MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

What Was It All for For: Vets Have Finally Turned on America’s Endless Wars – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2019

So consider this a plea to Congress, to the corporate media establishment, and to all of you: when even traditionally more conservative and martial military veterans raise the antiwar alarm – listen!

https://original.antiwar.com/danny_sjursen/2019/07/14/what-was-it-all-for-for-vets-have-finally-turned-on-americas-endless-wars/

by

It is undoubtedly my favorite part of every wedding. That awkward, but strangely forthright moment when the preacher asks the crowd for any objections to the couple’s marriage. No one ever objects, of course, but it’s still a raw, if tense, moment. I just love it.

I suppose we had that ubiquitous ritual in mind back in 2007 when Keith – a close buddy and fellow officer – and I crafted our own plan of objection. The setting was Baghdad, Iraq, at the start of the “surge” and the climax of the bloody civil war the U.S. invasion had unleashed. Just twenty three years old and only eighteen months out of the academy, my clique of officers had already decided the war was a mess, shouldn’t have been fought, and couldn’t be won.

Me and Keith, though, were undoubtedly the most radical. We both just hated how our squadron’s colonel would hijack the memorial ceremonies held for dead troopers – including three of my own – and use the occasion of his inescapable speech to encourage we mourners to use the latest death as a reason to “rededicate ourselves to the mission and the people of Iraq.” The whole thing was as repulsive as it was repetitive.

So it was that after a particularly depressing ceremony, perhaps our squadron’s tenth or so, that we hatched our little defiant scheme. If (or when) one of us was killed, the other promised – and this was a time and place where promises are sacred – to object, stand up, and announce to the colonel and the crowd that we’d listen to no such bullshit at this particular ceremony, not this time. “Danny didn’t believe in this absurd mission for a minute, he wouldn’t want his death to rededicate us to anything,” Keith would have said! Luckily it never came to that. We both survived, Keith left the army soon after, and I, well, toiled along until something snapped and I chose the road of public dissent. Still, I believe either of us would have actually done it – even if it did mean the end of our respective careers. That’s called brotherhood…and love.

I got to thinking on that when I read a story this week which was both disturbing, refreshing, and sickening all at the same time. A major opinion poll’s results were released which demonstrated that fully two-thirds of post 9/11 veterans now think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “weren’t worth fighting.” That’s a remarkable, and distressing, statistic and one that should give America’s president, legislators, media, and people as a whole, serious pause. Not that it will, mind you, but it should! It’s doubtful that US military combat vets – who are more rural, southern, and conservative than the population at large – have ever so incontrovertibly turned on a war, at least since the very end of Vietnam.

On one level I felt a sense of vindication for my longtime antiwar stances when I read about the study – in the Military Times no less. But that was just ego. Within minutes I was sad, inconsolably and completely melancholy. Because if, as a “filibuster-proof” majority of my fellow veterans (and maybe even our otherwise unhinged president) believes, the Iraq and Afghan wars weren’t worth the sacrifice, then consider the unsettling implications. It would mean, for starters, that the US flushed nearly $5.9 trillion in hard-earned taxpayer cash down the toilet. It means that 7,000 American soldiers and upwards of 244,000 foreign civilians needn’t have lost their ever precious lives. Hundreds of thousands more might not have been injured or maimed. 21 million people wouldn’t have become refugees. The world, so to speak, could’ve been a safer, better place.

Those ever-so-logical conclusions should dismay even the most apathetic American. They should make us all rather sad, but, more importantly, should inform future decisions about the use of military force, the role of America in the world, and just how much foreign policy power to turn over to presidents. Because if we, collectively, don’t learn from our country’s eighteen year, tragic saga, then this republic is, without exaggeration, finished, once and for all. Benjamin Franklin, that confounding Founding Father, wasn’t sure the American people could be trusted to “keep” the republic he and other elites formed. It’d be a devastating catastrophe to prove him right, especially in this time of rising right-wing, strongman populism in the Western world.

So consider this a plea to Congress, to the corporate media establishment, and to all of you: when even traditionally more conservative and martial military veterans raise the antiwar alarm – listen! And next time the American war drums beat, and they undoubtedly will, consider this article encouragement to do what Keith and I promised way back when. Object! Refuse to fight the next ill-advised and unethical war. Remember: to do so demonstrates brotherhood and love. Love of each other and love of country…

Be seeing you

steel helmet

Steel Helmet

 

 

 

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

Doug Casey on the Next Industrial Revolution – Tech Advancement

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2019

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-the-next-industrial-revolution/

by Doug Casey

What you’re going to read in the next few minutes will be shocking and unbelievable. But it’s also factual and logical. That will make it upsetting and disturbing. Most people are at least vaguely aware of what’s happening. But very, very few are aware of its degree or the implications.

As you probably know, I believe times are about to get quite rough economically and politically. But, at the same time, I’m very optimistic about what’s happening in science and technology. So let me hazard some predictions. And break the old rule about how, if you predict an event will occur, to make sure you don’t predict its timing…

Moore’s Law was formulated in 1965; it states that computational power will double, and costs will halve, about every 18 months. But it appears to apply to several areas besides computing.

As a result, it’s highly probable that Timothy Leary was not just right, but conservative, when he anticipated SMIILE—Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, and Life Extension. Those things are just part of the picture.

So here’s the good news. It’s likely the very nature of life is going to change for the better, almost unrecognizably, over the next 20 years or so…

THE NEXT INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Some of these things, like energy and space exploration, are just extensions of current technologies. Others, especially nanotech, are game changers.

Energy—With the exception of nuclear, all power comes from the sun. In the past, solar, wind, and similar power sources existed mainly in the dreams of economically illiterate hippies. But now, combined with rapidly advancing battery technology, they finally make sense. Better yet, oncoming generations of modular nuclear reactors will be tiny, extremely safe, simple, and cheap. Maybe fusion power will finally become practical—although that would just be a bonus.

Oil and gas? They’re important as feedstocks, but mainly because they provide very dense energy. They are, however, essentially compounds of hydrogen and carbon, two of the most common and simplest elements. With adequate (and sufficiently cheap—this is the key) power, they can be created in unlimited quantity; the chemistry is quite basic and well understood. Among other things, algae can be programmed to manufacture them in quantity.

Space—One of the good things about most governments being bankrupt is that they’re being forced to cede the conquest of space to entrepreneurs, who will colonize the moon, the asteroids, and the planets. I love Elon Musk’s quip: “I hope to die on Mars. Just not on impact.” Of course, if he’s lucky, he may live to be several hundred years old because of other developments.

You need “stuff” to make what you need. A lack of raw materials has always been a major reason for conflict. But digging things out of the Earth, using big yellow trucks, will no longer be humanity’s only option. The asteroids are full of dense elements. They’ll soon become available in massive quantity, cheaply.

Life extension—It’s clear we’re on the edge of solving the problem of aging; it should be addressed as a degenerative disease. All other diseases are simply footnotes to aging. If you live long enough, you can be, do, and have everything that you can imagine. It’s likely to be possible soon.

Biological engineering—The creation of not just new body parts, but new bodies, made to order, is in the works. And new species. And much more. Who really knows what can be done with DNA? But the answer is probably: Almost anything, in lots of ways.

Distributed manufacturing—A.E. van Vogt’s The Weapon Shops of Isher predicted machines that would create advanced weapons for you, in the privacy of your own home. Now that’s possible with 3-D printing. Soon, if you can design something, or get the design, you can create it. At home.

Robotics—Not just smart machines in factories. In fact, factories themselves may be on their way out. Humanoid beings—products of bioengineering and AI—could replace them. They’ll perhaps be almost indistinguishable from normal people.

This alone, the creation of intelligent machines, will overturn the nature of society, family, warfare, work—everything.

Artificial intelligence—I believe that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. That’s the concept behind the Turing test. At some point, very soon, machines will be smarter than their creators and will, in turn, create other machines smarter than they are. And continue doing so at a geometric rate.

Nanotech—I did a chapter on this in Crisis Investing for the ’90s. At the time, not one person in 100 had a clue what it was. In its ultimate form, nanotech—the use of molecular-sized assemblers and supercomputers—will change the character of reality itself. Totally and unrecognizably. It amounts to pixie dust, making it possible to manipulate the 92 naturally occurring elements into useful compounds cheaply and easily. It’s becoming possible to fabricate totally new materials, like carbon nanotubes, vastly more capable than any “natural” material.

Computer science—Electromechanical switches, then vacuum tubes, then transistors, now silicon chips, and soon quantum computing are taking place on a molecular level. All the knowledge in the world contained in a cube. Or perhaps in the head of a biologically enhanced robot. Or perhaps in an interface to your own brain.

Virtual reality—You’ll be able to immerse yourself in a world of your own creation, activating all of your senses, in a veritable Star Trek holodeck that will be almost indistinguishable from real reality. Perhaps you will prefer to live in unreality. All in the privacy of your own home.

Editor’s Note: As Doug mentioned, technological advancement is a game-changer. Most people haven’t considered how quickly it has already progressed. In fact, the next big wave of medical and pharmaceutical breakthroughs is here.

The way diseases like Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and even cancer are treated will change forever. This trend is so explosive that it’s even caught attention of the Former Speaker of the House. He and a biotech investment expert are revealing how early investors can ride this major trend for once-in-a-lifetime profits in a LIVE event. Click here to reserve your spot now.

Be seeing you

cad38-berkfooddelivery2

 

 

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

An Idiot’s Guide to Destroying Your Country in Six Easy Steps — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2019

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/07/14/an-idiots-guide-to-destroying-your-country-in-six-easy-steps/

Robert Bridge

The United States of America seems to have a suicide wish as it wanders aimlessly down a continually narrowing path that can only lead to national ruin. Is this a premeditated act of self-annihilation or simply a series of foolish choices?

Before a nation can be effectively destroyed from within it is necessary first that it be owned lock, stock and barrel. An independent, freedom-loving people are less easily controlled than one that is effectively ball and chained, which brings us to the first step in the program.

Create a Central Bank

Beginning around 1910, representatives from the leading banking powerhouses – Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg and Kuhn-Loeb – began meeting in secret at distant retreats, and not for the purpose of philandering with underage girls, mind you. No, these elitists had a totally different sort of crime up their sleeves, and that was to dominate the entire US banking system. And would it really surprise anyone that they succeeded? This was achieved by the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on Dec. 23, 1913, which took away the constitutional power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof,” as enacted by the US Constitution.

As Anthony C. Sutton summed up the dire situation in his book, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, “Congress handed over all monetary powers to the Fed in 1913. The Fed is a private bank, owned by banks, and pays dividends on its shares owned only by banks. The Fed is a private Bankers’ Bank.”

Today, the power of ‘printing money’ rests with a private corporation. In fact, the Fed is not actually in the business of printing currency, which is handled by Treasury; instead, it creates bank deposits which are stored at the Fed. This ‘legal’ banking cartel, which can manipulate inflation at will, never has to deal with serious competition, least of all from the US government. Indeed, crotchety Uncle Sam depends on this institutionalized ‘lender of last resort’ for his money supply, which he must return – with excessive interest – thus guaranteeing America’s eternal indebtedness, or until the country simply goes broke.

There were many honorable politicians who fought stringently against the Federal Reserve, before and after the money monster came into being. One of the most memorable challenges came on February 12, 1917 from Senator Charles Lindbergh, who attempted to open articles of impeachment against the ‘conspirators’ of the Act.

Lindbergh accused a number of banking executives of conspiring with each other to “devise a means through social, political and other ways of strategy and by chicanery, to deceive the people of the United States, the Congress, and the President of the United States for the purpose and with the object to secure an act of Congress providing a new monetary and banking system …”

The entire congressional exchange, which is a fascinating read, can be found here.

Today, the problem of an outside agency regulating the US money supply remains as serious an issue as it was in Lindbergh’s day.

This month, Donald Trump harshly criticized the Fed, calling it the “most difficult problem” facing the nation. He was particularly incensed with the independent central bank keeping interest rates high, a move that other leaders before Trump have also expressed frustration over.

Is it too late to ‘end the fed,’ as former US Senator Ron Paul recommended in his 2009 book? Or will it continue to be business as usual for the bankers?

Open the Floodgates

Ever since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, legislation that has single-handedly altered the face of America forever, the United States has become a cauldron, not a salad bowl, of cultural and ethnic differences. Once a nation largely comprised of European immigrants, that demographic is expected to become the minority in a few short decades. And the people just keep coming.

Today, it is automatically assumed that because America got its start as a ‘nation of immigrants’ that it is somehow expected to keep its doors open forever. We are expected to forever comply with the words of the poem, ‘The New Colossus’, written by the Jewish-American Emma Lazarus, engraved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, which says:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

It seems the shelf life of that verse expired a long time ago. California can barely take care of San Francisco, let alone America taking care of the world’s “wretched refuse.” Perhaps we would do better than to worry about some tarnished Civil War-era statues of dead Southern generals and think more about editing that plaque.

Yet mass legal migration into the country is no longer considered enough. Even the very concept of a border wall or fence has been derided as “racist,” a grand “monument to white supremacists,” by the radical left.

No nation can last forever when its front door is open to every stranger under the sun.

Push Feminism, the Pill and Abortion

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Fascist-Marxist Healthcare for All – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2019

The real motive behind Bernie Sanders’ call for “Medicare for all” is to confiscate wealth, redistribute it and turn America into another impoverished Venezuela, where despite their policy of a guaranteed social safety net, there is no food, water, medicine or freedom, except for government apparatchiks.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/lk-samuels/fascist-marxist-healthcare-for-all/

By

Single-payer healthcare programs for all operated by government is nothing new, even by Bernie Sanders’ standards. The National Socialists of Germany inherited a socialized medicine and welfare society in 1933, and made it stronger. Hitler quickly ordered the National Socialist People’s Welfare (NSV) organization to “see to the disbanding of all private welfare institutions,” which began the Nazis’ effort to completely nationalize charity and healthcare in Germany.

And yet, the banning of privately-operated welfare and medical organizations implied far more. By banning private healthcare and welfare in Germany, the Nazis exhibited their true red-revolutionary colors, following in the socialist footsteps of the Soviet Union. Even today, most American left-wing progressives would be hard pressed to deny Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) the opportunity to do social work. So, does this place American progressives on the far right because the Nazis’ social welfare programs were so extremely left-wing?

One of the biggest cheerleaders of mandatory socialism was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister and briefly the Chancellor of Nazi Germany. Considering himself a communist in his college years, Goebbels, continuously applauded the generosity of Hitler’s welfare state, boasting in a 1944 editorial, “Our Socialism,” that “We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures.” He did not stop there. He proclaimed that “English capitalists want to destroy Hitlerism” because of the Nazis “generous social reforms.”…

Of course, this same hypocrisy has occurred in every Fascist-Marxist and “social justice” nation, especially the Soviet Union. Here, equality became another word for inequality. The bourgeoisie in communist Russia suffered the same fate as the Jews; some 7-10 million Ukrainian Kulaks were denied food and perished. In late 1929, it was Stalin who demanded the liquidation of the Kulaks as a “class enemy.” He defined wealthy Kulaks as “peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres more than their neighbors.”

For socialists, equality is an empty phrase. Today, it is recognized that Nazism included many of the same tenets as Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. Hitler even admitted several times that he was a “Social Democrat” who favored a “national Social Democracy” movement.

The real motive behind Bernie Sanders’ call for “Medicare for all” is to confiscate wealth, redistribute it and turn America into another impoverished Venezuela, where despite their policy of a guaranteed social safety net, there is no food, water, medicine or freedom, except for government apparatchiks. It appears that under fascist socialism, some are indeed more equal than others.

Be seeing you

Millions of Ukrainian peasants starved to death under ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on Fascist-Marxist Healthcare for All – LewRockwell

How to Turn an Android Phone Into a Dumbphone in 8 Steps

Posted by M. C. on July 14, 2019

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/simplify-phone-get-back-basics/

Bertel King, Jr.

…Here’s how you can turn your Android phone into a (mostly) dumbphone.

1. Disable the Browser

Android Disable Apps

A smartphone really isn’t a smartphone without a web browser. This app comes pinned to your dock, and is one of the biggest time sucks on your device. Click one site and, before you know it, you’ve been straining your neck staring down at the screen for forty minutes.

Do you really need to read articles on your phone? Save that to do on your laptop at designated times. If you strongly prefer the experience of reading on the go, you can enable the browser during those times, then disable it again when you’re done.

This extra step forces you to stop and think every time you’re about to fall down the rabbit hole.

2. No Email

Email has a way of changing the trajectory of our day. A response from a colleague or a simple request can have you in front of your computer working for two hours. These seem urgent, but often, they can wait. Our email addiction thrives on us thinking that they can’t.

I’ve removed the email app from my phone. If I absolutely must access email in a pinch, I can re-enable the browser and visit the mobile site. That amount of effort is enough to keep me from checking mail on my phone often.

Not everyone has this option. If your coworkers have grown accustomed to your constant availability, it may be too late to adjust expectations without changing jobs. You have even less flexibility in an environment where all employees are expected to be on standby. But if you’re a student or work for yourself, a lot more of the control is in your hands.

3. Only Keep Essential Apps

What tasks do you want your phone to do? For me, it’s a short list: make calls, send texts, take photos, and navigate. All but one of these functions has long come standard on flip phones.

If you have a need for a compass or a timer, these apps complement what you’re doing in the world, rather than pull you away. Such utilitarian tools, like a calculator, don’t lead to phone addiction. It’s the games, social networks, news apps, and video streaming services that you have to watch out for.

As a general rule, take Cal Newport’s advice in Digital Minimalism and uninstall any app that makes someone money every time you tap on it.

4. Turn Off All Notifications

Android no notifications

Did you decide that you can’t part with a social networking app or certain gamess? Fine. You can still cut back by disabling notifications.

Don’t let a morning direct message on Twitter drag you into a two-hour conversation when you intended to go for a jog. That game doesn’t need to tell you that more fuel is available or that your barn is complete. You’ll find out when you sit down to consciously open those apps on your own.

This is important. Notifications are a big part of what make us feel out of control. Each incoming chime is the phone’s way of telling us when to pick it up. We obey more often than we’d like. By turning those alerts off, we approach the device on our terms.

Make an exception for calls and texts. This is a phone, after all. If you want to include other messaging apps (such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger) as texts, that’s your call. Our social circles all communicate in different ways.

5. Turn Off Data and Wi-Fi

Our phones don’t need a data connection in order to manage calls and texts. But they do need internet access to retrieve tweets, show us Facebook arguments, download work attachments, and supply an endless stream of blogs. Toggling Wi-Fi and cellular data off is the single easiest way to remove those distractions.

Most Android phones come with a toggle in the notification shade for these connections. If you don’t want to adjust it manually, you can also disable data on a per-app basis. Making this change helps you stay focused on other tasks, and it can greatly extend your phone’s battery life.

How to Prevent Any App From Using Mobile Data on Android How to Prevent Any App From Using Mobile Data on Android If your apps use too much mobile data, try restricting background data on Android. Here’s how to turn off data and save money. Read More

Note: If, like me, you use a messaging app other than basic SMS, you won’t be able to disable data usage entirely. But you can disable data for other apps, or only enable data during times when you actually want to talk.

6. Download Music, Maps, Etc. for Offline Use

Local files don’t need access to the web, so you don’t have to re-enable Wi-Fi or LTE whenever you want to play a podcast or your favorite songs. This reduces how often you connect to the internet, saving you from temptation each time.

You can do the same with navigation. Google Maps lets you save sections of an area for offline use, but it’s rather limited. I recommend downloading an alternative that lets you store entire countries offline, like OsmAnd.

7. Install a Simpler App Launcher

Your phone’s interface encourages you to install more software. You may be able to swipe across home screens or open an app drawer that’s meant to display 20 apps at a time. With such a layout, removing all but eight apps can leave your phone feeling broken.

An alternate layout can rearrange apps in a way where you still feel like you’re using a fully featured device. This way it no longer seems like you’re restraining yourself. Perception matters. If you’re looking for options, launchers aimed at older smartphone users may be a good place to start.

3 Best Simple Android Launchers for Your Parents or Grandparents 3 Best Simple Android Launchers for Your Parents or Grandparents One of your parents or grandparents has just gotten a new Android phone — and it’s just so confusing. The best way you can help them is to download an extremely simple launcher. Read More

8. Get Rid of Google Play

Smartphones come with more built-in software than flip phones. Take a look at the default apps. Chances are you already have a browser, a music player, and a way to take notes. The screenshots above show what comes preinstalled on the Essential Phone, which provides only a handful of few apps compared to most Android devices.

If you want to simplify your phone environment, don’t install a single additional app from the Play Store. You can even remove Google Play entirely! There’s no easy way to do so without rooting or installing a custom ROM, but making the effort will extend how long your Android phone lasts thanks to the removal of Google’s background services.

How to Use Android Without Google: Everything You Need to Know How to Use Android Without Google: Everything You Need to Know Want to use Android without Google? No Google, no problem. Here’s a guide to going Google-free on your Android device to regain privacy. Read More

Are You Going Back to the Basics?

The original point of carrying phones in our pockets was to be accessible. We’ve since warped that to mean ever-connected and always-on. This has direct effects on our health, our social interactions, and the way we go about our lives.

A phone is a tool. Like a hammer or a ruler, there are certain tasks that make me glad I have one around. But my life doesn’t revolve around other tools, and it shouldn’t circle around this one either. The reasons I wanted to ditch my smartphone are still valid, even if I’m currently not doing so in the way I expected.

Be seeing you

All I Want For Christmas Is A Virtual Dumbphone - MIT ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Farm Subsidies Are Corporate Welfare — And They Cost Us Plenty | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/farm-subsidies-are-corporate-welfare-%E2%80%94-and-they-cost-us-plenty

The federal government spends more than $20 billion a year on subsidies for farm businesses. About 39 percent of the nation’s 2.1 million farms receive subsidies, with the lion’s share of the handouts going to the largest producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice.

What these subsidies have done is create a floor for food prices. This is essentially a win-win for farmers. When supply exceeds demand, government steps in to make up the difference. Consequently, this prevents prices from falling, but at the cost to the consumer.

The initial aim for agricultural subsidies is to prevent businesses from collapsing due to volatile prices. If there is a bad harvest, some small farmers could go out of business. With the help of a subsidy, these farmers could continue into the next year. While there is a case for helping such small farms, the case for protecting big farms is unconvincing. But this is precisely what farm subsidies predominantly do. For example, in 2016, small family farms accounted for 90 percent of all farms, but received just 27 percent of commodity payments and 17 percent of crop-insurance indemnities. Large farmers get the majority of the pay outs, but are equally those who can most afford to ride out any market volatility.

Removing Agricultural Subsidies Works

The idea of eliminating agriculture subsidies has already been tested in New Zealand. In 1985, it eliminated all its subsidies and removed trade barriers. Since then, its farmers have flourished, with productivity improving dramatically.

Farmers can’t rely on subsidies, so have to be more efficient to survive. They have to diversify and make products that can better compete. This also means greater choice for the consumer. For example, New Zealand’s dairy farmers used to produce 35 dairy products before the reforms. Today, it produces over 2,200.

The New Zealand government no longer subsidizes over-production so farmers are forced into making decisions that make a profit, and now farmers are more able to align supply with demand. Unlike in the US, farmers in New Zealand are penalized for overproduction, not rewarded.

Before the agricultural reforms in 1984, New Zealand had a dramatic oversupply of sheep meat. Government paid for the slaughter of sheep that could not be sold in 1983. As a result, over 6,000 tons of surplus sheep meat was turned into fertilizer. This was a waste of resources. Farmers were effectively encouraged to continue producing something even if there was insufficient demand. This is exactly what government intervention does: it distorts market mechanisms…

It’s Just Inefficient

With roughly 141 million taxpayers in the US, paying for $33 billion worth of subsidies, it works out at a cost of $234 per person on average. Does this work out as a net benefit to the customer? Well research by the CBO and the Department of Agriculture both conclude no correlation between crop and food prices. Farm subsidies and crop insurance don’t lower food prices. In part, this is because most of the subsidies go to the more financially secure and bigger farmers. What the agricultural subsidies and crop insurance do is give farmers a guaranteed income. Farmers know exactly the minimum amount of gross dollars per acre they will receive that year from crop insurance. Keep your expenses below that amount and you will make a profit. What other business is offered those guarantees?

Farmers are offered a guaranteed income no matter how efficient they are. To use taxpayers money to reduce the incentives is folly. By creating a safety net, farmers are not incentivized to prepare for harvest fluctuations. It is not necessary for them to invest in creating efficient and healthy ecosystems for next year.

Be seeing you

A Tale of Three Countries: Are Farm Subsidies Necessary?

 

 

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

How Boris Johnson Can “Make Britain Great Again” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2019

In twentieth-century Britain, the success of free markets bred a peculiar form of envy, based on the erroneous idea that the accumulation of wealth was at the expense of the labouring classes. It also played to intellectual and middle-class guilt. In defiance of all the evidence, it was popularised by the followers of Karl Marx. This was the basis upon which the Labour Party became a force in British politics.

https://mises.org/wire/how-boris-johnson-can-make-britain-great-again

A future prime minister must have a clear understanding of his enemy, the socialist myth, why it fails, and why free markets succeed.

Successful societies all have one thing in common: the freedom of individuals to cooperate socially in the pursuit of their needs and desires. Uniquely in the animal world, the human race deploys individual skills to produce what others want, and those others reward the individual on the basis of his or her ability to do so. Despite his inferior physical characteristics compared with other animals, it is through specialisation, the division of labour, that the human race has become dominant. The key to human success is the ultimate democracy inherent in the division of labour. It means the customer is king and all economic effort is expended toward his satisfaction. Individual success is rewarded by the improvement in living conditions for all. It defines human progress.

Truly, it is proof that free-market competition is more successful than any form of consensus.

The full economic potential of a free society is hardly ever realised. Island states, such as Hong Kong and Singapore have achieved it, but in the larger nations the development of true economic liberalism reached its zenith in Britain following the repeal of the Corn Laws and eventually all other tariffs. The improvement in living standards for the British people was truly remarkable, and the subsequent accumulation of productive wealth was unprecedented…

Socialism is incapable of fostering progress, because it cannot exercise commercial judgement unfettered by non-commercial considerations. It is a monopoly becoming less efficient by the day. The state is only able to assume that what happened in the past will happen in the future. There is no room for progress in the state’s static calculations.

Progress is the defining feature of dynamic free markets. In socialism we observe the state removing productive resources from the individual by confiscating his property, and in free markets the individual in his own interests serves his fellow men to their greatest satisfaction. The baker bakes bread for the builder; the builder builds shelter for the tech entrepreneur; the tech entrepreneur provides the media for the baker and the builder to enjoy their leisure. The state simply cannot devise an economic role for itself by interposing in these transactions.

Public support for socialism is not based on reason, but emotion. It draws on Christian values and morality, in which a concern for the welfare of the common man is expressed. As a competitor to religion, socialism replaces the deity with the head of the state: this was Karl Marx’s creed, considering himself as the head of a unified world state and Engels as his enforcer. Christians were the useful idiots on the way to this godless nirvana…

If Boris Johnson is to succeed in “Making Britain Great Again” he must understand the fundamental differences between socialism and free markets. He must observe and learn from Trump’s errors to not fall into the traps Trump has set for himself. He must be guided by free market principles, despite the howls of outrage that will continue to be a feature of his premiership, just as they have been of Trump’s presidency.

A nation is only successful despite its government.

 

 

 

 

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

Consumers Will Decide If Women’s Sports Teams Get “Equal Pay” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/consumers-will-decide-if-womens-sports-teams-get-equal-pay

Even for those of us who don’t watch soccer — either men’s or women’s — it’s impossible to avoid the media frenzy over the fact that the women’s US Soccer team’s World Cup victory.

This amazing performance from the women’s team — we are told — highlights how absurd it is that the players on the women’s team are not paid as much as the players on the men’s team. Some fans and players even chanted “equal pay” in the wake of the World Cup victory.

When it comes to professional sports, however, how well a team plays is not what determines the pay of players. What matters is how much revenue the team earns from ticket sales, television deals, product licensing, and endorsement deals.

Revenues follow from the entertainment value of the play. When it comes to compensation, what matters is the ability of the players to entertain. Pro athletes, after all, are fundamentally just entertainers, no different from the buskers who do handstands on the street corner.

Some people may mistakenly believe that chasing a ball around constitutes some sort of highly-valuable enterprise in itself — but unless consumers are willing to pay to watch it, it has no large-scale economic value.

Thus, the question of whether or not the female athletes are “underpaid” comes down to how much revenue their performances generate.

So, do the women generate more revenue? Unless we’re talking about just the last one or two years, the answer appears to be a clear “no.” But even in recent years, as World Cup victories have piled up for the women, it looks like revenue have only just begun to equal that of the men’s team.

At Forbes, Mike Ozanian note that generally speaking, men’s soccer generates revenues at much higher levels:

The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million , less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.

But what about the US women’s team specifically?

According to the Wall Street Journal:

From 2016 to 2018, women’s games generated about $50.8 million in revenue compared with $49.9 million for the men, according to U.S. soccer’s audited financial statements. In 2016, the year after the World Cup, the women generated $1.9 million more than the men. Game revenues are made up mostly of ticket sales. In the last two years, at least, the men’s tally includes appearance fees that opposing teams pay the U.S. for games.

So, very recently, women have begun to outpace the men in ticket sales. But, as the WSJ admits: “ticket sales are only one revenue stream that the national teams help generate.”

And what about revenues from broadcasts? It seems that “TV ratings for U.S. men’s games tend to be higher than those for U.S. women’s games, according to data collected by U.S. Soccer.”…

If the fans want the women to be paid more than the men, the consumers will have to spend more.

Even some of the players recognize this. Earlier this week, US women’s team member Megan Rapinoe outlined how consumers can support a pay hike for the women’s team : “Come to games … buy players’ jerseys … become season ticket holders.”

Rapinoe is right. When the consumers pay more to see the women. The women will be paid more to play.

Be seeing you

44687-dj2ctywucaebebf

 

 

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

Debunking the Indo-Pacific Myth – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2019

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/07/09/debunking-indo-pacific-myth/

 

Security
Debunking the Indo-Pacific Myth

Pepe Escobar

July 9, 2019

The Trump administration is obsessively spinning the concept of a “free and open Indo-Pacific”. Apart from a small coterie of scholars, very few people around the world, especially across the Global South, know what that means since the then incipient strategy was first unveiled at the 2017 APEC forum in Vietnam.

Now everything one needs to know – and especially not know – about the Indo-Pacific is contained in a detailed Pentagon report.

Still: is this an act, or the real deal? After all, the strategy was unveiled by “acting” Pentagon head Patrick Shanahan (the Boeing guy), who latter committed hara-kiri, just to be replaced by another, revolving door, “acting” secretary, Mark Espel (the Raytheon guy).

Shanahan made a big deal of Indo-Pacific when he hit the 18th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month, picking up on his introduction to the Pentagon report to stress the “geopolitical rivalry between free and repressive world order visions” and demonizing China for seeking to “reorder the region to its advantage”.

In contrast, all the benign Pentagon yearns for is just “freedom” and “openness” for a “networked region”; calling it the New Pentagon Silk Road wouldn’t be far fetched.

Anyone remotely familiar with “Indo-Pacific” knows that’s code for demonization of China; actually, the Trump administration’s version of Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, which was in itself a State Dept. concoction, via Kurt Campbell, fully appropriated by then Secretary Hillary Clinton.

“Indo-Pacific” congregates the Quad – US, Japan, India and Australia – in a “free” and “open” God-given mission. Yet this conception of freedom and openness blocks the possibility of China turning the mechanism into a Quintet.

Add to it what hawkish actor Esper told the Senate Armed Services Committee way back in 2017:

“My first priority will be readiness – ensuring the total Army is prepared to fight across the full spectrum of conflict. With the Army engaged in over 140 countries around the world, to include combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, training rotations to Europe to deter Russia, and forward deployed units in the Pacific defending against a bellicose North Korea, readiness must be our top priority.”

That was 2017. Esper didn’t even talk about China – which at the time was not the demonized “existential threat” of today. The Pentagon continues to be all about Full Spectrum Dominance.

Beijing harbors no illusions about the new Indo-Pacific chief they will be dealing with.

Surfing FONOP

“Indo-Pacific” is a hard nut to sell to ASEAN. As much as selected members may allow themselves to profit from some “protection” by the US military, Southeast Asia as a whole maintains top trade relations with China; most nations are participants of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); and they will not shrink from enjoying the benefits of Huawei’s 5G future.

Actually even the other three in the Quad, as much as they are not linked to BRI, are having second thoughts on playing supportive roles in an all-American super production. They are very careful about their geoeconomic relations with China. “Indo-Pacific”, a club of four, is a de facto late response to BRI – which is indeed open, to over 65 nations so far.

The Pentagon’s favorite mantra concerns the enforcement of “freedom of navigation operations” (FONOP) – as if China, juggling the countless tentacles of global supply chains, would have any interest in provoking naval insecurity anywhere.

So far, “Indo-Pacific” has made sure that the US Pacific Command was renamed US Indo-Pacific Command. And that’s about it. Everything remains the same in terms of those FONOPs – in fact a carefully deceptive euphemism for the US Navy to be on 24/7 patrol anywhere across Asian seas, from the Indian to the Pacific, and especially the South China Sea. No ASEAN nation though will be caught dead performing FONOPS in South China Sea waters within 12 nautical miles of rocks and reefs claimed by Beijing.

The rampant demonization of China, now a bipartisan sport across the Beltway, on occasion even more hysterical than the demonization of Russia, also features proverbial reports by the Council on Foreign Relations – the establishment’s think tank by definition – on China as a serial aggressor, politically, economically and militarily, and BRI as a geoeconomic tool to coerce China’s neighbors.

So it’s no wonder this state of affairs has led Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on a recent, frenetic Indo-Pacific related tour, including Quad members India and Japan and possible associates Saudi Arabia, UAE and South Korea.

Geopoliticians of the realist school do fear that Pompeo, a fanatic Christian Zionist, may be enjoying under Trump a virtual monopoly on US foreign policy; a former CIA director playing warmongering top “diplomat” while also “acting” as Pentagon head trampling other second string actors who are not under full employment.

His Indo-Pacific roving was a de facto tour de force emphasizing the containment/demonization not only of China but also Iran, which should be seen as the major US target in the Indo/Southwest Asia part of the club. Iran is not only about strategic positioning and being a major BRI hub; it’s about immense reserves of natural gas to be traded bypassing the US dollar.

The fact that the non-stop demonization of Iran and/or China “aggression” comes from a hyperpower with over 800 military bases or lily pads spread out across every latitude plus a FONOP armada patrolling the seven seas is enough to send the hardest cynic into a paroxysm of laughter.

The high-speed train has left the station

In the end, everything under “Indo-Pacific” goes back to what game India is playing.

New Delhi meekly opted for not buying oil from Iran after the Trump administration lifted its sanctions waiver. New Delhi had promised earlier, on the record, to only respect UN Security Council sanctions, not unilateral – and illegal – US sanctions.

This decision is set to jeopardize India’s dream of extending its new mini-Silk Road to Afghanistan and Central Asia based on the Iranian port of Chabahar. That was certainly part of the discussions during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, when full members Putin, Xi and Modi, plus Rouhani – as the head of an observer nation – were sitting at the same table.

New Delhi’s priority – embedded deep in the Indian establishment – may be containment of China. Yet Putin and Xi – fellow BRICS and SCO members – are very much aware that Modi cannot at the same time antagonize China and lose Iran as partner, and are deftly working on it.

On the Eurasian chessboard, the Pentagon and the Trump administration, together, only think Divide and Rule. India must become a naval power capable of containing China in the Indian Ocean while Japan must contain China economically and militarily all across East Asia.

Japan and India do meet – again – when it comes to another more geoeconomically specific anti-BRI scheme; the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC), which so far has had a minimal impact and stands no chance of luring dozens of nations across the Global South away from BRI-related projects.

The chessboard now clearly shows Indo-Pacific pitted against the three key hubs of Eurasia integration – Russia-China-Iran. The definitive unraveling of Indo-Pacific – even before it starts gaining ground – would be a clear commitment by New Delhi to break apart the US sanctions regime by restarting purchases of much-needed Iran oil and gas.

It won’t take much for Modi to figure out that taking a second role in a Made in USA production will leave him stranded at the station eating dust just as the high-speed Eurasia integration train passes him by.

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

Of Two Minds – “Alexa, How Do We Subvert Big Tech’s Orwellian Internet-of-Things Surveillance?”

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2019

https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly19/iot-orwell7-19.html

Charles Hugh Smith

Convenience is the sales pitch, but the real goal is control in service of maximizing profits and extending state power.

When every device in your life is connected to the Internet (the Internet of Things), your refrigerator will schedule an oil change for your car–or something like that–and it will be amazingly wunnerful. You’ll be able to lower the temperature of your home office while you’re stuck in a traffic jam, while your fridge orders another jar of pickles delivered to your door.

It’s all in service of convenience, the god all Americans are brainwashed to worship. Imagine the convenience of turning on the light while seated on your sofa! Mind-boggling convenience at your fingertips–and since you’re already clutching your smart phone 24/7, convenience is indeed at your fingertips.

It’s also about control, and as we lose control of everything that’s actually important in our lives, the illusion of agency/control is a compelling pitch. Imagine being able to program your fridge to order a quart of milk delivered when it gets low but not order another jar of pickles when that gets low! Wow! That’s control, yowzah.

The Internet of Things is indeed about control–not your control, but control over you— control of what’s marketed to you, and control of your behaviors via control of the incentives, distractions and micro-decisions that shape behavior.

I Used Google Ads for Social Engineering. It Worked. (via Mark J.)

The control enabled by the Internet of Things starts with persuasion and quickly slides into coercion. Since corporations and government agencies will have a complete map of your movements, purchases, consumption, communications, etc., then behavior flagged as “non-beneficial” will be flagged for “nudging nags”, while “unsanctioned” behavior will be directed to the proper authorities.

Say you’re visiting a fast-food outlet for the fourth time in a week. Your health insurance corporation has set three visits a week as a maximum, lest your poor lifestyle choices start costing them money for treatments, so you get a friendly “reminder” to lay off the fast food or make “healthier” choices off the fast food menu.

Failure to heed the “nudges” will result in higher premiums or cancelled coverage. Sorry, pal, it’s just business. Your “freedom” doesn’t extend to costing us money.

Domestic corporate versions of China’s social credit score will proliferate. Here is evidence that such scores already exist:

Everyone’s Got A “Surveillance Score” And It Can Cost You Big Money (Zero Hedge)

Then there’s the surveillance. The Internet of Things isn’t just monitoring energy use and the quantity of milk in a fridge; it’s monitoring you–not just in your house, car and wherever you take your Personal Surveillance Device, i.e. your smart phone, but everywhere you go.

If you are a lookie-loo shopper–you browse the inventory but rarely buy anything–expect to be put in Category Three–zero customer service, and heightened surveillance in case your intent is to boost some goodies (shoplift).

Heaven help you if you start spending time reading shadow-banned websites like Of Two Minds: your social credit standing moves into the red zone, and your biometric scans at airports, concerts, retail centers etc., will attract higher scrutiny. You just can’t be too sure about people who stray off the reservation of “approved” corporate media.

Your impulses are easy to exploit: since every purchase is tracked, your vulnerabilities to impulse buys will be visible with a bit of routine Big Data analysis, and so the price of the treats you succumb to will go up compared to the indifferent consumer next to you. Sorry, pal, it’s just business. Your vulnerabilities, insecurities and weaknesses are profit centers. We’d be foolish not to exploit them to maximize profits, because that is the sole mission of global corporations.

Governments access the trove of surveillance for their own purposes. Monitoring phone calls, texts and emails is only the first step; privacy as a concept and a right has effectively ceased to exist other than as a legal abstraction and useful fiction. The Dawn Of Robot Surveillance: AI, Video Analytics, and Privacy….

Be seeing you

Danger, danger! 10 alarming examples of AI gone wild ...

 

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »