Category: Economics

Demands of the Mentally Deranged

Recently an Occupy Wall Street protester posted a list of demands. As I stated in my article covering the local OccupyMN movement these types of protests are composed of a great number of individuals with varying grievances. It is unfair to state any set of demands is attributed to the entire movement but alas the recently posted set of demands are being promoted by a great number of the participants so I thought it would be fun to go through the demands one by one and point out the complete failure of logic.

Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org.

Stating that the Mises Institute and Fox News are in any way comparable demonstrates the complete ignorance of the person posting that note. One is a news organization that panders to its neo-conservative audience while the other is one of the few sources of real scholarly economic knowledge and libertarian philosophy.

Anyways we know what level of idiocy we’re dealing with here so let’s move onto the demands:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages.

Oh wow… at least the author presented his complete ignorance from the get go. First of all free trade isn’t the problem with our economy, government regulations are. The author stated other countries have wage and environmental regulatory advantages so the United States government needs to respond by enacting further regulations to offset the disadvantage created by their current regulations. I’m guessing if the author’s house was burning down he’d try dousing the blaze in gasoline in an attempt to improve the situation.

While current economic conditions are one of the most common complaints being presented at these occupations, many of the most vocal complainers obviously have no knowledge in the field of economics. Perhaps they should read some articles on that irresponsible Mises Institute website. Also, why not throw in another rather arbitrary demand:

Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

How did the author come up with $20.00 an hour? Also the author further demonstrates his economic ignorance by not realizing minimum wage laws is part of the reason unemployment in this country is as high as it is. Jacking up the minimum wage to $20.00 and hour would only create one of two outcomes; either it would cause a majority of businesses to fail causing even higher unemployment or it would cause the price of all goods to increase as an offset to the new influx of money into the economy (this is called inflation). Do you think McDonald’s will continue selling $0.99 burgers if they have to pay every employee $20.00 an hour? If they did they would fail, if they didn’t the cost of their burgers would increase drastically.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

This makes sense. Government regulations is what ultimately cause the massive increase in healthcare costs so the author’s solution is to… give the government more control over the healthcare industry? If the author actually knew anything about economics, healthcare, and liberty he would advocate the government remove itself completely from the healthcare industry and allow the free market to find viable solution it did back in the day when mutual aid societies were still allowed by the state to exist.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

If people are no longer required to work in order to survive what will motivate them to produce the goods and services needed by society? Would you work your ass off farming if you knew simply sitting on your ass would allow you to draw enough income to live? Most people would not and this is ultimately the problem with communism. If nobody has to work nobody will work and if nobody is working to produce the needs of society the needs of society will not exist. You can’t eat if nobody is producing food, you won’t have shelter if nobody builds it, and you won’t have clean drinking water if nobody takes care of sanitation.

Demand four: Free college education.

There is no such thing as a free college education, somebody has to pay for it. What the author probably means is, “Force all the people wealthier than me to pay for my college education.” Somebody has to pay the teachers, maintain the facilities, and provide the supplies needed to keep a college running.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

How? The only viable alternative source of energy that will meet the current and future needs of our society is nuclear. Nuclear energy is basically verboten so we continue to rely on the only viable alternative, fossile fuels.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Seriously, who the fuck is supposed to pay for all of this? Where is that $1 trillion going to come from? Why was $1 trillion chosen instead of another arbitrary number? Did the author do a study? If so, where is the study?

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

It’s amazing that the exact same amount of money needed for infrastructure is also needed for ecological restoration. That’s so convenient it must be an arbitrarily selected number that the author thought was sufficiently big to fix any problem.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Umm… it’s currently illegal for an employer to discriminate against somebody because of their race or gender. Perhaps the author means we should make all forms of racial and gender discrimination illegal. That would be great because I would absolutely love to receive some maternity leave even though I’m completely incapable of becoming pregnant. We could force white supremicists to converse with minorities at the point of a gun because they wouldn’t further forge their irrational hatred or anything.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Wait… the author wants to restrict free trade but also wants to make it legal for anybody to enter the country and work without hinderance? I love being for what I’m against as well.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

How exactly is that going to fix the problem of election fraud? The primary problems encountered in this country stem from either idiots too stupid to properly fill out the ballot as instructed or straight up fraud via people voting multiple times. Our problems run much deeper than a simple inability to counter ballots correctly.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Instantly all financiers go out of business and those wanting to get a loan for a home, piece of necessary equipment, or to expand their business are unable to. Since businesses are unable to expand they are unable to hire more employees and thus unemployment increases when those involved in the finance market suddenly find themselves without jobs. People who would have become successful entrepreneurs and flooded the market with new and amazing products sudden find themselves unable to start a business because no institution exists to loan them the money they need. Other currently established businesses will then start to fail because a very expensive piece of equipment critical to their operations breaks down and they are unable to get a loan for a replacement.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Why? No, I’m dead serious, what the fuck is this supposed to accomplish?

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Is there going to be an equal right to vote yourself exempt from a union? If you want to voluntarily come together and form a union that’s cool, I full support you in your endeavor. Personally I prefer to represent myself or hire another individual with my own money who exclusively represents me and my interests.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

No, those demands will create a new economic dark age of record high unemployment rates, starvation, and pestilence.

I’m glad to see a lot of opposition to these demands in the comments section. Since I understand the nature of these occupations I realize these demands are not representative of anybody besides the author and the people who decide to sign onto them. With that said the media doesn’t have the same understanding and they are going to take these demands as though they apply to the entire movement. That is to say the media will state these demands are wanted by everybody currently occupying Wall Street and it will discredit the movement as a whole.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad people are finally pissed off enough to stand up and take action. It’s refreshing to see American people doing something besides sitting on their asses complaining about the current condition of the economy, corruption in the government, and disagreements with current socially accepted norms. With that said, the protesters need to realize that the media is going to take anything said by a crazy participant and run with it. When that happens others in the movement needs to loudly declare that no single individual represents the entire movement and statements made by individuals can only be applied to those individuals.

Real Contributions to Society

I believe Kevin Williamson summarized a fact of life that I often talk about but can never eloquently express:

CNN, being CNN, misses the point. Mr. Jobs’s contribution to the world is Apple and its products, along with Pixar and his other enterprises, his 338 patented inventions — his work — not some Steve Jobs Memorial Foundation for Giving Stuff to Poor People in Exotic Lands and Making Me Feel Good About Myself. Because he already did that: He gave them better computers, better telephones, better music players, etc. In a lot of cases, he gave them better jobs, too. Did he do it because he was a nice guy, or because he was greedy, or because he was a maniacally single-minded competitor who got up every morning possessed by an unspeakable rage to strangle his rivals? The beauty of capitalism — the beauty of the iPhone world as opposed to the world of politics — is that that question does not matter one little bit.

Bear with me because this post isn’t another about Steve Jobs, but one about those who fail to realize what social good really is. According to many a wealthy person who fails to publicly donate great deals of money to various charitable organizations is an evil man who has gained greatly from society without giving anything back. Truth be told, for many, their wealth was obtained through the social good they provided.

Steve Jobs is only on example of this. Henry Ford is another example, the man innovated the assembly line to manufacture automobiles and paid his employees well so they could afford to purchase those very automobiles and kickstart the market. Affordable automobiles dramatically changed society for the better just as affordable computers did.

Instead of writing a long complaint about Steve Jobs’s less than stellar philanthropic tendencies from a personal computer, you should be writing a long post thanking him for bettering society by having the vision to see computers as more than giant expensive monstrosities that only the wealthiest of businesses could afford. This is the beauty of capitalism, resources are allocated in a voluntary manner to those who best serve the desires of society. If you don’t like Apple computers that’s perfectly OK because you can purchase a computer from one of their competitors. You get a direct vote in saying which good best serves your needs without forcing it upon others.

When you purchase a Ford automobile you’re effectively saying that Ford has found a means of serving your needs better than Toyota. If you purchased a Prius you’re giving your vote to Toyota. Regardless of what automobile you buy it doesn’t effect me and I am still allowed to decide for myself which vehicle will best serve my needs.

Capitalism is a beautiful thing and we should strive to expand it throughout our society instead of expanding government controlled markets.

He Should Raise His Own Damned Taxes

During one of his town hall meetings Obama was able to get a shill to appear on stage and beg the president to increase taxes:

“Thank you, Mr. President,” the man began. “I don’t have a job, but that’s because I’ve been lucky enough to live in Silicon Valley for a while and work for a small startup down the street here, that did quite well. So, I’m unemployed by choice. My question is: Would you please raise my taxes?”

Let’s look at this from two different angles. First of all what tax is Obama demanding to be raised? Yes there are so many different taxes out there that it’s hard to keep track of them all but currently Obama is demanding that Congress increase the income tax. What does an unemployed person pay in income tax? Nothing, because they’re not employed and thus have no income. Obama’s shill, Doug Edwards, very well may be paying other taxes such as capital gains but that rate would be unaffected by an increase in income taxes. Somebody may ask if a person has to pay income and capital gains taxes on capital gains as it is a type of income. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) you do not. Right off the bat Mr. Edwards’s plee is disingenuous.

The next angle that should be addressed is the fact that you don’t need the government to increase tax rates in order to pay more taxes. If you want to pay more taxes then you can cut the government a check and mail it to the following address:

Bureau of the Public Debt
Department G
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

If Mr. Edwards is genuine in his desire to be more heavily taxed he can go right ahead and tax himself more. Mr. Edwards is pleading the president to increase theft in this country while, most likely, knowing he’ll not be affected by it. Those who are against taxation are already shaking their heads at Mr. Edwards but those who support an increase in income tax should also be shaking their heads. It doesn’t look good for a cause when disingenuous shills are brought up to speak in favor of the movement because what they say will likely be ripped apart by your opposition.

Sometimes Stupid Hurts

It’s no secret that I’m a strong opponent of socialism. Socialism is a social and economic system that can only be achieved through the use of coercion. Yet I read a lot of socialist writings as I’m not one to relegate myself solely to material that support my viewpoint. Usually such material is at least well written and can be said to make an argument. Yet there is material I run across that’s so absurdly dumb that I can’t help but tear it apart. This post is about on of those absurdly dumb writings that I saw and knew right away would be excellent blog fodder.

This essay attempts to argue that jobs are obsolete. Even the most devout socialists I know acknowledge that work needs to get done and thus jobs are necessary; they just believe people will eventually perform jobs because they are socially necessary, not because they are profitable. The essay opens with the following:

I hate jobs. Not just my job – its actually pretty sweet.

This is the authors way of saying, “Hey if my boss is reading this please don’t fire me! My job and you are the only exceptions in the entire universe for my hatred of jobs and bosses!” If your essay states, “Why am I upset at jobs? Because we don’t need them anymore.” then you damn well better not ruin your argument by claiming your jobs is somehow the exception.

This author does something very special, something even anti-gunners seldom accomplish so well, he invalidates his entire argument within the opening statements or the essay:

But now less than 1% of the US population grows food for the other 99% PLUS many other countries. I”d say the days of horse and plow are over.

Although the author claims that jobs are unnecessary he also states that somebody produces food. Food production is indeed a job, and a very necessary one at that. The very fact that there are farmers producing enough food for all is what allows the rest of society to work on other tasks. Famers producing food for the nation is a perfect example of distribution of labor.

I wouldn’t ridicule this part so much if the author gave some kind of alternative to jobs. Had the essay at least mentioned that farming could be completely replaced with automation (which it currently can’t) I would just roll my eyes and move along. Instead the author says jobs are unnecessary while acknowledging that somebody has to produce food. The author’s argument gets more absurd from there:

All recently created jobs are fulfilling artificial needs. The fastest growing industry in the past decade was the financial industry. Completely false and outside our realm of human needs. All jobs created since the 80s are like smoke. They’re here for a little while, hanging in the air, but soon they dissipate. They’re not sustainable because they’re based on artificial, socially created “needs” like an HDTV, 401K, computers or fashionable clothing.

All recently created jobs are fulfilling artificial needs… except farmers, employees of water treatment facilities, construction workers who build our shelters, employees in the medical field, people who invent mechanisms for preserving food so that we have something to eat when crops are not ready to harvest, etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous to claim that all jobs created since the 1980s are simply fulfilling artificial social needs.

What the author doesn’t see is the fact that our society has done such a good job of providing for the needs of the majority of people that we have been able to redirect an immense amount of resources towards wants. Although HDTVs, computers, and fashionable clothing are not needs they are wants and those wants are being fulfilled because other people are working jobs that provider for our needs. So, who wants to see the author invalidate his own argument in one line? I do:

And the world only needs so many doctors, police and firefighters. So what are the rest of us to do in our useless, pointless jobs that merely exist to make some rich guy more money? How do we free ourselves?

Jobs are unnecessary because we only need so many doctors, police officers, and firefighters. Wait a minute, those are all jobs. How can jobs be unnecessary and necessary at the same time? That’s like saying a fish isn’t a fish but is a fish. What can I expect from an author who doesn’t understand basic biology though:

Well we could start by realizing that jobs turn our bodies into a debt that we must work to repay. Our hunger, our biological need for a warm place to sleep is used against us.. Our own bodies, our very own biological processes, are used as leverage to FORCE us to work.

Damn ourselves for being biologically dependent on outside sources of energy and a relatively stable environment! The fact that these biological needs are being used to force us into needing food and shelter is a travesty! No other lifeforms on the planet have this problem… oh, wait.

Nobody is forcing you to work (at least in the United States, some countries such as the former Soviet Union actually had laws against showing up late for work or being absent entirely). If you wish to go homestead a piece of land and survive by subsistence farming then you may be able to find a plot of land to do so (if the state allows you to of course). The only person forcing you to work is you, if you committed suicide you’d no longer have to provide for your biological needs and thus would be free from having to work. Still I think the most idiotic statement in the entire essay is the following line:

Now what has happened since the abolition of slavery? We’ve inserted a middle man (money) between us and our access to basic life necessities like food and shelter.

Apparently the author has never cracked open a history book because if he had he’d know that money was in use well before slavery was abolished. Also the following is absolutely false:

By eradicating slavery we’ve actually made ourselves EASIER to control through work and jobs because if one controls the money one controls the labor power of the entire society.

I think it’s quite a bit easier to control somebody using force than by offering them money in exchange for their labor. If I put a gun to your head and told you to either till my garden or die I’d have far fewer complications than if I offered you $10.00 an hour and had to worry about your quitting and perusing a better offer elsewhere. Controlling people through their voluntary action isn’t control at all.

We also have the illusion of choice at our jobs. We think we’re free because we get to pick our favorite flavor of slavery. But that doesnt change the fact that we all NEED jobs to live, to access basic life necessities.

Unless you subsistence farm, then you don’t need a job to live (well I guess subsistence farming is a job technically). The bottom line is somebody has to produce your biological needs or you will die. You can either choose to provide for your own biological needs or exchange your labor with another who will produce your needs while you do something else.

One last point and then I”m out. Prisoners. These people BREAK the law, are a danger to society, yet they get free food and shelter day in day out and dont work a single day.

They aren’t getting free anything, we as taxpayers are footing the bill. I’m not a fan of the “justice” system here in the United States were we incarcerate anybody and everybody who’s done something naughty (as defined by the state). While it’s completely incorrect to say prisoners get all of those amenities for free I will agree that it’s wrong that they get those amenities at no charge to them. Anyways let’s close this up:

If AFL-CIO is gonna fight a fight why not fight to reduce people’s dependence on jobs instead of INCREASING people’s dependence on jobs.

How? Seriously this entire article talks about jobs being unnecessary (except when they’re necessary) but offers absolutely no alternatives. If you’re going to make an argument it’s generally considered poor form to invalidate that argument right away. It’s considered even worse form if you offer no alternatives to what you’re claiming is wrong.

Finally to answer any questions about why I spent so much time writing a rebuttal to an obscure and poorly thought out argument I will say this, it amused me. That’s what this site is about, amusing me. I am glad others find my act of self amusement interesting enough to read everyday though.

Herp Derp

There are stupid people, really stupid people, and then there is this fucking moron:

When I say fucking moron I mean the “economist” the reporter is quoting in case that wasn’t obvious. If you don’t know what gold is backed by I’m here to inform, gold is backed by itself. Although people often get caught up in the concept of the “gold standard” what supporters actually mean is a commodity based money. Gold has traditionally been the commodity chosen to act as money due to many qualities including is scarcity, easy divisibility, durability, and actual use in the manufacture of other goods. Gold could easily be replaced by any other commodity so long as it’s generally accepted as the common good of trade.

United States dollars on the other hand are basically backed by a bunch of well armed thugs who claim it’s worth to be the supposed full faith and credit of their organization. Of course that very organization is tens of trillions of dollars in debt so I’m not sure what faith or credit they have remaining.

When somebody talks about a commodity backed money they mean each monetary unit is actually a receipt for a physical good stored elsewhere (unless the actual physical good is being used). For example if the dollar were a gold back currency each dollar would be set as being worth a certain weight in gold. When you went to the bank you could convert your paper receipts into their physical value of the backing commodity.

The United States dollar is a fiat currency meaning there is no physical commodity backing it. It’s basically only worth what others are willing to recognized it for. If foreign countries are no longer willing to recognized the value of the paper dollar then the dollar literally has no actual value.

Happy Birthday Ludwig von Mises

Were Ludwig von Mises alive today he’d be 130 years-old. In celebration of the great Austrian economist’s birthday the Mises Institute posted a great write-up about the man who brought common sense economics back into the limelight by the man who brought common sense to the political arena, Murray Rothbard.

An article celebrating the life of Mises written by Rothbard. I don’t think it’s possible to fit more awesome into one webpage.

Dollar Apocalypse

It seems more of my friends have started jumping on the blog bandwagon. One of my friends in the finance field has started a new blog that focuses on the current economic fuck up that we’re currently experiencing. He’s a pretty smart guy so I highly recommend heading over to his site and reading through the material posted so far.

For those of you wondering if I shill for my friends let me asure you I do. Well I shill for my friends who I believe post material worth reading, I actually have quite a few friends who have started blogs but lack any content that’s worthwhile so I haven’t brought them up. Still if you know me and have a blog let me know and I may send you two of my four readers.

Live Blog of Capitalism Awareness Week Presentation

Welcome to a first here at A Geek With Guns, a Live Blog. I’m Live Blogging this event. Sorry for the lack of notification but I didn’t expect to do this right away.

20:34: It’s questions and answer time. This ends my live blog because I honestly don’t care about this part of the debate. Thank you for joining me on such short notice, if I choose to do this again I’ll try to give better notice. I’ll also try to pick an event that’s actually meaningful, this one was pretty lame.

20:32: Randian is explaining that equality in the United States means equality in the eyes of the law. He says there is no such thing as equality for opportunity or outcome which is true.

20:31: Statist Prick makes the false claim that yelling fire in a crowded building is a restriction on free speech. Yelling fire in a building isn’t actually illegal and was an example given by a Supreme Court justice as to a potential reason to restrict a right.

20:30: The moderator is asking Statist Prick to define the line between just government action and overstepping of government bounds. He claims it’s based on judgement and it’s one of those “we’ll know it when we see it” things. I disagree and I think anytime the federal government perform actions not granted in the Constitution they have overstepped their bounds (legally thinking).

20:27: Now Statist Prick is claiming our Constitution grants expansive powers to our government. This is debatable depending on who you talk to but I would disagree as the founders often talked about the Constitution as a constraint on the government.

20:26: Statist Prick is saying that the Constitution grants the United States government the ability to collect taxes. That is correct. However he kept talk and ended up sounding stupid. He’s claiming that while you own yourself you have a duty to the “tribe.” If you are obligated to perform duties for another you can no longer be said to be a self-owner in the truest sense.

20:24: Randian is attempting to define what individual rights are. According to him the American revolutionary idea is the belief that you own you. I think he’s trying to make an argument for self-ownership but he hasn’t.

20:21: He says he’d rewrite the Constitution and is a bigger fan of the Declaration of Independence. After saying this he also states that the Constitution is as good as it gets. Thor damn it this guy isn’t very consistent with his message or beliefs.

20:20: The moderator points out the fact that the Constitution allows for many of the things that Randian claims government shouldn’t be allowed to do. As his position is inconstant I can’t wait to hear his answer.

20:17: Now Randian brings up the fact that minimum wage laws actually cause unemployment. Ballsy statement again, good on him.

20:16: Randian is contesting Statist Prick’s claim that government isn’t force. He brings up the fact that government enforces its rules by the point of a gun. That’s a ballsy statement to make at the University of Minnesota, I commend him.

20:14: The Randian is not a fan of democracy. His explanation makes sense I will say, our country has a rule of majority when it comes to violating property rights. If the majority wants to bulldoze your home and build a tennis court it can be done.

20:12: I like that he brings up that we’re wealthier now than we were when there was less government. First of all inflation has made money worth far less which skews the statistics. Second of all our improvements in the means of production have allowed us to produce more and thus gain higher profits.

20:10: Apparently the United States has the highest poverty of all industrialized democracies… what’s quite the category he made up to fit his desired fact into.

20:09: Statist prick is back and is trying to claim that the government isn’t based on force. Somehow when a majority of people demand you do something (democracy) it’s somehow not violent when they use guns to make you comply.

20:07: Oh he’s making that whole if-the-government-doesn’t-do-it-nobody-will mistake in regards to the government again. Apparently Bernie Madoff couldn’t have been arrested by private security firms and tried in a private court. I wish people would stopping making this mistake.

20:06: Randian wants to see an actual number when people talk about “reasonable profits.” I agree.

20:04: He’s brining up how the free market regulates food safety. It’s common sense to realize that food providers aren’t going to poison their customers. Killing your customers has never good very good for getting repeat customers.

20:02: Randian has been describing the problems with central planning and the bailing out of failing businesses. Although I completely agree with that fact he’s not doing much in the way of describing how that is true.

20:00: Well it seems Randian is against the Federal Reserve which is a good sign.

19:58: Randian is actually making some sense now. I agree that the government’s subsidizing of home loans was a major fuck up that built up a bubble that popped and we’re now living with the consequences.

19:57: So the Randian is complaining about government regulations telling us what to do. He’s also a believer that there needs to be some financial regulations. I’m sorry but if you give the government an inch they’ll take a lightyear.

19:56: I think Randian is saying moral but it sounds like maul.

19:54: Now the Randian is claiming that the government should maintain a monopoly on the use of force. I don’t think he stops to consider self-defense in his statements.

19:53: Randian is trying to justify when force is necessary. He says force must be banned from human interaction. For some reason he doesn’t include self-defense as a form of human interaction which confuses me. It’s not a fun form of human interaction but it is a form of it.

19:52: Randian just said that we absolutely need government. He’s already lost me. This is supposed to be the guy I’m rooting for… guess what I’m likely going to be ripping them both apart now. Stand by for the fun.

19:51: The other guy we’re going to call the Randian is not introducing himself. I’m not the biggest Ayn Rand fan but I do believe she made some note worthy contributions to the philosophy of liberty.

19:49: At least the statist prick admits Marxism was one of the worst ideas the human race every came up with.

19:48: Now he’s fear mongering by talking about the terrible conditions that lead to regulations. Truth be told most of those horrible conditions were due to technological limitations.

19:47: Statist prick is trying to claim that the United States has never been anything besides a mixed economy. Although somewhat true the old West would be a very notable exception to this.

19:45: I missed the name of the statist prick so he’s just going to be known as the statist prick until I learn his name. According to him the government has done everything besides cure cancer. He actually believe Federal Reserve notes are somehow real money as they’re backed by the full faith and credit of the United States… which isn’t much. He’s making the common statist mistake of thinking that if the state doesn’t provide a product or service it won’t get provided.

Capitalism Awareness Week

I forgot to post this earlier but today is the beginning of Capitalism Awareness Week. Capitalism Awareness Week is an attempt to educate students on the benefits of capitalism and how it is really the only mechanism that can pull us out of our economic depression.

During the week several free lectures are going to be given on the subject at hand. The best part is that all of these events will be streamed across the Internet for all to see. You can watch the events here. As I type this the first lecture, taking place at the University of Minnesota, is starting so hop on over.

Thanks Bernanke

Against all logic Ben Bernanke has come out and stated that the Federal Reserve will be performing yet another stimulus plan and needless to say the stock markets aren’t taking the news too well:

US and Asian shares have fallen after the Federal Reserve launched a scheme – dubbed Operation Twist – to help stimulate the flagging US economy.

The Fed will sell about $400bn (£260bn) worth of bonds maturing within three years and buy longer-term debt.

They should have called it Operation Rolling Thunder since the Federal Reserve’s plan appears to be an attempt to bomb the world markets into submission through the use of bad monetary policy. What the Federal Reserve seems to believe is that they can fix the problem they created by using the same strategies that landed us in this depression in the first place. I’m guessing Bernanke doesn’t have a stove in his home since he seems like the kind of person who would touch a hot burner and never realized that touching it again will lead to more pain.

If you guys want to fix the economy then get the fuck out of the way and let the free market correct for your constant interferences.