Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

An honest view of the rotted State of the Union: "Egyptians Ready, Americans Unready"

February 12th, 2011 No comments

Joel Hirschhorn, author of a clear-sighted post of the above title, gave me permission to cross-post it here. More about Hirschhorn, an evil lefty enviro technocrat professorial egghead type who is the Chair of the Independent Party of Maryland and co-founder of the“Friends of the Article V Convention” (a movement to amend the Constitution to constrain the President and Congress) here and here.

The emphasis is mine:

As I am glued to cable stations showing the street battles in Egypt all I keep thinking about is how Egyptians have mustered the courage to fight their government’s tyranny while Americans remain unready to revolt against the peculiar American brand of tyranny.

Of course, the dictatorship in Egypt is far different than what the vast majority of Americans face. Despite liberty and freedom, our tyranny exists within an electoral, constitutional republic. But with a two-party plutocracy thoroughly corrupted by corporate and wealthy interests most Americans are victims of a dysfunctional, inefficient and unfair democracy. How ironic that in the nation with monumental gun ownership among its citizens there is no hint of people giving up on meaningless elections and taking to the streets in massive numbers to protest their corrupt government.

Just this week to the new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a new report documented this: Nearly a year and a half into the economic recovery, some b, just another result of stubborn high unemployment and low incomes among the employed. According to the new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture , compared to a year ago the number of people receiving food stamps was up 14.2 percent. Many other Americans are getting food at various kinds of charities and food banks. Add to this real unemployment approaching 20 percent in most areas and huge numbers of Americans going homeless and facing home foreclosure. Does this sound like the best country on Earth that politicians like to jabber about? Of course not. [Hirschhorn misses that food stamps and unemployment insurance themselves hinder job creation.]

The US is in terrible shape, but President Obama lied in his recent state of the union address. It was not his first time, nor will it be his last time. But it was one of the biggest possible lies. The state of union is absolutely not strong. Anyone with a smidgen of intelligence and critical thinking capability knows that in almost every conceivable way the US is in awful shape for a large fraction of its citizens.

Imagine if the President of the USA stood up in front of Congress, the whole nation and the world with the courage to tell the truth: the state of the union is terrible, about the worst in over 100 years. And that is why Americans have to wake up, pay attention, sacrifice and join together in rebellion to make things much, much better and the hell with conventional politics driven by the worst special interests and the rich.

By telling the lie that the state of the union is strong, Obama removed the necessary motivation for Americans to get their distracted and delusional minds oriented in the right direction. The nation needs to shift into revolution mode. Watching the Superbowl will not improve our government.

What Americans must face is the ugly truth that China and other nations are beating the crap out of the US and nothing the US is currently doing has the ability to change this situation and win the global competition. In just about every objective way that nations can be judged the US is losing the present. Our educational system for children is a joke; data keep showing that American children are far behind those in many other countries. Our industrial sector has lost an incredible amount of manufacturing and most large companies now make more money from foreign operations and invest money abroad for that reason. That explains a huge loss of jobs with no reversal possible. Our financial sector is awash with corruption, greed and dishonesty. Our health care system no longer produces healthy citizens, compared to many other nations, despite costing much, much more. Our physical infrastructure is a disgrace, crumbling and threatening public health and safety. Upward mobility has largely disappeared and the middle class continues to sink into a lower class. Economic inequality has skyrocketed with the rich becoming richer and everyone else suffering more and more. The large number of homeless, hungry, poor and imprisoned Americans defines a nation that has lost its glory.

Just as Americans have watched once great companies disappear (Remember Polaroid?), they need to wake up to the downfall of their own country. All the talk about jobs is just another monumental deception, because there is no way that millions of new, good paying jobs will be created for many years. Even more and more Americans face hunger and homelessness as well as joining the working poor.

In stark contrast to the empty rhetoric of Obama, at about the same time a remarkably honest report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that provides incredibly honest criticisms and explanation of exactly what caused the economic meltdown that millions of Americans are still suffering from. If President Obama respected its findings, he would use them as the basis for detailing his actions against the entities responsible for the Great Recession. Here is a sample of the report’s important views:

The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.”

The financial industry has gotten away with murder and ended up profiting enormously. No mystery because it and groups affiliated with it spent more than $3.7 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions from 1999 to 2008.

And imagine if the President would have had the guts to talk openly about the incredibly awful financial predicament of most states! Many more people will lose their jobs as governments cut spending.

Nothing defines our delusional democracy more than a president providing delusional thinking to mostly delusional citizens. Make no mistake; this is an epidemic of bipartisan delusion. This is what makes America exceptional. A once great nation is sliding down the toilet and most everyone, especially politicians, are lying endlessly as it does, as if the nation’s decay should be ignored rather than honestly combated by its citizens.

Obama said “We do big things.” Once, the country did big things, but not now. The best is behind us, the worst is now with us. The US is stuck in a quicksand of corrupt politics that has been killing the middle class as the elite and rich upper class gets more and more wealth and power. Republicans like to talk about US exceptionalism; it is a farce. There is no longer anything exceptional in a positive sense. That is a terribly bitter and painful truth to acknowledge, but if we do not do so, then how can we possibly fix the many things that are broken? We cannot. We are in a massive national state of delusion, hanging on to the fantasy that the nation is still great. Yes, we need to do big things to restore greatness to the nation, but for that to happen we must first admit the ugly truth and fight American tyranny.

Winning the future, the hot new slogan from Obama, only has meaning if he acknowledges that the nation is losing the present. Yet Americans remain unready to revolt. And the Tea Party movement puts its faith in Republicans! What a disgrace, especially for a nation built on revolution.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

More curious blindness to corporate statism, or, fun with Bob Murphy's paid energy/enviro policy posts

February 11th, 2011 No comments

 I like Bob Murphy, and think he’s doing very important work in fighting nonsense from the Fed and from Keynesians.

But I am deeply disappointed with his ongoing shallow, partisan and decidedly non-libertarian work that he does for pay for the fossil fuel lobby. It’s not quite Dr. Jekyll versus Mr. Hyde, but it’s very clearly Bob Murphy/libertarian morphing into Bob Murphy/hired-gun-for-rent-seekers. I’ve got to admit that, as a hired gun, Bob still comes off well, even if not convincing to libertarians; the fossil fuel interests are getting their money’s worth!

Bob has a post up on his Free Advice blog  – EPA Will Destroy Jobs, Not Make Them – that excerpts a post of the same name that is now the lead item at the “free market” fossil-fuel lobbying outfit “Institute for Energy Research“(no comments allowed there, of course).

IER was started by fellow rent-seeking “libertarian” Rob Bradley (IER is now in DC; Bradley is CEO but has turned over operations to lobbyists; Bradley now focusses on the “Master Resource” “free market” for-pay fossil fuel think tank that features Bob and a host of other paid apologists for rent-seekers (Rob blocks dissenting libertarians like me).

I couldn’t resist making a few comments at Bob’s (emphasis added) 

TokyoTom says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Bob, WHY must you “press on” with your thin and one-sided analysis on environmental issues? Because you’re being paid by polluters to do so?

It pains me to see that the nuanced, libertarian Bob whom we see explaining what’s wrong with the Keynesians and the Fed always takes a leave of absence, and sends in his poor substitute, the utilitarian It-Grows-Jobs-And-Makes-Us-Wealthy-To-Destroy-Commons Bob.

Yes, CERES’/PERI’s argument that regulations create jobs ignores jobs likely to be lost by mandating investments in pollution controls, their overall argument is not as simple or as obviously stupid as you make it out to be. From the executive summary:

“Clean air safeguards have benefitted the United States tremendously. Enacted in
1970, and amended in 1990, the Clean Air Act (“CA”) has delivered cleaner air,
better public health, new jobs and an impressive return on investment—providing $4
to $8 in benefits for every $1 spent on compliance
.1″

“History has proven that clean air and strong economic growth are mutually reinforcing. Since
1990, the CAA has reduced emissions of the most common air pollutants
41 percent while Gross Domestic Product increased 64 percent.2″

“Focusing on 36 states3 in the eastern half of the United States, this report evaluates
the employment impacts of the electric sector’s transformation to a cleaner, modern
fleet through investment in pollution controls and new generation capacity and
through retirement of older, less efficient generating facilities. In particular, we assess
the impacts from two CAA regulations expected to be issued in 2011: the Clean Air
Transport Rule (“Transport Rule”) governing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emissions from targeted states in the eastern half of the U.S.; and the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Utility Boilers (“Utility MACT”)
rule which will, for the first time, set federal limits for hazardous air pollutants such as
mercury, lead, dioxin, and arsenic. Although our analysis considers only employment-related
impacts under the new air regulations, the reality is these new standards will
yield numerous other concrete economic benefits, including better public health from
cleaner air, increased competitiveness from developing innovative technologies and
mitigation of climate change
.”

Given the externalities involved, you are wrong to assume that the new jobs are all costs and do not represent wealth-creating activity. If we junked the EPA and environmental laws and regulations altogether and replaced them with a strict enforcement of property rights (Block points out that we lost this because corporations bought off judges), THEN would the jobs created as people scrambled to sue and businesses scrambled to reduce pollution be wealth-creating? Surely such policies also would “stimulate productive investment and job creation”, right?

Why, then, do you consistently drop your libertarian principles when it comes to energy and environmental matters and adopt a shallow assumption than only corporations producing “desired goods” is a “productive purpose”? Why instead of a recognition of external effects/catallaxy problems, we get suggestions that government should help “the economy” via policies such as – surprise! – “lift[ing] arbitrary restrictions on domestic energy production” that would “stimulate productive investment and job creation.” (Um, remember BP, the Gulf of Mexico and all of the “wealth creation” and great new jobs that just got “created” down there?).

Why, indeed, if you’re still an honorable man? You’re better than this, Bob.

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/25/fun-with-self-deception-and-rent-seeking-bob-murphy-s-quot-man-in-the-mirror-quot.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/28/bob-murphy-rob-bradley-and-the-austrian-road-not-taken-on-climate.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/12/19/bob-murphy-speculates-on-quot-the-benefits-of-procrastination-the-economics-of-geo-engineering-quot-cui-bono.aspx

I’m sorry to be pushing meta-issues, but one of the reasons why the Left doesn’t listen to libertarians and ‘free market’ criticisms is that these criticisms seldom are acknowledge, much less directed at, the major impersonal corporate rent-seekers who REALLY are behind government and whom the Left rightly distrust.

Best,

Tom 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Bob and I

February 11th, 2011 No comments

 

 

 

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/12/07/bob-murphy-implicit-apologist-for-coal-misconstrues-the-real-debate-amp-lessons-from-quot-climategate-quot.aspx

 http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/12/05/quot-the-climes-they-are-a-changin-quot-or-dylan-does-copenhagen.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/29/bob-murphy-rob-bradley-and-the-austrian-road-not-taken-on-climate.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/07/ad-homs-r-not-us-discussions-over-rent-seeking-necessitate-painful-wrestling-with-slippery-quot-cui-bono-quot-demons.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/02/bob-murphy-spins-quot-blockbuster-study-quot-by-coal-lobby-on-cap-and-trade-bill.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/02/bob-murphy-on-climate-change-at-antiwar-radio-a-puppet-for-the-quot-king-coal-quot-hand-that-feeds-him.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/09/04/confirmation-bias-rent-seeking-and-the-rush-to-print-the-latest-climate-science-quot-sccop-quot.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/27/more-on-self-deception-mirror-positions-and-libertarian-reticence-on-climate-policy.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/07/15/bob-murphy-on-james-hansen-and-the-quot-civil-war-on-the-left-quot-over-waxman-markey-where-is-criticism-of-pork-for-coal.aspx 

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/07/06/bob-murphy-rob-bradley-s-quot-ier-calls-for-end-to-all-energy-subsidies-quot-not.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/22/question-at-bob-murphy-s-can-ending-a-tragedy-of-the-commons-create-jobs-enhance-wealth.aspx

ttp://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/11/in-which-i-try-to-help-bob-murphy-figure-out-just-what-the-heck-i-m-talking-about-when-i-explain-why-he-s-part-of-a-partisan-rent-seeking-game.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/08/bob-murphy-the-heritage-foundation-and-quot-green-jobs-quot-ignore-coal-we-only-pay-attention-to-rent-seeking-from-greens-the-left.aspx

 http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/11/19/bob-murphy-in-forbes-no-to-quot-green-quot-jobs-but-otherwise-no-advice.aspx

 http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/11/03/bob-murphy-acknowledges-that-implicit-carbon-pricing-may-reflect-genuine-economic-scarcity.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/05/bob-murphy-plays-with-dice-calls-nordhaus-reluctant-advocacy-for-a-gradualist-carbon-tax-over-eager.aspx

 

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Times are a-changin'?! 'The American Conservative' runs Sheldon Richman's sympathetic view of the "Libertarian Left"

February 11th, 2011 1 comment

Wow — The American Conservative is now running a sympathetic overview by Sheldon Richman on the “Libertarian Left” (subheading, Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal).

Have conservatives lost their senses, or have they come to realize that the statist rot at the core of American “capitalism” is growing out of control?

Even libertarians who don’t consider themselves on the left (FWIW, I consider myself as a screwed-up RIGHT-leaning libertarian) will find the piece thought-provoking and insightful.

But it strikes me as funny that, if I judge from Sheldon’s piece, Left-Libertarians have not quite focussed on how the state grant of limited liability to shareholders – something that cannot be obtained merely by voluntary transactions) has set in motion and greatly fuelled the growth of the state and battles over the wheel of government — battles in which insider elites, generally acting through corporations, have the overwhelming advantage.

I have posted extensively on limited liability; for the interested reader perhaps this post will be a quick introduction:

The Cliff Notes version of my stilted enviro-fascist view of corporations and government

For those of you who prefer to not let their fingers do the walking, as I have noted elsewhere: “I am NOT arguing FOR a general rule that shareholders SHOULD be liable for corporate torts; rather, I have:

(1) pointed out that limited liability itself has served to muddle the question of whom, exactly, should be responsible for the very real harms that corporatons frequently cause,

(2) noted that the limited-liability corporate form has enabled risk-generation and -shifting on a massive scale, with innocent third parties frequently being stuck holding the bag (not solely when liabilities exceed assets, but more generally since the cycle of escalating government interventions to rein in corporations perversely ends up raising barriers to entry and giving corporations “rights to pollute” that curtail recourse even when sufficient assets are available),

(3) argued that libertarians should reconsider the grant of limited liability for torts (as opposed to limited liability as to those who contract with the corporation on a voluntary basis) not simply because it is clearly non-libertarian to begin with, but because it has had profound consequences – consequences at a serious enough level that state-loving libertarians concede simply by troubling themselves to argue against curtailing limited liability,

(4) noted that the most efficiacious way to roll back the regulatory state lie in the direction of shifting ultimate responsibility fpr managing risks to enterprise owners (and ending the counterproductive regulatory risk-management experiment), and

(5) noted that a curtailment of limited liability for torts could be hedged by shareholders via insurance, and could be achieved by state governments and the federal government offering more lenient regulation to busness enterprises that operate as partnerships, unlimited liability corporations, or in cases where shares are not fully paid up so that calls for signifcant additional capital could be made against shareholders if needed to pay claims.

IOW, the insistence by Kinsella . . . that one must “provide a theory of liability that coherently distinguishes shareholders from any other patron of the company” BEFORE one can examine the justifications FOR and the consequences of the state grant of limited liability is both sadly non-libertarian and dangerously blind and shallow.”

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

LVMI's curious blindness to corporate statism and the rot caused by limited liability, or, Jeffrey Tucker has fun with central planning

February 10th, 2011 No comments

Jeffrey Tucker‘s February 9 Mises Daily post, Obama on Auto-Defrosting Refrigerators, is perfectly fine and unobjectionable (quibbles aside about Jeffrey’s startling misunderstanding of Obama’s claims regarding the entirely voluntary EnergyStar program), spokesmen for government always oversell government’s accomplishments).

But being an ornery and objectionable cuss, I couldn’t resist commenting on what Jeffrey left out. (Where’s the beef?!, as I believe some old lady famously asked).(emphasis and minor tweeks added):

TokyoTom February 10, 2011 at 12:49 am

Government regulations have made a mess of our daily lives. Whether it is banning effective products or mandating inferior functionality in our appliances and fixtures, government’s role here is indisputably to degrade our quality of life.

Jeffrey, I’m sorry, but while you are certainly correct that government regulations have made a mess of our daily lives, your conclusion that “government’s role here is indisputably to degrade our quality of life” is extremely shallow, and the rest of your discussion suffers as a result.

While a great deal of stupidity accompanies government, why do you ignore the cupidity that DRIVES government? You know, the cupidity that drives the elites who always dominate the use of government, the self-interest that influences the decision-making of administrators, bureaucrats and employees, and the cupidity that drives the rent-farming by politicians? Are not the powerful corporations that use government to pick consumers’ pockets and to create barriers to entry worthy of mention?

And why no discussion of dynamics? We have a regulatory state not simply because we have elites, politicians and bureaucrats who wish to extend their control and purview, but because we have governments that create risk-shifting corporate machines whose owners have no downside liability for corporate misdeeds. By the simple act of granting corporate status, governments have set off cycles of social damage, growing demands for government action by citizens to “do something”, a growing “agency problem” as government interventions increase management independence from shareholders, growing opportunities for a socially irresponsible corporate elite, bureaucratic and political manipulation, and growing partisanship battle for control of the wheel (including fights over CSR and tort reform) and of the spoils of our increasingly top-heavy system.

Yes, we still have competition in the marketplace. But the reason we don’t have MORE freedom is not just “stupid government” by self-serving central planners who don’t understand the marketplace; the real reason is that that we have elites who used the grant of limited liability corporate status to avoid personal responsibility and to mask their depredations, and then further use their concentrated power to control government.

More thoughts here:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/16/fighting-over-the-wheel-of-government.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/07/06/the-cliff-notes-version-of-my-stilted-enviro-fascist-view-of-corporations-and-government.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited+liability

Merely pointing out the stupidity of our court intellectuals does nothing to strike at the roots of our problems, and certainly is not persuasive to leftists who think that more government is the only solution to corporate risk-shifting and rent-seeking.

Kind regards,

Tom

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

George Carlin was correctly cynical about ‘the American Dream’, but are our elites monolithic?

February 9th, 2011 No comments

I recently ran across (again) the below clip by our now deceased comedian cum truth-teller, George Carlin. While he offers some refreshingly bitterĀ criticism, Carlin is too simplistic and too black, andĀ offersĀ no particular avenuesĀ by which informedĀ American sheep canĀ seek to regain control over their lives.

There is no monolithic “them”. Our ‘Left’ and ‘Right’Ā politics both mask and manifest theĀ very real power struggles among our governingĀ elites — there is hope in this, but the realĀ problem is not that none of them cares about making the world a better place, but that all of our elites seem to be statistsĀ who think that the struggle over the wheel of government is the only way to a better future.

Few of them seem to understand the centralization of power, parasitism and rot that have resulted from fractional-reserve banking and the subsequent capture of it by the Federal government — and none appears to understand that the veryĀ grant of legal entity status to corporations whose owners have no personal liability for what these entities do drives an even more pervasive socialization of risks, destruction of community andĀ a snowballing growth of the regulatory state and the fight to control and profit from it.

Really improving our societies will require us really to understand and strike at, and not ignore, the roots of the problems that are strangling us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

BBC's naive 'Meet the Climate Sceptics' ignores that our governments today richly deserve the mistrust that makes collective action impossible

February 6th, 2011 No comments

In the not-unsympathetic hour-long presentation that BBC broadcast on January 31 (after surviving a legal challenge), climate ‘skeptic’ Christopher Monckton (the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) says something about climate science that I can agree with and that is important:

The central question is this: it’s not whether CO2 or other greenhouse gases can cause warming, because we’ve known for 200 years that they can.

It’s not whether we are causing the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, because we are.

The only question that really matters is, given the rate that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, is how much warming that will cause, if it continues.

In other words, Monckton is correct that the core climate science issue is about what is known as “climate sensitivity”; that is, how much warming is going to be triggered by the rapid ramping up in atmospheric CO2 as we use fossil fuels.

Climate science skeptics like MIT’s Richard Lindzen and company adviser Pat Michaels agree and suggest that climate sensivity will be low (though in this film Lindzen rather jaw-droppingly suggests that “I can live with 5 degrees; you can live with a degrees” Fahrenheit increase in avergage global temperatures!).

The producer, Rupert Murray, suggests that the skeptics wrongly overstate their case and underplay the risks. Murray leaves unstated his premise (and that of the climate scientists he includes) that, if one accepts more conventional views of climate science, then one must also agree that government-imposed restrictions on personal freedom are necessary in order to moderate the threats posed by our use of fossil fuels.

Interestingly and sadly, rather than examining whether there may be common ground in policies that reduce climate risks, Monckton and other prominent skeptics like Lindzen and Michaels (and British commentator James Delingpole), all also appear to make the same assumption that the only possible policy responses are those that reduce personal freedom. Thus, rather than a focus on the content and merits of policy alternatives, we have a rather frantic search to find reasons to dismiss climate risks, and to question the motives and sanity of those who are concerned about them – all, of course, while ignoring the question of what economic interests benefit from the status quo. This behavior is, of course, also mirrored by many of the “warmers”; both sides have their own “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalitions lined up.

Not surprising when so much is at stake, and all are fighting over the use of government. Thoughtful people among the skeptics will acknowledge that the climate is a shared commons that can only be managed via collective action; thoughtful people among the “warmers” likewise should recognize that government itself is a commons that continues to be mismanaged for the benefit of elites and the expense of most citizens (witness our financial crisis and the BP disaster).

As Nobel Prize-winner Elinor Ostrom coninues to point out, trust is a sine qua non for effective management of common resources. Unfortunately, however, that trust is precisely what we are missing the most – and for good reason, as our politicians, bureaucrats and leading corporations have proven themselves unworthy of it.

It should not go unnoticed, however, that a policy to destroy public trust and foster our love of partisan acrimony is one that would be very effective in protecting the interests of those who benefit from the status quo. Creaming the commons while socializing risks is an inherent aspect of corporate business models (starting with the state grant of limited liability to shareholders).

Here’s a link to the video; my apologies that I couldn’t figure out how to embed it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5j3v

[Update: It seems that he BBC has forced the removal of all non-BBC postings of the program, and only viewable via servers located in the UK. As skeptic Anthony Watts puts it: “the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere”. Here is James Delingpole’s take on the the program – prior to actually seeing it: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100074116/meet-the-sceptics-another-bbc-stitch-up/. And here is one take by a relatively perceptive viewer: http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/140337.html.]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

YouTube: Bank Bailouts Explained: the Sick Joke is on You (Thanks to Government-enabled Moral Hazard and Kleptocracy)

February 3rd, 2011 1 comment

I ran across this today and thought that you, my loyal readers, might like it too.

My favorite piece of dialogue:

A: Do these people have no shame?

B: When you constantly get the bailouts, you don’t care about the shame.

Just a small example of how government and statist corporations are destroying wealth and community.

More here on Moral Hazard and Limited Liability in banking and elsewhere; let’s not forget BPAvatar and CorpSpeak, too!

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yipV_pK6HXw&feature=player_embedded:550:0]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Resources on gold, fractional reserve banking, money manipulation/inflation, central planning and kleptocracy

February 1st, 2011 1 comment

 This is a modest start; more suggestions appreciated!

 

Jacques Rueff, “The Monetary Sin of the West”, 1972

The Origin of Money and Its Value, Mises Daily: Monday, September 29, 2003 by

Can Gold Cause the Boom-Bust Cycle? Mises Daily: Monday, June 28, 2010 by

The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, Mises Daily: Friday, October 30, 2009 by

The Meaning of Gold in the News, Mises Daily: Thursday, September 30, 2010 by

 

Greenspan’s Bogus Defense, Mises Daily: Monday, April 06, 2009 by

Brad DeLong’s Erroneous Defense of Greenspan, Mises Daily: Monday, August 03, 2009 by

The Fed as Giant Counterfeiter, Mises Daily: Monday, February 01, 2010 by

Is Our Money Based on Debt? Mises Daily: Monday, August 16, 2010 by

Fiat Money: How Else You Gonna Kill 600,000 Americans? Mises Daily: Friday, September 11, 2009 by

My Reply to Krugman on Austrian Business-Cycle Theory, Mises Daily: Monday, January 24, 2011 by

 

The Nuttiness of Negative Interest Rates, Mises Daily: Monday, April 27, 2009 by

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

On climate, another libertarian bravely fights to keep Mises' light under a bushel

January 25th, 2011 No comments

I just left the following closing comment on Jim Fedako‘s December 30 Mises Economics Blog post, “What?!? No one mentioned the cult or kooky parts“:

 

TokyoTom January 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm

You’re done here, Jim? Hardly, as you never even started — in the sense of honest engagement.

Once more, as you flee from engagement, you fail to address ANYTHING I’ve actually said, while continuing your penchant for attacking strawmen of your own making. I “continue to advocate for government interventions”, you say? Oh? Anywhere on this thread? I did offer you the following link to my thinking, but if you had troubled yourself to look, you’d see it’s a libertarian proposal for de-regulation: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/02/10/towards-a-productive-libertarian-approach-on-climate-energy-and-environmental-issues.aspx.

You might not like to hear it, but the apparent lack of sincerity in your engagement IS shameful — even if one of a piece of many other libertarian/Misesean thinkers here who forget their thinking caps in favor of falling into partisanship and cognitive traps:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=watermelon

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/02/the-road-not-taken-iv-my-other-hysterical-comments-on-climate-science-amp-how-austrians-hamstring-themselves.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/02/13/bill-gates-roger-pielke-avatar-amp-the-climate-of-distrust-or-can-we-move-from-a-tribal-questioning-of-motives-to-win-win-policies.aspx

My reference to ‘libertarians’ was to this pantheon, who quite obviously have not really troubled themselves at LvMI pages to engage on climate or natural issues, other than in the most pathetic and shallow way.

A good recipe for libertarian irrelevancy, as I keep pointing out. Am I wrong to hope for better?

Sincerely,

Tom

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: