf in sheep's clothing

thedo — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:30:00 GMT

There's much to be said about the current financial crisis. At the heart of this, as every Austrian knows, is the fault the US government holds for creating the current situation through its central bank and its inflationary policy. This fundamental economic truth cannot be stated enough. Ignorance of it shows in so-called debates about the crisis in popular media, sans Ron Paul's occassional publicity as the sheepherders perhaps finally realize they were really part of the herd that bleated the black sheep. Yet current ignorance exists because, obviously, many were never educated. They were lied to; or, to use the popular apology: they were the best they could be with what information was present at the time. That lie, or missing education, is that the Great Depression was caused by laissez-faire capitalism, which we, the soundedly educated, know to be a lie as bald as John McCain's face when asked an economic question by Ron Paul (the same face Gen. Petraeus wears).

The cause behind the Great Depression, so well-put by Murray Rothbard in his book, America's Great Depression, was the government. This cannot be stated enough considering current situations. The fact that this truth is so unknown can be seen in how popular media address the current financial crisis and its so-called bailout (read: extension). This crisis and its intervention are labeled as "the greatest since the Great Depression." Although a great starting point for addressing the horrible New Deal, this phrase is complete misdirection. The "greatest" economic intervention in the US economy is what preceded and precipitated the Great Depression; planted the seed, bore a tree, and flowered with Government Apples for a "fruitful economic future." It was the US central bank and its inflationary policy during the 1920s that was the "greatest economic intervention" in US history. It was what brought about the Great Depression, and ignorance of the fact led many to bleat along blindly with the sheepherders who introduced the New Deal and those who look to unleash the wolf that is Henry Paulson's $700 billion bailout—the bailout that professes it will shore up bad US loans when it will only loan the crisis more time until it reaches a level never before seen, even "since the Great Depression."

Today, ignorance; Tomorrow, education

thedo — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:11:00 GMT

Many people perhaps dream of an executive position in a wealthy, well-to-do business. To manage and direct people! to be the boss. But few people are. The reason should be obvious: it takes a certain kind of skill and talent to successfully direct the fortunes of a business that captures a certain sector of the market and appeals to a mass of people.

Yet far many more people have the skill and talent to sit back and criticize others, especially if they are wealthy. But few people are in a more prestigious position to criticize others, such as Kathie Lee Gifford. Only a few minutes ago was she hosting The Today Show, holding a newspaper up and pointing to the questioning of oil executives, stamping her frustration about their excessive personal earnings. This followed her coverage of the recent decision by airlines to charge a new fee of $15 for the first bag checked on an airline, which this forthcoming charge is tied to rising gas prices. And the news reports Kathie displayed on her show referred to "skyway robbery." Indeed, a voluntary exchange between business and consumer for a nominal fee for the rising cost of business is robbery!

I wonder how "excessive" Kathie's earnings are to sit in a chair for hours on a day and offer her unfounded accusations. Of course, airlines aren't engaging in robbery, and oil executives are not making more than they should at the expense of the public. Their prices, which the public accepts and drives, are part and parcel and largely symptomatic of government intervention. Inflation, the blocking of new refineries, gasoline taxes, and an interventionist foreign policy are the catalysts of oil executives and airline managers asking for higher prices, which the public accepts.

Ron Paul was every so often questioned during his more public run for the White House about his environmental stance. Is the United States government supposed to drive alternative energy? No! he always said, the market should drive energy. If the price of gas becomes too much a burden on people then the market will seek alternatives on its own. The government, has no role in energy, as it does not with anything else. Education of this point is the starting point for tomorrow's show.

Another Typical Superhero Movie

thedo — Sun, 04 May 2008 04:13:00 GMT

It seems Hollywood may take a few years to catch up to the message of Ron Paul. Below is my gist of the newest Hollywood blockbuster, the superhero movie Iron Man, in bullets. Here's a quick synopsis: The main character, Tony Stark, heads a successful arms company, Stark Industries. He is captured by guerillas in Afghanistan and he subsequently escapes via his first creation of the Iron Man. During his capture, Stark realizes an ugly part of war: the enemy can end up with the same weapons as the good guys. In this case, the weapons Stark produces for the U.S. military end up in the hands of the Afghan guerillas. Upon his return to America, Stark has a revelation: Arms dealing is bad. As figurehead for his company, Stark holds a press conference to announce his change of heart. However, everything's not so simple and rosy. Stark's partner-in-business, Obadiah Stane, is too greedy for the profits of war to let Stark do as he wants. Thus is the protagonism/antagonism of the film, setting the stage for the epic showdown.

So here are the messages the film conveys.

War itself is not bad—only war profiteering and arms manufacturing is bad.
Greedy war profiteers are responsible for arming bad men around the world.
Problems of war will stop if you simply remove the bad men. There is no other source of the problem.
U.S. involvement in the Middle East is good because many bad men exist there.

And here are the messages the film doesn't convey.

The problems in Afghanistan are part and parcel because of U.S. involvement in the area.
War profiteering on the part of greedy businessmen is boosted by the war profiteering of a country's military policy.

Iron Man would be the first big-hit movie of the summer for the ilk of John McCain or Hilary Clinton; i.e., those who don't believe in the message of Ron Paul that turmoil in the Middle East is facilitated by the United States government. So for now, until the message sinks in, moviegoers can plan on seeing more movies that rely on the stereotypes that the Middle East needs the United States, that big business is greedy and corrupt (especially the arms industry), and that war itself is not bad but only the existence of powerful weapons. I'm sure the counter message would sink in faster had Ron Paul advanced further into the minds of American philosophy and politics, but this is why people, part and parcel, enjoy movies: for fantasy. Sometimes believing in superheroes is easier than electing one.

A proper gander at the FairTax

thedo — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:37:00 GMT

A recent debate topic on Facebook's Politics poll was whether you supported Mike Huckabee's FairTax plan. The FairTax is a splendid example for examining language and economics. Let's not mince words: The FairTax is not fair. It is an ugly euphemism designed to receive support. Eliminate the IRS and replace it with a simpler tax code that is fair? Sure! exclaim many. No! I say. Let the IRS die and the rest of the tax code with it. Here are three responses to common arguments regarding the FairTax.

The FairTax is not "fair"; there's nothing fair about taxation — what would be called theft if any private individual were standing between you and your purchase extracting a benevolent 23 percent. As Murray Rothbard noted about the FairTax, it's essentially a "pay to live" tax: You must relinquish 23% of your purchase, whether it be a plasma television or a Thanksgiving turkey. The FairTax says this: The government must be involved in every purchase you make; there is no privacy between consumer and provider.
The FairTax is not "simplification." The IRS may be gone, but another bureacracy is put in its place. The idea behind eliminating the IRS, as Ron Paul argues, is not because it's complex or confusing, but because it is illegitimate. The federal government should be reduced, not tinkered with. The elimination of the IRS, with nothing to replace it, forces the federal government to behave constitutionally because it cannot extort payment from every individual to finance the myriad federal functions not authorized by the Constitution.
The FairTax is finally fair to rich people! No more progressive taxation under the ugly income tax — a tax that penalizes you for being more productive. And this is why some people oppose the FairTax; it is because now the rich are taxed as the poor are. The rich must relinquish more! they say. And how much more? And who is rich? Who determines these arbitrary constructions? What obligates the "rich" man to give to the "poor" man? There is no norm to establish this creed, which is why it has no answer and no substance.

As all popular federal governments do, the national sales tax (i.e., the FairTax) will grow over time. What is the harm in 1% more? And then another 1 percent? It must be noted: the proposed 23% is to cover current expenditures. What happens, as we've unfortunately seen over the past centuries, when the federal government spends more? The sales tax must be increased proportionately. Who determines the correct percentage? And is the sales tax on top of already existing state sales tax and "sin taxes," e.g., cigarettes?

The FairTax must be rejected for what it is: A farce. There is no simple, no just tax. Repeal them all!

GG: Fifty years the prophet

thedo — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:12:00 GMT

To my delight! did I finally indulge in the literary wonder of Garet Garrett. My first selection: The People's Pottage; specifically, The Revolution Was. What a joy it is to read Garrett's mastery of language, his figurations and metaphors, that exposes the government for what it is: A filthy thief layered in meretricious clothing.

And what apropos Austrian aphorism did I find in particular? How language changes and how clever sneaking liars use language to inhibit, belittle, and denigrate liberty and sovereignty.

Quoting Garrett from Page 17 in how the revolution of the New Deal came in part to be:

"the marvelous technic of bringing [the revolution] to pass not only within in the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signs."

Then, quoting again from Page 9 when Garrett speaks of the already vast semantic shift 20 years after the arrival of The New Deal:

"freedom itself has come to be regarded as a reactionary word....And the mere thought of America first, associated as that term is with isolationism, has become a liability so extreme that politicians feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it."

And where are we 50 years after Garrett penned these words? We are where presidential candidate Ron Paul is denigrated by the media and other politicians (most recently and famously John McCain) as being an isolationist for thinking of American sovereignty first and wanting to remove the policing American troops from around the world, to avoid entangling alliances. Garet Garrett not only prophesied the impending crisis of the financial bubble as The Great Depression, how The New Deal subverted American politics and philosophy, but also foretold many decades ahead of how language will be used to still subvert liberty.

I am already glad I have found GG