Will the Police Crack Down on Lockdown Violators the Second Time Around?

Will the Police Crack Down on Lockdown Violators the Second Time Around?

06/26/2020Ryan McMaken

Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

As I mentioned on Friday, a second round of lockdowns and stay-at-home orders will be both more economically damaging and more difficult to enforce. Yet politicians have clearly signaled they have more lockdowns in store.

Yet as economic hardship increases, and as more people doubt the official experts' demands, fewer will be willing to comply.

The first time around, lockdowns were largely peaceful.

Nationwide, we witnessed relatively few altercations with police during the first round of lockdowns. Certainly, there were still repugnant abuses committed by police who claimed to be enforcing "social distancing" laws. Here are just some examples:

But given the sheer scale of the lockdowns, we could have seen a lot more. The reason we didn't see more was that an overwhelming majority of Americans complied voluntarily out of fear of the disease.

It's now clear, however, that while total mortality may indeed be heightened in the age of COVID-19, it's certainly not catastrophic or apocalyptic. This is clear in US states, and in entire countries like Sweden that never imposed coerced lockdowns. Moreover, as incomes wane, rent payments are missed, and unemployment endures, many Americans will be even less inclined to comply with stay-at-home orders.

But if there's less voluntary compliance, that means a greater need for police to force compliance. Will the police make it happen?

Certainly, during the first lockdown, few police had qualms about destroying lives and businesses in the name of "public safety."

But that was before the "defund the police" movement grew, and some police departments have implemented work slowdowns in response.

In New York and Atlanta, for example, police officers have called in sick or called for strikes in protest against an alleged "anti-police climate."

The idea here is that police refuse to arrest violent criminals as a means of applying political pressure to both elected officials and the voters.

But will police forget about their slowdowns and strikes in time to crack down on peaceful citizens who violate the future stay-at-home orders now being threatened by politicians?

If the police—who in some cases acted with considerable restraint against protestors who were obviously in violation of bans on mass gatherings—engage in mass arrests against Americans who refuse to "#stayathome" or otherwise fail to comply with lockdown orders?

Will police ignore murders while they rush to close businesses and arrest fathers who take their children to a park?

Experience suggests this would just be par for the course. After all, the evidence has long shown that police focus on petty crimes while devoting few resources to serious violent crimes. There would be nothing shocking about a police force that refuses to pursue dangerous criminals while bringing the full wrath of a SWAT team against patrons at a tavern. It is easier—both practically and politically—to arrest a middle-aged mom who refused to close her business while letting violent rioters go free.

Politically, however, police would be well advised to refuse to enforce stay-at-home orders. After all, the police departments' list of allies grows thin. Middle-class voters are often inclined to be sympathetic to police, because middle-class voters don't want their homes and businesses burned down or broken into.

But if the cops plan to continue arresting business owners for noncrimes related to stay-at-home orders, they should expect little help the next time they want yet another budget increase.

Image source:
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

The REAL Cause of Death? Look in the Mirror

In 1993 the New England Journal of Medicine came out with a very well-research report called Actual Causes of Death in the United States (repeated in 2004) which stated that 70% of our diseases are lifestyle related, and that eight of the nine leading causes of death in America are lifestyle related. 

What I find interesting is that when these people die, the coroners don’t list their cause of death as: “Lifestyle,” or “Standard American Diet.” They’ll say the cause of death is cancer or heart disease – you know, something they can charge you a lot of money for treating.

Why don’t they say, “Cause of death: eating the wrong food, failing to take exercise, spending all day sitting down in cramped spaces without any fresh air leading to poor circulation, and poor management of stress.”?

So, listen to this, when someone says: “Most people are dying of heart disease and cancer,” the first response should be to say: “Well, what’s causing cancer?”

We don’t know?

Well then, it should be: “Cause of Death: Unknown.”

You can blame diabetes for blindness since that’s the number one cause of blindness in America. But diabetes is only what we would call the subsequent cause. It’s not the primary cause, because the real question is: What caused the diabetes?

Virtually every non-infectious disease is the subsequent cause of lifestyle choices. And even in the case of the flu or Covid-19 or whatever else you caught, a weakened immune system left you open to infection – and that was exacerbated, if not caused, by lifestyle choices.

The human anatomy is all just a series of flowing tubes – the blood vessels, the lungs, the nerves, the alimentary canal, each of the vital organs and what have you. So long as all the tubes are flowing like a river, you’re fine. But when the tubes get blocked, constricted, smashed, cut, or balloon out… then you’ve got your health problems.

If you had a heart attack or stroke, then you had a blood clot and couldn’t get any blood up to your brain. You had a plumbing problem. You had tubes in trouble, because you ate the wrong food and got arterial plaque which thinned them out and raised the pressure until something burst.

This outlook on disease is so enlightening. An aneurysm is the result of a blood vessel tube that became weakened in its lining and ballooned. A stroke is a blood clot in a blood vessel or artery tube in the brain, shutting off blood flow and oxygen to the brain cells. Constipation is severe impaction of the intestinal tube, leading to abdominal pain. Heart disease is the blocking or obstruction of the coronary artery tubes that lead to the heart tissue.

You have congestion? That’s the tubes of the lungs being backed up by excess waste products. The uncomfortable symptoms of coughing up mucous, sinus drainage, sweating and intestinal diarrhea are the body’s built-in purging mechanisms for tubular drainage of acids, parasites, mucous and toxins. The common cold may be nothing more than the body’s healing crisis response to a viral infection causing mucous secretions in the sinus tubes, lung tubes or intestinal tubes. If you try to stop these symptoms with pharmaceutical you may be blocking the healing process itself, as well as adding more poisonous chemicals for your body to try and purge.

Eating the wrong foods, that’s going to turn your body fluids thick, over working the heart, lungs, kidneys and liver, and accumulating as sludge in the blood vessels, arteries, veins, capillaries, and micro-vascular tubing. That’s gonna give you tubes in trouble.

Why aren’t they teaching this outlook to our so-called medical experts by now, as well as the general public? They’ve had thirty years to do it. If 70% of disease is lifestyle related, then you’d think we would be spending 70% of the $4 trillion a year Americans shell out on healthcare preventing disease. That would be a sensible response to that statistic, wouldn’t it?

What people are really dying from is things like their own waste matter backing up in their tubes. You’re filthy inside because the sewage system that’s supposed to clean all your cells isn’t able to clean out your waste as quickly as you produce it. That’s why fasting is all the rage these days. People are discovering that if you give the body a rest it can finally catch up with the backlog of garbage you’ve been accumulating as a consequence of what you’ve been stuffing into your mouth and clean up house.

Sadly, when most of us die, it’s going to be largely our own fault! Due to our very own choices!

We can plead ignorance, of course. We can blame society, to a degree. After all, we have all been indoctrinated into believe that disease is something that just happens to us when we’re unlucky. During the pandemic, when the government had the ear of the entire nation, they didn’t even take the opportunity to recommend lifestyle changes and teach

people what they could do to support their immune system, or what habits to reduce or eliminate reduce their risk of complications upon contracting Covid. Plenty was known about it, but you would have heard little on it from the mainstream press. It wouldn’t have helped pharma at all if they had done that, but it may have stopped the hospitals from becoming overwhelmed, and all-cause mortality would have gone down, not just mortality from Covid. “You can’t heal selectively,” as Charlotte Gerson used to say, “If you truly heal – everything heals.”

So, ok, I admit, the government is at fault. Pharma is at fault. So is the advertising industry, and the media, and the schools, and the FDA, the CDC, and whoever came up with the food pyramid. But where’s that going to get us, blaming society? We are part of society, and if we want society to be responsible, then it’s high time we took responsibility for ourselves and the ones around us. It’s our responsibility now to create a responsible society.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Democratic Hypocrisy in India

10/04/2022Yash Dubey

I was taught in childhood that Democracy is by the people, for the people, and of the people, maybe it was a goof by my teachers because what I have seen is Democracy has now become Buy the people, for the selective people, and off the people. Why do we like Democracy, what’s so idiosyncratic about this system that distinguishes it from other forms of the political system? Democracy gives us freedom, the system gives us rights, and it gives hope for a liberal society. Democracy is an antonym of a Totalitarian system, maybe.

In India, politicians have so much power that they can give a person a job and can also take away his job. This is Democracy in India, the leaders here are worshipped, the normal people have to respectfully greet the politician, and people can’t speak within their rights in front of any leader too, they have to speak within the ceiling set by the “people’s” leader. Above all you a common man can’t even reply anything to swear words of that person if you want to reach home alive. People beg in front of leaders for their basic requirements and they will act like they have done some favor by spending money on the people which is taken from the system! India isn’t a democracy it tries to make itself look like one. After 75 years since independence all you will see is the rallies of politicians, the divide and rule of people in name of ethnicity, snatching people’s liberty, laws applied only to common people, large assets of politicians and their money and the list can go further. 

This had to happen. This will keep continuing if the system keeps giving power more and more to the government thinking that it will uplift the people. The collectivist fallacy and people still have got some hopes for improvement.

Ironically in a dictatorship, there’s one dictator; a totalitarian, but in a democracy like India we have many dictators sitting. The netas who live a luxurious life, assassinate those that go against them, abuse their subordinates, make cronies fatter, can acquire as much wealth without facing consequences, steal the liberty of people, fund gangsters, etc…. The emergency of Indira Gandhi, Meat shop bans, demonetization, reservation, tax on cryptocurrency, and more examples can be given to prove the country’s grip on authoritarianism.

To make it very clear, Democracy doesn’t guarantee individual liberty. Democracy is one of the mediums of it. The main aim is Liberty, which is the freedom, rights, and independence of citizens. People are manipulated in such a way that they are more and more dependent on authority. The authority decides our life in many ways and one can have no clue about it. Mises and Hayek rightly rejected the concept of differentiating Political Freedom and Economic Freedom because in India there is so-called Political freedom in name of Democracy which nowadays just means voting. Mises said:

But as Hayek pointed out in 1944 in his book The Road to Serfdom, economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life that can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends.

It’s funny when the communists of the country who are only good to show their activism on the streets and causing a disturbance in day to day life of people are seen protesting in the current system. But, what’s your solution to this problem? Increase the role of the same corrupt government? No wonder, why their influence on the country is reducing which is quite a positive development in the country. But, socialism is still regarded as moral here and capitalism means evil, coming from a country that was saved by Capitalism in 1991!

Democracy is very important to the people of the country but what they don’t understand is, Democracy is means but not ends. Democracy is means of Liberty and Democracy solely cannot grant freedom. Democracy is for Liberty, not the other way around! Something similar was said by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom:

Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. Nor must we forget that there has often been much more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies and it is at least conceivable that under the government of a very homogeneous and doctrinaire majority democratic government might be as oppressive as the worst dictatorship.

Many intellectuals are seen criticizing the current party in power in India for becoming authoritarian but when wasn’t the system authoritarian? Privatization in present or “equality” approach in past, whether from Left or Right, the country has always been authoritarian in the truest form, no need to distinguish from one another because you all are collectivist in a Brotherly Conflict!

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Slow Down, Stop. Reverse!

10/03/2022Robert Aro

Everyone must be wondering: How high will interest rates go? When will the stock market bottom? What does the future hold? Unfortunately, it all depends on the Fed. They can either slow down, stop, or reverse the Quantitative Tightening (QT) process. Let’s see the options:

Slow Down:

So far, the Fed’s balance sheet reduction effort has been crawling, only reduced by around half of the nearly $50 billion cap per month in the first three months. Should they slow the pace further, they may have to address it formally. Nonetheless, slowing the pace of QT only offers faint hope of delaying the inevitable crisis ahead.


If the Fed were to formally stop their QT program, in order to hold the balance sheet steady, they would be in a perpetual juggling game of buying just the right amount of securities to balance off the maturing ones.

Unfortunately, whether they slow or stop QT, it won’t matter. Whether the market crashes in October of this year or March in the next, the crisis is coming. Interest rates always try to revert to what they should be in a free and unhampered market. Absent the Fed actively increasing the money supply, interest rate suppression will always be a problem.

With US debt about to cross $31 trillion, there is no way the Fed would simply slow or stop QT, nor try to hold rates steady for a prolonged period of time. It wouldn’t even work for long before the market collapses and the Fed loses control of rates entirely anyway.


Inflationism will be monetary policy so long as there is a Federal Reserve. No matter what they tell you about inflation or unemployment, and the juggling acts they play, the balance sheet is always destined to increase, and with it, all prices. Only by exponentially increasing the balance sheet can the Fed continue its interest rate suppression. Plus, the stock, bond, and housing market have been broken (because of the Fed) so it won’t be long until the Fed rescues them once again.

Even the United Nations noticed, as Reuters reports:

…warned on Monday of the risk of a monetary policy-induced global recession that would have especially serious consequences for developing countries and called for a new strategy.

Quotes from their report says:

Excessive monetary tightening could usher in a period of stagnation and economic instability...


Any belief that they (central banks) will be able to bring down prices by relying on higher interest rates without generating a recession is, the report suggests, an imprudent gamble…

Recessions matter: but stock portfolios and lower interest rates do too. It is only through asset purchases can the two be found again. When the time comes, they’ll tell us (price) inflation is low and therefore warrants balance sheet expansion. Or they’ll acknowledge inflation is high, but say it was a choice between the lesser of two evils, opting to increase the balance sheet to fight a recession at all costs.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Radley Balko Fired

10/01/2022David Gordon

Radley Balko,  a defender of liberty best known for his book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization  of America's  Police Forces, has been fired by the Washington Post. Balko writes: "So after nine years, I'm being let go by the Washington Post. This is disappointing but not surprising. In recent years, the Opinion leadership has made it increasingly difficult to do the reporting & in-depth analysis I was hired to do -- in favor of short, hot takes."

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Yes, Criminals Respond to Incentives, Too

“Can we film the operation/Is the head dead yet/Get the widow on the set/We need dirty laundry,” sang Don Henley in 1982. Crime stories grab people’s attention more than almost anything else. What do the stats say for San Antonio?

As Mr. Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” continues, “kick ‘em when they’re up/kick ‘em when they’re down”: they’re all over the place in the last dozen years. A couple of isolated spots do pop out. 

Violent crime shot up 28 percent and 26 percent in 2013 and 2016, respectively. Then it took a 17 percent dip in 2018, accompanied with a 9 percent drop in property crime. It’s notable that the economy started growing more the year before, both here and in the broader U.S. 

When more people are prospering, fewer are committing crimes. 

But then crime rose again in 2019: 13 percent for violent crime, 10 percent for property crime. Incidentally, starting in 2018 was Bexar County’s cite and release program (CR).

Maybe it’s a coincidence, maybe not. Take that economic growth though. 

There weren’t large-scale measures or actions taken that had time to fully wend their way positively through the system. But a friendlier tone had taken power. 

Signals were sent, and those matter, particularly for investment. Investment leads to hiring. And if more people are getting hired, fewer people are committing crimes.

The CR sent a different signal … kinda. The part that deals with marijuana could actually be augmented by other voluntary and/or consensual activities. 

What is the logical basis for stripping someone of their freedom or property when what they do harm to no one else? If there is no collateral damage, where is the wrongdoing?

This is unlike when one party assaults another, including minor aggressions like defacing property.

Not only should such infractions be removed from any CR, but punishment by fine should be abolished. Otherwise, it amounts to little more than a rich man’s crime. Restitution for the victim should factor in, but time behind bars should be mandatory.

Is there a greater disincentive to bad behavior than a night in the pokey? As it is, the faulty half of the CR is subtly wreaking havoc.

Those with confidence in the ability of government to do good put outsized faith in bad actors who clearly lack good intentions. Not only does this include a blind spot to fraudsters who seize on public spending, but also those who see a criminal justice system with soft spots.

When you excuse minor criminal acts, you invite more of it, oftentimes on a larger scale.

Citizens are starting to regret this approach. None other than San Francisco recalled their district attorney earlier this year. The broader movement of these lenient approaches is showing signs of weakening as well.

Preliminary reports this year show a spike in homicides and aggravated assault to the tune of 27 percent each. Are Bexar County residents feeling buyer’s remorse, too? Would a new district attorney revamp the CR to be more respectful of freedom and property? 

Only the candidates and the voter know. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

As the Economy Tanks, Will the Fed Pivot or Stay the Course?

09/29/2022André Marques

On September 21st, the Fed announced another 0.75 percent rate hike. The target is 3 percent to 3.25 percent. The annual rate of the CPI went down in July and in August, standing at 8.3 percent. If we consider the methodology used in the 1980’s, the CPI also went down in the last months, but it is still above 15 percent, according to Shadow Government Statistics.

This decrease in the CPI is due, partially, to the use of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the fact that the monetary aggregates have stopped increasing. Since the Fed is no longer buying government bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), the monetary base (M0) and its balance sheet are not expanding. In fact, the balance sheet has been slightly contracting since April, and M0 follows the same pattern (chart 1). M1 and M2 also stopped increasing, with a slight contraction since March after a significant increase in 2020 in 2021.

Chart 1 – Fed’s Balance Sheet and M0

Fed’s Balance Sheet (Green); M0 (Red).

Source: St. Louis Fed.

This latest 0.75 percent rate hike took the IORB (Interest Rate on Reserve Balances), which is the main rate that the Fed uses to influence the FFR (Federal Funds Rate), from 2.4 percent to 3.15 percent.

Chart 2 – FFR, IOER and IORB

FFR (Red); IOER (Green); IORB (Orange).

Source: St. Louis Fed.

Jerome Powell stated in March that, if necessary (to contain the CPI), the FOMC would resort to hikes higher than 0.25 percent in future meetings. And, so far, this is what has happened.

As in Chart 1, by the end of July, the Fed's balance sheet had barely shrunk (the Fed's assets were down by less than 1 percent). And, between the peak reached on April 13 and September 21, it shrunk by “only” $148.7 billion. However, the Fed said it will continue to reduce its assets, as announced in May. It also stated that it is determined to bring the CPI back to the 2 percent target and it is committed to continue raising rates by 0.75 percent.

The peak of the FFR in the last rate hike cycle (2015-2018) was 2.4 percent. In December 2018, there was significant turbulence in the US stock market (and started cutting rates in 2019), and in September 2019 there was a crisis in the repurchase market and the Fed started to inject liquidity into it (doing QE and expanding its balance sheet). The FFR reached 2.4 percent again last July and now it stands at 3.15 percent. Does this mean the Fed can continue raising rates without consequences? Unlikely. In the last rate hike cycle, the Fed was not only raising rates, but also shrinking its balance sheet at a higher pace, which further limited the extent to which the Fed could raise rates (since the sale of assets held by the Fed made its prices go down and its interest go up). The Fed began to shrink its balance sheet in late 2017 (and went back to expanding it in September 2019). As for the FFR, the Fed started raising it in December 2015 (but went back to cutting it in H1 2019).

Real interest rates are still negative. Even if we consider the official CPI of 8.3 percent, the real rate is -5.15 percent. In addition, another important factor that that Fed needs to address in order to bring down the CPI is the money supply. In FY 2022, total government spending was $5.35 billion. The government is still spending money on COVID-related “stimulus”, Congress has passed yet another spending bill, and we have yet to see the impact of student debt forgiveness (as the government will have to borrow more to fund it). And let’s not forget that a higher IORB means that the Fed have to pay more interest on bank reserves, which means lower profits for the Fed, which means less of these profits will be given to the government, which means that the government will have a higher budget deficit if it doesn’t raise taxes, or it doesn’t cut spending.

All this means more indebtedness, that is, more bonds issued by the government that can eventually be purchased by the Fed (since, likely, there will not be enough demand for these bonds at the current FFR level, as expenses that the federal government is incurring with interest on debt are increasing). Even in a scenario in which the central bank does not raise rates, the increase in government indebtedness tends to increase interest expenses. But this is compounded when the central bank is raising rates. If the government continues down this path, the Fed will have to decide whether to continue to raise rates (which will increase the government's interest expenses) and to shrink its balance sheet (which means that the Fed will be increasing the supply of bonds, further decreasing their prices and increasing their interest), or to give up on this plan and go back to cutting rates and increase its balance sheet to prevent the government from being unable to finance these expenditures. Historically, the second option is the one chosen by the Fed. It remains to be seen if the current scenario of a higher CPI will be enough for the Fed to break this tradition.

The US economy is not in a great shape and it is being questioned (here and here) whether the Fed will keep on its promise or if it will pivot.

GDP contracted 1.6 percent in Q1 and 0.6 percent in Q2, which constitutes a recession (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP), despite the fact that the government is trying to change this consensus to deny a recession. And the Atlanta Fed has lowered its Q3 GDP growth forecast to 0.3 percent (it's still positive, but it's common for the Atlanta Fed to lower its forecasts as new data comes in). However, it is true that, if we consider a more “official” definition of recession (from the National Bureau of Economic Research – NBER), the US was not in recession at the end of Q2. The NBER, in addition to considering the period of economic contraction that must take place to be considered a recession (more than a few months), considers the diffusion (the contraction must be spread across many sectors of the economy) and the depth of the contraction. And, from December 2021 to the end of Q2, all variables used by the NBER were positive.

Nonetheless, it is undeniable that the economy is contracting (or at least it is barely growing).

The housing market is contracting (although the Fed has not yet reduced its holdings of MBSs; the Fed has only reduced its holdings of government bonds and even slightly increased its holdings of MBSs – chart 3), as mortgage rates go up.

Chart 3 – Assets in the Fed’s Balance Sheet

Total Assets (Purple); MBSs (Red); Government Bonds (Green); Federal Agency Debt Securities (Orange*).

* It is not possible to see the line at this scale, because it is a figure of “only” US$ 2.3 billion.

Source: St. Louis Fed.

The CPI is outpacing wage raises, so real incomes are getting lower and consumer credit is going up.

Some yield curves are inverted. That is, the difference between the interest rates of bonds of longer maturity and bonds of shorter maturity is negative (usually they should be positive, since bonds of longer maturity must pay more interest as they are riskier than those of lower maturity). Historically, yield curve inversion is a leading indicator of recession (which usually occurs sometime between 6 and 24 months after the inversion). If bond investors expect a recession, they anticipate that the central bank will cut rates. This expectation causes long-term rates (10 or more years) to decrease in relation to those of shorter maturity, inverting the yield curve. Of course, this is not an accurate indicator and does not guarantee that there will be a recession.

Chart 4 – Yield Curves of US Government Bonds

30 Years-10 Years (Blue); 10 Years-5 Years (Orange); 10 Years-2 Years (Green), 10 Years-1 Year (Yellow).

Source: Trading View.

And stock indexes are trending down since last October:

Chart 5 – Stock Indexes

S&P 500 (Blue); Nasdaq (Orange); RUSSEL 2000 (Green); Dow Jones (Yellow).

Source: Trading View.

All these factors are indicators of a weakness in the US economy. The question remains: Will the Fed pivot?

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

A Victory for Europe’s Right in Italy

As predicted, Italy made history Sunday, electing its first ever female Prime Minister. Winning a preponderance of the votes cast, the Brothers of Italy’s Georgia Meloni will presumably take the helm of the E.U.’s third largest economy at the head of a coalition right wing government. Facing a daunting economic and geopolitical environment, Meloni’s government-in-waiting hopes its promised mix of policies aimed at supporting households and businesses while toeing the line against Russia will curry favor with Italian voters and the leadership in Brussels.

Or, as CNN and any number of their trusted media allies saw fit to put it in the immediate aftermath: “Georgia Meloni claims victory to become Italy’s most far-right prime minister since Mussolini.”

Cue eye roll.

Much like the also recently victorious Swedish Democrats, the Brothers of Italy and other right-wing populist parties across Europe gave voice to voters’ frustrations over inept policy decisions made by distant elites, whether in the capitals of their respective countries or in Brussels.

In cooperation with the other parties of the coalition, such as the League and Forza Italia, Meloni’s Brothers of Italy proposes supporting the “traditional family unit,” opposing abortion, and securing Italy’s borders, while continuing to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

The last was a particularly contentious point and the subject of much speculation through the spring and summer, when it became clear the Brothers were going to pick up the pieces of the Italian right that had fragmented following the League’s break with the group in 2018. With Europe being absolutely battered by the energy price inflation resultant from sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine, several prominent members of the coalition had voiced a mix of concern, that the sanctions were hurting Italians rather than Russians, and opposition to continuing the policy of the Draghi government, backing continued fighting rather than negotiation.

A full decade of crises has expanded the coercive powers of the E.U. significantly, however. Floating a range of potential carrots over the summer, hinting at a secret plan to hold down Italian bond yields over what is sure to be a terrible winter, by July the Brothers had already effectively made the decision to concede on the major points of European policy in exchange for aid. Apparently not satisfied, or just looking to rub it in, European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen let it be known that if the new Italian government after all decided to “go in a different direction” the E.U. “had tools” for applying pressure.

Despite the expressions of public outrage, the comment provoked from, among others League leader Matteo Salvini, the Italy Meloni and her coalition are inheriting is a mess. From government finances to demographic oblivion, sky-rocketing prices, waves of incoming migrants and a structurally disadvantaged private sector, with a possible five years in power stretching out before them the new government in Rome will likely try to put off any confrontation with Brussels as the ECB is the only thing standing between Italians and freezing and the government and its financial solvency.

As such, little is likely to change. Voters seemed to know as much. For all the media hysteria, Italians weren’t flocking to the polls: an historic low 64 percent turned out.

One who didn’t, according to the Wall Street Journal, was a café owner whose restaurant had survived both World Wars and COVID but was now considering closing up permanently after receiving his utility bill: up from a few thousand euros a year ago to literally tens of thousands today. There was no one he saw worth voting for, according to the Journal’s report.


When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Powell: How Do We Get Rid of Inflation?

09/26/2022Robert Aro

After raising the Funds Rate by 75-basis points last week, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Federal Reserve, gave candid opinions regarding inflation and the detrimental effects on households. It’s rare to agree with a central banker; yet here we are. In his own words:

So, for starters, people are seeing their wage increases, their wage increases eaten up by inflation. So if your family is one where you spend most of your paycheck, every paycheck cycle, on gas, food, transportation, clothing, basics of life, and prices go up the way they've been going up, you're in trouble right away. You don't have a cushion and this is very painful for people at the lower end of the income and wealth spectrum. So, that's what we're hearing from people is very much that inflation is really hurting.

Amazing! This is the type of real-world economic analysis we desperately need. He acknowledges that in spite of higher salaries, the benefits from wage increases are devoured by inflation, or more succinctly: the purchasing power of the dollar is decreasing. While some may have higher bank account balances, it affords them less.

He also acknowledges that many family’s paychecks barely cover basics such as gas and food, and that when “inflation” occurs the impacts are felt immensely and immediately. He’s made it clear he grasps the concept.

Seems weird though. If it’s so obvious, why maintain policies explicitly perpetuating inflation?

Powell then confesses, he has no clue how to stop inflation:

So how do we get rid of inflation? And as I mentioned, it would be nice if there were a way to just wish it away but there isn't.

Incredible! We should send him a copy of journalist and economist Henry Hazlitt’s “What You Should Know About Inflation,” which offers many viable solutions. Powell could also study the countless other Austrian economists who have vehemently spoken out against inflationism as a policy tool for the last 100 years. If that isn’t enough, perhaps reflection on the last century of failed monetary policies: perpetual dollar depreciation, the relentless boom/bust cycle, and ever increasing disparity between America’s have and have nots; in which the haves benefit from large subsidies, bailouts, and access to new money programs at society's expense. However, there seems no legitimate intent to correct course.

It's the year 2022 and the Federal Reserve is still trying to unlock the mysteries of inflation, one of the most documented catastrophic policies for quite some time. Even in 1958 Mises reiterated:

The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God; inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is a policy

The Fed claims diligence when it comes to meeting their arbitrary 2% annual inflation rate; but it comes at a heavy cost. The stock market will crash and a recession will be announced. Yet, no one can legitimately claim whether 2% inflation again is even possible. Of course, if we miraculously get there, it won’t matter anyway. The Fed will still exist.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

The Issues and Opportunities with National Conservatism

A few months ago, a manifesto entitled “National Conservatism: A Statement of Principles” was published by the Edmund Burke Foundation on their natcon website and quickly republished by the American Conservative and the European Conservative.

Among its drafters we could see names such as Viktor Orbán superfan #1 and The Benedict Option author, Rod Dreher, The Virtue of Nationalism and Conservatism: A Rediscovery author, Yoram Hazony, Return of the Strong Gods author, and First Things editor R.R. Reno, and ISI Modern Age editor Daniel McCarthy, and among its signatories, a good list of Hillsdale/Claremont-affiliated Straussians such as Michael Anton, Larry P. Arnn, Tom Klingenstein, Ryan Williams and Scott Yenor, classicist, war scholar and Hoover fellow Victor Davis Hanson, Jagiellonian University professor and Polish member of the European Parliament Ryszard Legutko, TPUSA founder and activist Charlie Kirk and tech entrepreneur and right-wing would-be kingmaker Peter Thiel, among others.

This list would make such a manifesto be authoritative enough for the Right, both in the United States as well as in Europe, to be united behind its claimed principles, but contrary to its purpose, the only thing it has promoted is a plethora of responses and replies, both in its support and many times against it, and while we can dismiss liberal pseudowarnings of fascism supposedly present in the natcon statement, such as the one published in the New York Times, as well as the Washington Post’s whining about its lack of references to human rights and equality, many of the issues raised about it from people in our spheres are enough for us, liberty-minded people to consider the viability of national conservatism as a flag to rally under.

For one, these issues reveal an ideological problem with the natcon statement, for it fails to gather all similarly leaning intellectuals in the Right, with the first noticeable absence being that of the Catholic integralist postliberals (Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, Chad Pecknold, Gladden Pappin, and Adrian Vermeule), as noted in a response released the day after by The Bulwark, which could be explained in foreign policy differences over the Russian-Ukrainian war, and on a related note, Peter J. Leithart, of the Theopolis Institute, disparages the manifesto for its excessive reliance over its “national” element over its theological one, which he considers is the actual issue at hand that should be taken care more of.

Others, such as David Tucker, disagree over inconsistencies on the statement’s clauses on religion and race and their intellectual forefather Harry V. Jaffa’s understanding of equality as assimilation under the Declaration of Independence, whereas more free-market-oriented intellectuals, such as Samuel Gregg (formerly from the Acton Institute, now affiliated with the American Institute for Economic Research) noted instead the economic problems with the manifesto, describing what feels like a contradiction between the natcons defense of an enterprise economy, their condemnation of crony capitalism and their embrace of a thinly veiled version of state capitalism, “for the common good.”

Most of these positions were summed up in an article published by National Review by mid-August, and if things weren’t enough with this discussion, the other same outlet that shared the natcon statement alongside the American Conservative in June, that is, the European Conservativerecently published an open letter signed mostly by Catholic and Anglican affiliated thinkers, critiquing the incoherence of arguing against the universalism of globalist ideologies using an equally universalist Anglo-American understanding of national traditions and its apparent elements of “free enterprise” and “individual liberty,” which are more of a feature of conservatism in the United States.

With so many of these issues already laid out in the ground, where does the national conservatism discussion leave us?

Well, for one, national conservatism seems to have left out the paleos, both our paleoconservative friends at Chronicles magazine, and us, paleolibertarians at the Mises Institute, out of the equation, which, to be honest, should not be a surprise, given that in our corner, criticisms of the natcon project have been present at least since 2019, the year where it first appeared, beginning with Chronicles’ Pedro Gonzalez expressing doubts that it might just become another case of controlled right-wing opposition to the growing power of the Left.

Mises Institute president Jeff Deist and associated scholar Allen Mendenhall followed, noting, respectively, that the natcon use of the concept of cosmopolitanism was inadequate, given that Ludwig von Mises had already explained it as “not provincial,” for “Cosmopolitanism does not require a particular worldview or political perspective … but rather respect for others’ political arrangements and cultures” and that the “national” part of national conservatism was completely wrong, for “the United States is not a nation,” but “a country whose people are connected, if at all, by liberalism.”

Does that mean we should be left out of the natcon crowd? Well, it depends, especially given that in our last three years, many things have changed in the world, for we have suffered lockdowns, the expansion of government intervention in society and the economy, contested elections in the US, and the extension of another open conflict (this time, against Russia) in which Western powers, once again, have become involved to intervene, to the detriment of their economies and their peoples.

We have also seen the heating up of our culture wars (marked by the normalization of critical race theory and the George Floyd riots), the rise of the World Economic Forum, with their stakeholder capitalism (explained as woke corporate socialism by Michael Rectenwald), their similarities with the contemporary Chinese model (arguably a form of national socialism) and their influence over Western governments, who seem to either kowtow to their credentialed expert Mandarin class or to the fear of receiving foreign business cycles caused by malinvestment and civilizational misjudgment.

With all these external contingencies, and the rise, although clumsy, of national conservatism in the US and Europe, there might be a chance to begin building bridges between our camp and theirs, and mutually benefit from a larger and organized platform among the intellectuals of the Right.

Our context is better than ever, with a cleaner, healthier image of libertarianism, reminiscent of Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns, being promoted by the Libertarian Party, now under the leadership of its Mises Caucus, something that is being noted by members of religious groups in the Christian Right, washing away the libertine reputation that still followed the LP up to our days and that had already been denounced by Rothbard and Rockwell in the ’80s and ’90s.

For those who belong to the paleo trend in politics, to identify as either a conservative or a libertarian is a difficult task, and many of us simply decide not to use said categories, and simply belong to whatever is identified as “the Right,” and that decision may come in handy when the situation asks for it.

National conservatism is an interesting attempt to appeal to right-minded (pun intended) intellectuals and politicians, but it is lagging in many areas, and it shows. Their manifesto and its many replies demonstrate there is a lack of understanding of their theological, ethical, national, and economic principles, and while we cannot (and should not) comment on the first, we can surely add to a better understanding and a sounder doctrine to the three later.

Austro-libertarianism, many times a trend left in the dark out of misunderstanding or due to the act of bad faith actors, can become the much-needed element to create coherence and cohesion in a movement that still hasn’t decided its path forward.

Our tradition, from Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, through Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, to Hoppe and Salerno, can provide with the necessary takes to make sense of what a nation really is, how to peacefully organize society along the lines of trade for prosperityfree association, and organic, spontaneous institutions; and the meaning of preservation within a long-term, low-time-preference mentality.

The natcons are demanding to expand their horizons from a merely Anglo-American political tradition into one that can truly represent the Western intellectual potential for civilization, and if we’re on character with our capitalist nature, we should be happy to offer what the Austro-libertarian sphere can offer.

The many issues of national conservatism represent an opportunity for us to step out and retake our place among the political families of what used to be, back in the day, the Old Right, and while we recognize our differences, conservatives still need our help to make sense of what they are, and it might be better to give them a hand now that they’re redrafting their doctrine than later when they have retaken all their past vices and gotten new ones from an increasingly radicalized Left.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

President Biden Interview on 60 Minutes

09/19/2022Robert Aro

Over the weekend, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes held an interview with President Joe Biden. See below for some of the highlights, starting with his thoughts on the annual inflation rate which came in at 8.3% for the month of August.

(Portions of the transcript and interview may have been edited by CBS. There exists these incomplete sentences in the video and transcript. We may never know what the President actually meant).

President Joe Biden: Well, first of all, let's put this in perspective. Inflation rate month to month was just-- just an inch, hardly at all, [Transcript ends].

Scott Pelley asked if this was good news, the President responded:

No, I'm not saying it is good news. But it was 8.2% or-- 8.2% before. I mean, it's not-- you're ac-- we act-- make it sound like all of a sudden, "My god, it went to 8.2%." It's been— [Transcript ends].

In both instances the transcript abruptly ends mid-sentence, which may be unfair to the President. Nonetheless, Scott countered, saying it’s the highest inflation rate in 40 years, at which Biden said:

I got that. But guess what we are. We're in a position where, for the last several months, it hasn't spiked. It has just barely-- it's been basically even. And in the meantime, we created all these jobs and-- and prices-- have-- have gone up, but they've come down for energy.

How exactly (price) inflation is to come under control is never mentioned. To this point, Biden was asked if inflation would “continue to decline,” he answered:

No, I'm telling the American people that we're gonna get control of inflation. And their prescription drug prices are gonna be a hell of a lotta lower. Their health care costs are gonna be a lot lower. Their basic costs for everybody, their energy prices are gonna be lower. 

He even invoked Fedspeak, saying:

We hope we can have what they say, "a soft landing," a transition to a place where we don't lose the gains that I ran to make in the first place for middle-class folks, being able to generate good-paying jobs and-- expansion.

This is pretty much the gist of the interview. The reporter asked real questions but was never given honest answers. To be fair, when someone doesn’t understand the cause of inflation, they cannot be expected to know how to resolve the problems inflation creates.

A lot more was discussed, such as the Trump raid, a potential war with China, and banning of assault rifles. But this exchange sticks out the most, invoking ideas that something is not quite right. According to transcript:

Scott Pelley: How would you say your mental focus is?

President Joe Biden: Oh, it's focused. I'd say it's-- I think it's-- I-- I haven't-- look, I have trouble even mentioning, even saying to myself, my own head, the number of years. I no more think of myself as being as old as I am than fly. I mean, it's just not-- I haven't-- observed anything in terms of-- there's not things I don't do now that I did before, whether it's physical, or mental, or anything else. 

With Biden in charge of fiscal policy, and Powell overseeing monetary policy, our economic woes shouldn’t be surprising. However, no matter how easy it is to criticize Biden (D) and Powell (R), it’s important to remember they are only mouthpieces to an apparatus much larger. They are the figureheads of “the State,” or an entity that “does not produce anything but rather steals resources from those engaged in production.” Sure, some are better spoken than others, but this provides little comfort, even if it makes for great television.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here