MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Why Government Should not Fight Deflation | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2019

Thus attempts to reverse price deflation by means of a loose monetary policy (i.e., by creating inflation) is bad news for the process of wealth generation, and hence for the economy. On the other hand, in order to maintain their lives and well-being, individuals must buy goods and services in the present. So from this perspective a fall in prices cannot be bad for the economy.

https://mises.org/wire/why-government-should-not-fight-deflation

For most experts, deflation is considered bad news since it generates expectations of a decline in prices. As a result, they believe, consumers are likely to postpone their buying of goods at present since they expect to buy these goods at lower prices in the future.

This weakens the overall flow of spending and in turn weakens the economy. Hence, such commentators hold that policies that counter deflation will also counter the slump.

Will Reversing Deflation Prevent a Slump?

If deflation leads to an economic slump, then policies that reverse deflation should be good for the economy. Or so it is held.

Reversing deflation will simply involve introducing policies that support general increases in the prices of goods, i.e., price inflation. With this way of thinking inflation could actually be an agent of economic growth.

According to most experts, a little bit of inflation can actually be a good thing. Mainstream economists believe that inflation of 2 percent is not harmful to economic growth, but that inflation of 10 percent could be bad for the economy.

There’s good reason to believe, however, that at a rate of inflation of 10 percent, it is likely that consumers are going to form rising inflation expectations.

According to popular thinking, in response to a high rate of inflation, consumers will speed up their expenditures on goods at present, which should boost economic growth. So why then is a rate of inflation of 10 percent or higher regarded by experts as a bad thing? Clearly there is a problem with the popular way of thinking.

Price Inflation vs. Money-Supply Inflation

Inflation is not about general increases in prices as such, but about the increase in money supply. As a rule the increase in money supply sets in motion general increases in prices. This, however, need not always be the case.

The price of a good is the amount of money asked per unit of it. For a constant amount of money and an expanding quantity of goods, prices will actually fall. Prices will also fall when the rate of increase in the supply of goods exceeds the rate of increase in the money supply. For instance, if the money supply increases by 5 percent and the quantity of goods increases by 10 percent, prices will fall by 5 percent.

A fall in prices however cannot conceal the fact that we have inflation of 5 percent here on account of the increase in the money supply.

The reason why inflation is bad news is not because of increases in prices as such, but because of the damage inflation inflicts to the wealth-formation process. Here is why.

The chief role of money is the medium of exchange. Money enables us to exchange something we have for something we want. Before an exchange can take place, an individual must have something useful that he can exchange for money. Once he secures the money, he can then exchange it for the goods he wants.

But now consider a situation in which the money is created “out of thin air,” increasing the money supply. This new money is no different from counterfeit money. The counterfeiter exchanges the printed money for goods without producing anything useful. He in fact exchanges nothing for something. He takes from the pool of real goods without making any contribution to the pool.

Note that as a result of the increase in the money supply what we have here is more money per unit of goods, and thus, higher prices.

What matters however is not that prices rise, but the increase in the money supply that sets in motion the exchange of nothing for something, or “the counterfeit effect.” The exchange of nothing for something, as we have seen, weakens the process of real wealth formation. Therefore, anything that promotes increases in the money supply can only make things much worse.

Why Falling Prices Are Good

Changes in prices are just a symptom, as it were — and not the primary causative factor — of a falling growth momentum.  Thus attempts to reverse price deflation by means of a loose monetary policy (i.e., by creating inflation) is bad news for the process of wealth generation, and hence for the economy. On the other hand, in order to maintain their lives and well-being, individuals must buy goods and services in the present. So from this perspective a fall in prices cannot be bad for the economy.

Furthermore, if a fall in the growth momentum of prices emerges on the back of the collapse of bubble activities in response to a softer monetary growth, then this should be seen as good news. The fewer non-productive bubble activities we have, the better it is for the wealth generators, and hence for the overall pool of real wealth.

Likewise, if a fall in the growth momentum of the CPI emerges on account of the expansion in real wealth for a given stock of money, this is obviously great news since many more people could now benefit from the expanding pool of real wealth.

We can thus conclude that contrary to the popular view, a fall in the growth momentum of prices is always good news for the wealth generating process and hence for the economy.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Camus: The Welfare of the People Is the Alibi of Tyrants – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

https://fee.org/articles/camuss-forgotten-lesson-on-liberty/?utm_source=zapier

In America, people who were once admired or held up as inspirational are now torn down (literally, in the case of statues) as too flawed in one way or another to deserve our respect or emulation. But demanding “purity” in the eye of the beholder before being willing to even consider any wisdom someone might offer can be a terrible waste.

Rejecting an insight because of words or acts unrelated to it or that do not disprove it is an error—treating an ad hominem attack as sufficient criteria for judging the quality of logic—with serious consequences. Restricting oneself to the insights of those you view as ideologically “pure” enough can offer important endorsement to the power of a valid insight.

For instance, that approach can put much of the wisdom of America’s founders “off-limits,” even though their shortcomings do not reject their insights into the importance of liberty and the corollary need to curb government.

Restricting oneself to the insights of those you view as ideologically “pure” enough can offer important endorsement to the power of a valid insight. Those who have earned reputations for correctly recognizing and acting on principles provide a degree of insurance against potential mistakes. Yet a true statement is true even when the source is “impure,” while falsehoods do not become true when stated by good men.

Camus’s Inspiring Defense of Liberty

To illustrate, someone can have a valid objection to something as wrong without having an adequate conception of what is right or of what would best correct the wrong in view. If so, your disagreement with their broader understanding or “solution” does not justify ignoring the truths they recognized. This is frequent in considerations of justice—people can often recognize when an injustice is imposed on them, but their preferred “solutions” often impose injustices on others…

From the perspective of liberty, a good example would be Albert Camus, the 1957 Nobel Laureate in Literature…

But his defense of liberty against tyranny in World War II and its aftermath was inspirational. For instance:

  • “The real passion of the twentieth century is servitude.”
  • “Political utopias justified in advance any enterprises whatever.”
  • “The welfare of the people…has always been the alibi of tyrants…giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”
  • “The tyrannies of today…no longer admit of silence or neutrality…I am against.”
  • “The only conception of freedom I can have is that of the prisoner or the individual in the midst of the state. The only one I know is freedom of thought and action.”
  • “Absolute domination by the law does not represent liberty, but without law there is no freedom.”
  • “Freedom is not a gift received from the State.”
  • “Freedom is not a reward or a decoration…It’s a long distance race, quite solitary and very exhausting.”
  • “Freedom is nothing else but a chance to get better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse.”
  • “Liberty ultimately seems to me, for societies and for individuals…the supreme good that governs all others.”
  • “Is it possible…to reject injustice without ceasing to acclaim the nature of man and the beauty of the world? Our answer is yes.”
  • “We have to live and let live in order to create what we are.”
  • “The aim of art, the aim of a life can only be to increase the sum of freedom and responsibility to be found in every man and in the world. It cannot, under any circumstances, be to reduce or suppress that freedom.”
  • “Without giving up anything on the plane of justice, yield nothing on the plane of freedom.”
  • “More and more, when faced with the world of men, the only reaction is one of individualism. Man alone is an end unto himself.”

There are things about Albert Camus I take issue with. But it would be a shame to lose his wisdom and inspiration because of differences unrelated to their validity.

With time and energy both scarce, paying attention to those we have learned to consistently expect insight from makes a great deal of sense. It increases the chances that the time will be well spent. It expands our insights. But we cannot stop there. We can also learn from and be inspired by those who are fellow travelers only in part.

Be seeing you

Camus

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

4 Reasons Why Socialism Is Becoming More Popular | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

We have already seen above that what’s not happening at universities, even elite universities, today is a whole lot of education in important subjects like history. What we are getting instead is a lot of groupthink and indoctrination…

https://mises.org/wire/4-reasons-why-socialism-becoming-more-popular?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=7a3cec0103-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-7a3cec0103-228343965

The newfound openness of large numbers of Americans to socialism is, by now, a well-documented phenomenon. According to a Gallup poll from earlier this year, 43% of Americans now believe that some form of socialism would be a good thing, in contrast to 51% who are still against it. A Harris poll found that four in ten Americans prefer socialism to capitalism. The trend is particular apparent in the young: another Gallup poll showed that as recently as 2010, 68% of people between 18 and 29 approved of capitalism, with only 51% approving of socialism, whereas in 2018, while the percentage among this age group favoring socialism was unchanged at 51%, those in favor of capitalism had dropped precipitously to 45%. The same poll showed that among Democrats, the popularity of socialism now stands at 57%, while capitalism is only at 47%, a marked departure from 2010 when the two were tried at 53%. A YouGov poll from earlier this year showed that unlike older generations, which still preferred capitalist candidates, 70% of millennials and 64% of gen-Zers would vote for a socialist.

The question is why socialism now? At a time when the American economy under Trump seems to be chugging along at a nice clip, why are so many hankering for an alternative? I would suggest four factors contributing to the situation.

Factor #1: Ignorance of History

The first cause of socialism’s popularity, especially among the young, is an obvious one: having grown up at a time after the end of the Cold War, the collapse of Europe’s Eastern Bloc and China’s transition to authoritarian capitalism, “these kids today” — those 18 to 29 year-olds who were born around the last decade of the 20th century — don’t know what socialism is all about. When they think socialism, they don’t think Stalin; they think Scandinavia.

Americans’ — and especially young Americans’ — ignorance of history is well-documented and profound…

Factor #2: Government Bungling

When we try to explain the socialist urge, we cannot lose sight of the fact that our government keeps interfering in the economy in ways that give people every reason to think the system is corrupt and needs to be trashed.

Take the skyrocketing cost of college, for instance. On the surface, this looks like greedy capitalist universities just keep on raising tuition, and since most college kids and their parents can’t pay the sticker price, almost 70% take out loans , saddling young people trying to start their careers with a mountain of debt (almost $30,000 on average). This results in all those socialist promises of free college or loan forgiveness sounding dandy. Underneath the surface, however, a huge part of the problem is federal grants and subsidized loans. If the government stopped footing a large part of their bill, more students and parents would be forced to pony up, which would mean, in turn, that colleges would not be able to keep hiking their prices without seeing a precipitous drop in enrollment. They would, instead, be forced to price themselves at some level that applicants could realistically pay, making college more affordable for a large segment of the American middle class…

Factor #3: Universities’ Ideological Monoculture

The supporters of socialism are not simply the young, but rather, disproportionately those among the young who are college-educated. And the more college they have, the hotter for socialism they get. According to a 2015 poll , support for socialism grows from 48% among those with a high school diploma or less to 62% among college graduates to 78% among those with post-graduate degrees. Those on the left probably stop thinking hard about now and jump immediately to the conclusion that support for socialism is just a natural outgrowth of big brains and elite educations. But there is, in fact, a less obvious but ultimately far more compelling explanation that also manages to account for the general fact that more education correlates with more leftism: something — something bad — is happening at universities themselves to pull students toward the (far) left.

We have already seen above that what’s not happening at universities, even elite universities, today is a whole lot of education in important subjects like history. What we are getting instead is a lot of groupthink and indoctrination…

Factor #4: Coddled Kids

The young have always been more inclined to embrace pipe dreams — a lack of familiarity with the complicated way in which the world actually works, coupled with the college fix described above, will do that to most anyone — but there is a reason the mindset of today’s young’uns is particularly susceptible to the red menace. In last year’s The Coddling of the American Mind, the prominent social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff describe the species of overprotective parenting and instilling of baseless and uncritical self-esteem by parents and educators alike that came to prevail as kids were growing up in the 90s and 00s. When we are raised in the belief we are wonderful just as we are, we never learn the critical life skills of self-soothing, working through anxiety, facing obstacles and overcoming adversity. The predictable result, as Haidt and Lukianoff observe, is a demand to be safeguarded — safe spaces, free speech crackdowns and so on. The state appears to many as the appropriate institution to provide this sort of “safety.”

If these four are the primary causes of socialism’s rapid surge in our midst, then the next logical question is what to do about it. There is no easy answer, of course, but I would suggest that the radicalization of academia is the lynchpin issue. If we could succeed in reversing that tsunami, many dominoes would fall…

Be seeing you

Snowflakes Demand University President's Resignation After ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Reports: Eric Holder Considers Jumping into 2020 Presidential Primary

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

The guy that gave weapons traceable back to US dealers to Mexican drug cartels in order to boost gun confiscation.

And people will vote for him.

https://www.breitbart.com/

Matthew Boyle

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is again considering running for the Democrat nomination for president in 2020 after previously ruling out a run, a move that comes as former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has filed presidential primary paperwork in Alabama signaling he may be a late entrant to the race.

All of this comes as speculation builds that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the failed 2016 Democrat presidential nominee, may run again in 2020 as well.

Holder did very publicly flirt with running in 2020 before, even making the rounds to travel to some early presidential states for key speeches, but he ultimately announced earlier this year he would not run. In March 2019, he came out and said he would not be running in 2020 and that he planned to instead focus his efforts on redistricting efforts.

But now, given how weak the rest of the Democrat presidential field is in 2020, and with other top talent showing that the water is definitely still warm, Holder appears to be reconsidering and thinking about getting into the race after all.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson reported late Thursday evening that Holder has been discussing a late entrance into the crowded Democrat field with a handful of close advisers and political consultants:

The news that Holder is reconsidering his decision to bow out on 2020 comes as Bloomberg has filed paperwork in Alabama,…

Holder’s coverup of documents on behalf of Obama, who asserted executive privilege to withhold the information from Congress, led to him being the first-ever and only sitting Attorney General of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress. The U.S. House in 2012 voted Holder into both civil and criminal contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious scandal, just one of many scandals that plagued Holder’s Department of Justice.

Be seeing you

fast_and_furious.jpg

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Will Julian Assange Die in Prison? | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

“Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed,” writes Murray. “If the state can do this, then who is next?”

Assange dying in prison seems to be the goal.

He knows too much. He is being Epsteined.

Extraordinary rendition 2019.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-julian-assange-die-in-prison/

By Barbara Boland

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is suffering significant “psychological torture” and abuse in the London prison where he is being held, and his life is now “at risk,” according to an independent UN rights expert. A senior member of his legal team believes Assange may not live until the end of the extradition process.

Assange mumbled, stuttered, and struggled to say his own name and date of birth when he appeared in court on October 21. The Wikileaks founder is being subjected to long drawn-out “psychological torture” as he battles to prevent his extradition to the United States where he faces a slew of espionage charges, warns Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

“Unless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr. Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life,” Melzer said in a statement on Friday.

“His physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration,” writes former British ambassador Craig Murray, who was present at the October hearing. “When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both… his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought… Until yesterday I had always been quietly skeptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture… and skeptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that … Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.”

“One of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable,” writes Murray…

“To see him in court struggling to say his name, and his date of birth, was really very moving,” said Pilger. “When Julian did try to speak, and to say that basically he was being denied the very tools with which to prepare his case, he was denied the right to call his American lawyer. He was denied the right to have any kind of word processor or laptop. He was denied… his own notes and manuscripts.”

Assange’s “access to legal counsel and documents has been severely obstructed” undermining “his most fundamental right to prepare his defense,” charged Melzer.

The judge refused to grant Assange’s request to delay the February trial.

The lack of legal process in the hearing was “profoundly upsetting,” to watch unfold, writes Murray, because it is “a naked demonstration of the power of the state.”

“Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed,” writes Murray. “If the state can do this, then who is next?”

Be seeing you

Close Guantánamo | American Civil Liberties Union

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Belittling of language: You can’t say ‘blind spot ‘– it’s not inclusive enough, say liberals in their hunt for power — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

Depression is on the rise, and it’s easy to see why. People are weakening their minds. It is a regression into an infantile state, as evidenced by the constant crying we hear daily.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/472761-language-police-liberals-belittle/

In a misguided attempt at protecting the so called “marginalized” individuals, the regressive left continues to ban an ever-increasing list of words – an action that only serves as a tool for oppression.

Thanks in large part to the intrusive nature of the internet in our daily lives, an annoying trend has taken root where any and every thing we say comes under scrutiny from complete strangers. More so now as a new community of victim olympians scour the net for things to take umbrage with.

Did you know you’re not supposed to say “blind spot” anymore? You know, that thing everyone has on the periphery of their vision. It might sound absurd that such a common phrase could be deemed offensive, but as we now live in clown world, that’s exactly what has happened. The same goes with “turn a blind eye” and “tone deaf.”

The reasoning for this is that such terms are viewed as “ableist”, a word that by its dictionary definition means “discriminating against disabled or handicapped people.” Now maybe it’s because I don’t suffer from the mental handicap that is being “woke”, but I struggle to see how “tone deaf” is discriminatory.

As for other “ableist” words, you’re no longer supposed to say stupid, crazy, psycho, dumb, idiotic, insane, lame, moron, nuts, mad, and mental. Even gimp is a no-no, a topic that periodically becomes a problem for the free photo editing software of the same name.

Similarly, do you have a crippling fear of something? Well, I hope not, because “crippling” is ableist too. So stop using it. Although, don’t rely on a dictionary as a crutch to find new words, as “crutch” is also offensive.

It may be overused, but a common phrase on the web is the “victim olympics”, and at the risk of sounding cliche’, it’s hard to disagree with that sentiment. There’s a whole swath of individuals racing towards the bottom who take pleasure in becoming the most victimized.

Journalists such as David Perry go out of their way to call people out for being “ableist”, even going so far as to eat his own. Meanwhile, people from other groups come up with their own ways to limit which words are acceptable.

As has previously been reported on, saying “transgendered” with an ‘ed’ at the end can get you labeled transphobic. The same occurs with saying transwomen instead of trans (notice the space) women. Their reasoning for taking offense is that it’s bad grammar, yet no rational person gets offended over whether a word ends in ‘ed’ or not.

The last time I checked, using the wrong form of your/you’re might earn an eye roll from someone who knows better, but they certainly won’t see that grammatical error and assume you’re a bigot.

Too many people just want to be oppressed, so they’re creating new ways to feign oppression. It’s a circus freak show we should all be able to just stare and make jokes at, yet this display isn’t confined, and outside the tent we are seeing real world effects.

College newspapers are adapting rules to push students towards avoiding “ableist” language. Twitter bans people for minor slights deemed transphobic. Time Magazine helps push the notion that an ‘ed’ at the end of transgender is something to not be used. Entire cities are banning gendered words like “manhole” and “firemen”. And other colleges are trying to limit the use of the word “American” because it is not inclusive enough….

Depression is on the rise, and it’s easy to see why. People are weakening their minds. It is a regression into an infantile state, as evidenced by the constant crying we hear daily. And as someone who values the written and spoken word, I refuse to let babies dictate what can and cannot be said.

Our society is quickly devolving into one similar to 1984, but in our timeline, instead of it being drab and dystopian, it’s padded and colorful. A perfect nursery for those who’d prefer a nanny take care of all their ills. But, like every toddler ever, they need guidance, and it’s time for people to get some tough love. Not only for their own benefit, but also for adults who are tired of the crying.

Baby talk is not a real language, but at the rate we’re going, it might soon be the only one that’s allowed.

Be seeing you

The Gossip Girls - Happy Birthday, Happy Vacation - Phelps ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

California Dems Show us the Future. Run for Your Lives – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

The most clear-cut evidence that Democrats do not care about democracy is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent decision to halt the death penalty (unless administered by an illegal alien, as in the case of Kate Steinle).

We’re horrified by people who commit violence with firearms. They’re horrified by people who haven’t committed any violence and never will — but who engage in speech displeasing to Democrats.

https://www.takimag.com/article/california-dems-show-us-the-future-run-for-your-lives/

by Ann Coulter

In this column, I will prove that Democrats: 1) Don’t care about “Russians,” (Ukrainians?) or anyone else interfering with our democracy; and 2) they also don’t give a crap about guns.

Let’s begin by looking at the Democrats’ Platonic ideal of a democracy: California!

California is wholly controlled by the Democratic Party. The governor is a Democrat. The lieutenant governor is a Democrat. The attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer are Democrats. All these positions have been held by Democrats since the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was a Democrat). The state Senate is just under two-thirds Democratic, while the assembly is more than two-thirds Democratic. Both U.S. senators are Democrats, as are 46 of 53 members of Congress.

And what a paradise they’ve created! For the last several years, with a direct pipeline to the fifth-largest treasury on the planet, California has been waging war on decent people in favor of drug addicts, the mentally ill, criminals, the homeless and transgenders.

In the last century, every great thing started in California: surfing, jeans, Disneyland, tax revolts, McDonald’s, movies, car culture, the Grateful Dead, right on red turns, Merle Haggard, skateboarding, Apple computer and the last two elected Republican presidents not named “Bush.”

Big political movements used to begin in California. Proposition 13’s cap on property taxes led to President Ronald Reagan and a nationwide tax revolt. Proposition 209’s ban on affirmative action was followed by Supreme Court rulings restricting the government’s ability to discriminate on the basis of race. California’s anti-crime rebellion, including a massive prison expansion and the voters’ removal of liberal lunatic Rose Bird from the state’s highest court, foreshadowed an anti-crime pushback across the country.

These days, the only California-originated idea to sweep the nation is: banning plastic straws. The state is a calamity. Its optimism and vigor are gone. Instead of “The Golden State,” California is now “The Human Excrement State.”

Let’s just pray that California is no longer a window into our future.

People are leaving the state in droves — and more than half of those who remain say they’d like to leave, according to a survey published in The San Francisco Gate earlier this year.

It takes single-minded fanaticism to wreck California. Within the borders of a single state, you can visit Yosemite, the Pacific Ocean, Death Valley, redwood forests, the snow-capped Sierras and the pastoral vineyards of Napa and Sonoma, and go to the beach on Christmas Day.

But starting with Gray Davis’ refusal in 1999 to appeal an activist judge’s announcement that it was “unconstitutional” for taxpayers not to give welfare to illegal immigrants — an initiative that had passed overwhelmingly just a few years earlier — California’s elected officials began an all-out war on its own citizens.

Democrats are worried about “Russians” interfering with our elections? California Democrats simply ignore elections.

The most clear-cut evidence that Democrats do not care about democracy is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent decision to halt the death penalty (unless administered by an illegal alien, as in the case of Kate Steinle).

I doubt any other state’s voters have been more emphatic about their support for the death penalty than Californians, voting for it in statewide initiatives in 1972, 1978, 2012 and again in 2016 — just three years ago.

But earlier this year, Gov. Newsom flagrantly disregarded the voters’ repeated endorsement of capital sentences and single-handedly imposed a moratorium on the death penalty.

Forget Facebook ads. Who cares if Russians hack into our voting machines and change the vote totals? Democrats are going to ignore the results anyway…

It’s the same with guns. This September, during a fiery debate on guns, the left demanded “red-flag laws” to take guns away from citizens after having their politics, their writings, their previous exercise of free speech examined on a granular level by bureaucrats empowered to revise the Bill of Rights. In the middle of that debate, Gov. Newsom commuted the sentences of 21 convicted felons — almost all of whom were serving lengthy terms for murder or attempted murder with a gun.

And get this: Newsom specifically cited the unfairness of enhancing a criminal’s sentence merely because he used a gun when committing a crime.

Liberals don’t care about guns in the hands of violent criminals. They’re coming after the guns of conservatives.

We’re horrified by people who commit violence with firearms. They’re horrified by people who haven’t committed any violence and never will — but who engage in speech displeasing to Democrats.

Like a magician revealing his trick, the governor of California provided the proof, making it absolutely clear that Democrats don’t give a fig for democracy and aren’t disturbed in the slightest by gun violence.

Be seeing you

SHOCK: California Just Made It Possible For Illegals To Do ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

David Stockman on How the Deep State Really Works

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

It’s not even mentioned because, as I say, the Warfare State machinery essentially squelches any kind of debate, suffocates any kind of thought that at all deviates from the status quo.

The big issue in the world today is war and peace, and we’re facing a campaign in 2020 where it won’t even be mentioned.

https://internationalman.com/articles/david-stockman-on-how-the-deep-state-really-works/

by David Stockman

International Man: Last year, President Trump took the unusual step of bypassing his advisors to announce his intention to withdraw all US troops from Syria quickly. The decision rattled Washington and the mainstream media. It caused former Defense Secretary Mattis to resign. Almost a year later, the US has withdrawn only a token number of soldiers. It still has thousands of troops occupying the part of the country where oil fields are located. What is going on here?

David Stockman: Well, that’s the Deep State at work.

Donald Trump is all by his lonesome. He’s home alone in the Oval Office. Now, half of it, he can blame himself. If he hires someone, a known idiot like John Bolton, what does he expect is going to happen except that everything he wanted to do is going to be undermined.

Nevertheless, he can’t seem to find anybody who can articulate on a day-to-day basis a pathway to the more restrained America First posture that he had in mind.

He’s surrounded by people who constantly countermand his orders. You have James Jeffery, the US Ambassador and special envoy to Syria saying, “Well, Trump didn’t mean that when he said he wanted the troops out of Syria.”

We have the same thing with North Korea. Trump finally said, here we are, 66 years after the armistice and we still don’t have a peace treaty, and we’re still occupying the Korean peninsula, which is of no interest to our national security one way or the other.

You have to do what I would call “contrafactual history.” In other words, if you understand what could have happened the other way, then maybe you’re not going to be so impressed with all this threat inflation.

I go back to why the Korean War happened, because I think it’s important to this whole thing going on now, with Trump trying to make a deal with Kim Jong-un.

In the late ’40s, Washington officials said that Korea is outside our sphere of influence, the line between North and South hastily drawn at the Potsdam war conference in July 1945. Dean Acheson, the US secretary of state in the late 1940s, said it was a mere surveyor’s line; it’s of no strategic influence. What if common sense had prevailed, instead of the hot-headed advice that President Truman got?

What if Truman had said, “Okay, we’re vacating this damn peninsula”? Well, it would have become a quasi-province of China, just like all the rest of them.

They’d probably be making all kinds of stuff, sending it to Walmart today, and nobody would know the difference.

Instead, we had a war. If I remember right, 54,000 servicemen were killed. The whole peninsula was pummeled, carpet bombed, and literally destroyed. It was like a wasteland in the north. There are reasons why the Kim family has survived all these years, because they hate us for what happened. People remember. It was really scorched earth. I mean, it was in some sense genocide, even then.

So, all of that happened, and Eisenhower comes in and is astute enough to say that we don’t really have national security on the line. He negotiated an armistice, and yet the War Party kept tension on the DMZ for all those years because it had to be in the playbook of threats.

I remember well when I was fighting the big Reagan defense build-up, back when I was budget director. It was always, we need all these different new tanks and attack aircraft and resupply logistics capabilities, because we have to have the ability to fight two and a half wars.

Well, where was the half war? I knew where the other ones were. The half war was in Korea. Well, why did we have to have a half war in Korea? But nevertheless, that was part of the rationalization—justification—for this massive military force that really is a tool of empire and not a tool of homeland defense.

Today, we have Trump finally saying, let’s let the Koreans decide how to run the future of Korea—and back off this long-running, 65-year confrontation.

And yet as courageous in some ways as he has been, he’s constantly being undermined by his own people, who as soon as he’s not looking send real nasty messages to the North Koreans—that will only set Kim back on his heels—and therefore nothing gets done. Even though it could very easily be done…

International Man: What kind of role do you see foreign policy playing in the 2020 election?

David Stockman: It won’t be the normal sense of debating policy—where there’s usually the bipartisan duopoly, with nuanced shades of difference that they like to debate and pretend are meaningful.

That isn’t even going to happen this time. Foreign policy has been totally taken over by the Democratic paranoia about Russia and Putin and meddling in our elections.

Now it’s extended to the whole impeachment inquiry and Ukraine-gate. That’s what the whole debate is going to be about. The debate is going to be about a sideshow.

The underlying issues are why we are constantly steaming warships into the Black Sea. That’s like the Gulf of Mexico to Russia.

Why are we sending warships into the Baltic?

Why are we constantly doing big maneuvers in Poland and in the Baltic states, right on Russia’s doorsteps with these tens of thousands of forces going through these maneuvers and exercises? What the hell are we doing all this for?

Those are the issues. But they’re not even going to get debated.

One last point: Trump had raised the question, isn’t NATO obsolete? The Soviet Union is gone. The 50,000 tanks allegedly on the central front facing western Europe have been melted down for scrap. And yet, he can’t even do anything about NATO.

He’s had to double-talk his way into saying, “Well, the other countries are going to commit some more money they don’t have. They’re going to waste more money on defense.” That’s all that’s come of it.

The point is we ought to be debating what the hell are we doing with NATO 25 years after the Soviet Union disappeared from the face of the earth?

Why isn’t Washington and the president leading the world with this disarmament conference so that we can begin to reduce this massive expenditure for weapons that nobody can afford?…

Be seeing you

https://www.rt.com/usa/465597-navy-carrier-ford-cant-launch/

The US Navy’s new $13 billion aircraft carrier was delivered with only two of its 11 elevators –vital to get munitions to its deck– operational. For the Navy, it’s the latest in a series of costly embarrassments.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on What Happens When Socialists Win Elections

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-what-happens-when-socialists-win-elections/

by Doug Casey

International Man: Earlier this year, it became apparent a socialist would win Argentina’s presidential election.

The Argentine peso lost 30% of its value in a single day. The same day, in US dollar terms, the value of the Argentine stock market was cut in half.

Doug, you spend a lot of time in Argentina and the Southern Cone. What’s your take on the situation? Is Argentina headed for another currency collapse?

Doug Casey: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was elected vice president and Alberto Fernández was elected president in the October 27 election. They basically destroyed the incumbent Mauricio Macri.

It’s a real pity because Macri is a decent human being whose heart was is in the right place politically and economically. But he was too timid. He did too little too late. Typical of “conservatives” everywhere, he didn’t make a moral argument to the populace. He made no effort to pull the corrupt fascist welfare state out by its roots, explaining why it’s destructive and why the state is the cause, not the cure, of the country’s problems. Instead, he just made some marginal improvements around the edges, and made things more comfortable for the Peronists now that they’re back in office.

And—since he’s associated with the free market—he actually discredited the free market.

In any event, Argentina is going back into the toilet. Who knows what kind of new stupidities, in addition to the usual old stupidities, the two Fernándezes are going to impose upon the country?

On the bright side—but only for tourists—Argentina is one of the cheapest countries in the world right now. That’s because the currency has collapsed. Good news for tourists and foreign speculators but a disaster for Argentines, most of whom have all their savings and earn their salaries in the increasingly worthless peso.

If you’re a long-term believer in Argentina or if you want to enjoy a great lifestyle, now’s the time to go shopping there. Real estate is at bargain levels again. There’s really no bid for a lot of properties. In Buenos Aires an apartment costs 5–10% of its equivalent in New York or London.

Things are definitely in crisis in Argentina. But the fact is that just about every other country in the world is heading in the wrong direction—at a faster or slower rate—certainly including the United States, Canada, and countries in western Europe. The socialists, the fascists, and the jingoists are in the ascendant all over the world.

There are many reasons for this. One is that Marxist-oriented professors have been indoctrinating the younger generation in high school and college for decades. The left has totally taken over educational systems everywhere. The average person has been inculcated with perverse and destructive ideas about economics, politics, philosophy, and ethics from roughly age 6 to age 22. It’s hard to get these things out of their heads once they’ve learned them in their youth.

Also, remember that, especially since the end of the 19th century, “democracy”—really just a polite form of mob rule—has been the world’s ruling ideology. It’s resulted in the politicization of all areas of society. When every parliament or legislature in the world meets, they believe it’s not just their right but their duty to pass new laws. And that’s idiotically applauded as a good thing by the hoi polloi. Those laws tell you what you must do and what you must not do and designate penalties if you don’t obey. And all that legislation, which accrues like barnacles on a ship’s hull, has to be paid for with taxes.

Fortunately, science and technology are still advancing at the rate of Moore’s Law. Unfortunately, the world is degenerating politically at about the same rate. Argentina is not an aberration from that point of view. It’s just a generation or so “ahead” of the United States in sliding down the slippery slope.

That said, it’s more important than ever that you have a crib in a second country, no matter where you live—because anything can happen anywhere. If you can afford it and are able to do so, you should have a backup plan someplace else in the world…

Over the coming decade, governments and their central banks are going to destroy their national currencies. The average guy—if he’s able to save at all—saves in dollars, euros, or yen, etc. He’s going to be wiped out.

The rich will continue to get richer, because they stand next to the fire hose of money being created. The middle and lower classes resent the politically favoured classes getting more. The middle and bottom levels of society could see real social upset, with catastrophic political ramifications.

It’s one of the reasons the odds favor Trump losing in 2020. I say that as someone who bet that he’d win in 2016. If the economy gets ugly, you’re going to get one of these absolutely crazy socialists or welfare statists that we see lined up on the Democratic debate stage. The best case is that somebody like Bloomberg—basically kind of a mellower Trump—steps in for the Democrats.

On the off chance that Trump wins in 2020, then the storm is going to definitely break during his next administration. That guarantees that the crazy Democrats—which is to say the socialists, radical welfarites, and cultural Marxists—are going to win in the next election. The conflict in basic belief systems between the Red and Blue counties is so acrid and radical—it’s the kind atmosphere you see before a civil war.

Who knows what either the Red or Blue people will do? They’re capable of absolutely anything. None of it good. I don’t see a way out.

But let’s go back to Argentina for a minute. As I said, the US is only about a generation behind the Argentines, and the Argentine electorate has been totally corrupted. The place is a blueprint for where the United States is going.

The US’s size, accumulated capital, and the productivity of its people have insulated it from a lot of the stupid things its government and the Fed have done. But if the US destroys its currency—and it’s well on the way to doing so—it will be much worse than when the Argentines destroy their currency.

Argentines have hundreds of billions of dollars stored abroad in foreign banks. When the Argentine peso collapses, that money can be brought into Argentina to pick up the bargains and bring capital into the country to get things going again.

If the US dollar is destroyed, however, it will be completely different.

First, the dollar is the major asset of most banks all around the world. It’s actually the world’s currency. If the dollar goes, it’s going to destroy their balance sheets.

Second, people all over the world who have foreign bank accounts generally save in dollars. They’re going to be devastated.

Third, Americans don’t have a lot of money abroad to bring back into the country to get things going again. In fact, the US government has made it quite hard for the average American to diversify internationally.

Fourth, the major US export for decades hasn’t been wheat or Boeings. It’s been dollars. The foreign trade deficit of $600 billion per year has given Americans an artificially high standard of living for many years. Nice foreigners give us real goods in exchange for fiat dollars. When confidence in the dollar collapses, Americans will feel it.

So, it’s going to be extremely serious when the chickens come home to roost this time. It’s a consequence of what the Federal Reserve is doing to the dollar. They’re inflating it—but they call that “Quantitative Easing.”…

Be seeing you

Today’s ‘Keynesianism’ – complete garbage! Why? | Kingdom ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Inconvenient Truths – Alarming things we have learned under Trump, but not always about him.

Posted by M. C. on November 8, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/stephen-f-cohen/inconvenient-truths/

By

The Nation

Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things about Donald Trump’s life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:

The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core “Russiagate” allegation that “Russia attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election” on Trump’s behalf—an “attack” so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no “attack” in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic “meddling” of the kind that both Russia and America have undertaken in the other’s elections for decades. Little can be more phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been “attacked by a hostile” entity. And yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party’s discourse, campaigning, and fund-raising.

We have also learned that the heads of America’s intelligence agencies under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation “Intelgate,” and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.

§ We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream “free press” cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media—leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular—chose to cover and report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr’s critics accuse him of fabricating a “conspiracy theory” on behalf of Trump. But the real, or grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of “collusion” between Trump and the Kremlin, an accusation that was—or should have been—discredited by the Robert Mueller report.

§ And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia’s new “hyper-sonic” missiles, which can elude US missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so.But even if he is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his predecessors in the White House, given the “Putin puppet” and “Kremlin stooge” accusations still being directed at him? Similarly, as I have asked repeatedly, if confronted with a US-Russian Cuban missile–like crisis—anywhere Washington and Moscow are currently eyeball-to-eyeball militarily, from the Baltic region and Ukraine to Syria—will Trump be as free politically as was President John F. Kennedy to resolve it without war? Here too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous presidents were free to negotiate with Russia’s Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged to do so, whereas the demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)

The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly dangerous, not only due to reasons cited here—a new Cold War fraught with the possibility of hot war. Whether President Trump serves one or two terms, he must be fully empowered to cope with the multiple possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation. That requires ridding him and our nation of Russiagate allegations—and that in turn requires learning how such allegations originated.

Opponents of Barr’s investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible or unprecedented to “investigate the investigators.” But the bipartisan Church Committee, based in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies, particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly, they have not been.

However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump’s attorney general and therefore not fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It’s time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.

Be seeing you

JFK-CIA

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »