Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘entrepreneurs’

Three Questions on Austrian Economics; Asked and Answered – LRC Blog

Posted by M. C. on November 1, 2021

Walter E. Block

From: Ash caesar


I read your blog post on your website from time to time, and I have to say I quite enjoy it, so keep it up. I have three questions that linger in my head a lot, and It would be a great deal to help me clarify them.

Q1) In a video, you said that capitalists help workers in many ways (I forgot which one). One is that the Capitalist risks their capital to provide production for the workers. However, in my opinion, you only see one side of the equation because the workers also risk something because of their income, housing, and family relay on it. So by that logic, workers should have some say with the capitalist on decision-making.

A1) Yes, the worker, too, takes risks. In Mises’ view, we’re all entrepreneurs: employers, employees, lenders, borrowers, landlords, tenants, buyers, sellers, etc. However, in the case of the business firm, there’s a relevant different between owner and worker. I now set up a company. We make pencils. It will take, oh, a year, before the first pencils come rolling off the assembly line. I have to buy machinery, rent a factory, pay for insurance, pay workers’ salaries, etc. Suppose no one wants to buy the pencils in a year. May I go back to my employees, and say, hey, sorry, I’ve got some bad news for you, the pencils aren’t selling, so, give me back that year’s worth of salary I paid you? No. I’m bearing that risk. The employees may keep their pay for the year.

Q2)In man economy and state, Rothbard states that “There are no ‘objective’ or ‘real’ costs that determine, or are co-ordinate in determining, price” (Rothbard 343). However, in Post-Keynesian Price Theory by Frederic Sterling Lee, he agrees that demand affects the price. But, cost also plays a factor because that is how they determine mark-up prices, which makes up most of the modern economy.

A2) There is indeed such a thing as cost, but it is alternative or opportunity costs. An important aspect of Austrian economics is subjectivism: no one really knows anyone else’s costs. We, often, don’t even know our own costs, can only speculate about them. For example, this is took you about 15 minutes to ask me these four questions. What were your costs in doing so? You probably didn’t think about this when writing up your questions. But what was it? What did you lose by asking me these questions? Money from a job? Sleeping? Eating? Swimming? Who knows.

Q3) Is it possible to say that prices are essential in economic calculation. Still, you can also argue that(in a Walrasian economic model) the economy can be represented in a complex system of equations where one can update them by trial and error, thus finding the right prices?

Q3) The Walrasian system is not too awful when it comes to depicting equilibrium situations. The difficulty is that we’re never in overall equilibrium. We’re always tending in that direction, both from higher and lower than equilibrium prices, but never there.

Q4)Just a side question do you think that the Roman people had more freedom under the late-stage corrupt republic or the dictatorship of Caesar(no relation to my name).

Q4) Sorry, I don’t know anything about this. Ask David Gordon. He knows everything about everything.



Best regards,


Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment » On Trump’s Call to Pull Tax Exemptions From Radical Left Colleges and Universities and What He Should Really Do

Posted by M. C. on July 11, 2020

President Trump tweeted the following on Friday:

I sympathize entirely with Trump’s sentiment here, it is true that what is being taught at almost all colleges and universities is anti-capitalist radical leftist corprolite. But it is a slippery slope to start pulling tax exemptions.

It is the further politicization of America’s institutions and on these grounds, I object vehemently. Under Trump, it is about lefty education under a future AOC presidency it will be greater taxation of all institutions that aren’t promoting the full socialist line.

As a counter, I would much rather see Trump grant tax exemptions to young entrepreneurs say under 25, who have started their own businesses. Fight lefty radicalism with a boost to young entrepreneurs.

Further, I would pull all federal government grants to colleges and universities, let them learn a little bit about how to hustle on the free market.


Be seeing you


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

Doug Casey on Anarchy and Voluntaryism – International Man

Posted by M. C. on June 25, 2020

It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual.

I simply don’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?

Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion—a very dangerous thing—it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.

by Doug Casey

You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian. I don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. The reason is that anything that has a monopoly of force is extremely dangerous. As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world’s leading experts on government, said: “The power of the state comes out of a barrel of a gun.”

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other, either voluntarily or coercively. And the State is pure institutionalized coercion. It’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, for a civilized society. And that’s increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible, in oxcart days, for bureaucrats to order things around. Today it’s ridiculous.

Everything that needs doing can and will be done by the market, by entrepreneurs who fill the needs of other people for a profit. The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.

People have a misconception about anarchists. That they’re these violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.

It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual.

I simply don’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?

Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion—a very dangerous thing—it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.

What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.

I could live happily with a government that did just those things. Unfortunately the US Government is only marginally competent in providing services in those three areas. Instead, it tries to do everything else.

The argument can be made that the largest criminal entity today is not some Colombian cocaine gang, it’s the US Government. And they’re far more dangerous. They have a legal monopoly to do anything they want with you. Don’t conflate the government with America—it’s a separate entity, with its own interests, as distinct as General Motors or the Mafia. I’d rather deal with the Mafia than I would with any agency of the US Government.

Even under the worst circumstances, even if the Mafia controlled the United States, I can’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income from them every year. They couldn’t get away with it. But—perhaps because we’re said to be a democracy—the US Government is able to masquerade as “We the People.” That’s an anachronism, at best. The US has mutated into a domestic multicultural empire.

The average person has been propagandized into believing that it’s patriotic to do as he’s told. “We have to obey libraries of regulations, and I’m happy to pay my taxes. It’s the price we pay for civilization.” No, that’s just the opposite of the fact. Those things are a sign that civilization is degrading, that the society is becoming less individually responsible, and has to be held together by force.

It’s all about control. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why you get the worst people—not the best—who want to get into government.

What about voting? Can that change and improve things? Unlikely. I can give you five reasons why you should not vote in an election (see this article). See if you agree.

Hark back to the ’60s when they said, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” But let’s take it further: Suppose they gave a tax and nobody paid? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? What that would do is delegitimize government.

I applaud the fact that only half of Americans vote. If that number dropped to 25%, 10%, then 0%, perhaps everybody would look around and say, “Wait a minute, none of us believe in this evil charade. I don’t like Tweedledee from the left wing of the Demopublican Party any more than I like Tweedledum from its right wing…”

Remember you don’t get the best and the brightest going into government. There are two kinds of people. You’ve got people that like to control physical reality—things. And people that like to control other people. That second group, those who like to lord it over their fellows, are drawn to government and politics.

Some might ask: “Aren’t you loyal to America?” and “How can you say these terrible things?” My response is, “Of course I’m loyal to America, but America is an idea, it’s not a place. At least not any longer…”

America was once unique among the world’s countries. Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. The idea is still unique, but the country no longer is.

I’ll go further than that. It’s said that you’re supposed to be loyal to your fellow Americans. Well, here’s a revelation. I have less in common with my average fellow American than I do with friends of mine in the Congo, or Argentina, or China.

The reason is that I share values with my friends; we look at the world the same way, have the same worldview. But what do I have in common with my fellow Americans who live in the trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos? Or even Hollywood, Washington, and Manhattan? Everyone has to be judged as an individual, but probably very little besides residing in the same political jurisdiction. Most of them—about 50% of the US—are welfare recipients, and therefore an active threat. So I have more personal loyalty to the guys in the Congo than I do to most of my fellow Americans. The fact we carry US passports is simply an accident of birth.

Those who find that thought offensive likely suffer from a psychological aberration called “nationalism”; in serious cases it may become “jingoism.” The authorities and the general public prefer to call it “patriotism.” It’s understandable, though. Everyone, including the North Koreans, tends to identify with the place they were born. But these things should be fairly low on any list of virtues.

Nationalism is the belief that my country is the best country in the world just because I happen to have been born there. It’s most virulent during wars and elections. And it’s very scary. It’s like watching a bunch of chimpanzees hooting and panting at another tribe of chimpanzees across the watering hole. I have no interest in being a part of the charade—although that’s dangerous.

And getting more dangerous as the State grows more powerful. The growth of the State is actually destroying society. Over the last 100 years the State has grown at an exponential rate, and it’s the enemy of the individual. I see no reason why this trend, which has been in motion and accelerating for so long, is going to stop. And certainly no reason why it’s going to reverse.

It’s like a giant snowball that’s been rolling downhill from the top of the mountain. It could have been stopped early in its descent, but now the thing is a behemoth. If you stand in its way you’ll get crushed. It will stop only when it smashes the village at the bottom of the valley.

This makes me quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US. As I said, it’s been in a downtrend for many decades. But the events of September 11, 2001, turbocharged the acceleration of the loss of liberty in the US. At some point either foreign or domestic enemies will cause another 9/11, either real or imagined. It’s predictable; that’s what sociopaths do.

When there is another 9/11—and we will have another one—they’re going to lock down this country like one of their numerous new prisons.

It’s going to become very unpleasant in the US at some point soon. It seems to me the inevitable is becoming imminent.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately there’s little any individual can practically do to change the trajectory of this trend in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible.

That’s precisely why New York Times bestselling author Doug Casey just released an urgent new video that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to watch it now.


Be seeing you


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

Tucker Carlson Is Astonishingly Wrong About Any Looming Threat of Totalitarianism in America

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2020

In contrast was Rubin. At 14:00, he announced: “I’m quite enthused about the world right now.” About what? This: “There’s a new world coming on the horizon” (14:07). It is a world in people will be able to work where they want because of telecommuting. He offered a 30-second sermon on liberation. He said: “This is still America.” Yes, it is. He had admitted that there is a problem with the suppression of information, but he makes it clear that he does not believe that this is a technological imperative, nor does he believe that it is a political imperative.

Gary North

I am impressed with Tucker Carlson.

I don’t watch Fox News, but I watch Carlson’s verbal editorials several times a month.

He has a gift for public speaking. He discusses things rationally. He also has a gift for rhetoric. He doesn’t just state the facts. He interprets them and then gives people encouragement to resist some of the trends of our day. There are a lot of really bad trends in our day. But, then again, there always are.

Recently, he came up with this term: “flu d’tat.” Anyone who could do this is my kind of guy.

He writes his own editorials. No one else could. Then he delivers them verbally.

This video is worth watching. It is worth watching because he skewers some leftists who really deserve to be skewered, including the ever-petulant Mark Zuckerberg. Second, he made a major error that needs to be nipped in the bud.

This is an almost flawless editorial. He showed a clip from the suppressed YouTube video by the physicians. He showed a clip from a YouTube spokeswoman defending the removal of the video. He showed a clip from Zuckerberg on Facebook’s suppression of inconvenient ideas.

He did this to present his case that we are facing a totalitarian movement. We have moved to a new phase of American history.

There was a major flaw in this editorial. You may have missed it. This flaw calls his editorial into question. Did you spot it?

The flaw was the man he interviewed. That man has it right. Carlson has it wrong.

The man was polite. He didn’t call Carlson’s thesis into question. Carlson seemed unaware of the fact that the man was overturning his case for the editorial. His name is Dave Rubin. He has written a book: Don’t Burn This Book (2020).

Rubin is a technician. He is trying to set up alternative sources of online communications to challenge YouTube and Facebook. I don’t think he’s going to be successful in this, but I certainly approve of the attempt. If he can make a profit doing it, so much the better. If he doesn’t make a profit, then it’s a futile effort.

Rubin did not use the word “totalitarian.” He used the word “authoritarian.” This distinction may not seem to be important, but, conceptually speaking, it is the heart of the matter.

Carlson kept bringing up the word “totalitarian.” This was a mistake. It made for a riveting editorial. It was a persuasive rhetorical term. But it made for bad analysis.

Because Rubin is correct, at the end of the interview, he displayed remarkable optimism. It is this optimism that we should adopt. But, before we do this, I must discuss definitions.


Totalitarianism is a very specific kind of political order. It is an order in which the central government not merely undermines but actively destroys voluntary organizations. These organizations possess legitimacy. People trust them to deliver certain benefits in their lives. These organizations therefore possess authority. They are independent of the central government. The central government has to either destroy them or take them over by force. This is what was done in the Soviet Union. It is what was done in Communist China. It is what is done in North Korea.

In contrast, authoritarians recognize that they need the support of independent organizations. They know that they cannot stamp them out entirely. Therefore, they attempt to influence them indirectly. They may even subsidize them. They grant carrots, but there are sticks attached to the carrots. They buy off the leaders of these decentralized agencies of authority. Sometimes, they outlaw certain activities of these organizations, but they do not attempt to stamp them out. The authoritarian recognizes that he needs the support of decentralized organizations that possess legitimacy.

If you want a familiar example of this, consider tax exemption. It is granted by the Internal Revenue Service. This is a tremendous benefit to nonprofit organizations. Donations are tax-deductible. So, more money comes in for the causes. But, in order to get this grant of exemption, the organizations must not indulge in political activity. They can sometimes lose their tax exemption if they pursue certain policies that are considered politically incorrect by the nation’s bipartisan leadership. The threat of the loss of the tax exemption pressures the leaders of these organizations to toe the line on certain issues, but certainly not on all issues. The granting of tax exemption is not a mark of totalitarianism. It is a mark of authoritarianism. There is a difference.

Two generations ago, Hannah Arendt wrote a book: The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). There is a Wikipedia entry on the book. It is one of the most important books of the 20th century. Wikipedia offers an extract, which is representative. She discussed the character and intellect of totalitarian leaders.

Intellectual, spiritual, and artistic initiative is as dangerous to totalitarianism as the gangster initiative of the mob, and both are more dangerous than mere political opposition. The consistent persecution of every higher form of intellectual activity by the new mass leaders springs from more than their natural resentment against everything they cannot understand. Total domination does not allow for free initiative in any field of life, for any activity that is not entirely predictable. Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

Lessons From Atlas Shrugged – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 16, 2019

On the other hand, the man with a purpose doesn’t view becoming rich as an ultimate end, nor a destination. Rather it is a means to and a reflection of his purpose, and a continuous journey in pursuit of bettering himself. If the collectivists want to admonish the latter traits as abhorrent, then they need to rethink their principles.

Lessons From Atlas Shrugged: The Playboy


Ayn Rand’s 1957 dystopian novel Atlas Shrugged remains a controversial piece of literature to this day. It is generally remembered for its advocacy of free market capitalism, something hardly revered in the age of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez socialism. While many chastise the book−some even proclaiming that they will “burn the book!” (yes, I actually knew someone who held this view; a bit reminiscent of Nazi Germany I must say) −perhaps some of us find it rather enlightening to the soul. Beyond its political implications, Atlas Shrugged provides for us a complex life philosophy to guide the rational man. In this series of articles, I will endeavor to take apart some of the “lessons” embedded in this philosophy.

What is the ultimate objective of Atlas Shrugged? Throughout the work, via the use of various characters, Rand points out the need for one to find purpose in life. For if one has no purpose, they are just aimlessly droning on. But Rand’s definition of purpose transcends the empty words of the cliché “find your purpose in life!” It is rather a yearning for a higher sensation which surpasses material satisfaction. This sensation is embodied in a number of things. Namely−accomplishment, influence, power (not political, but economic power gained through knowing you’ve satisfied the wants of consumers via voluntary exchanges). It is that feeling you get when you sit back, undetected by most, knowing how much you’ve changed society, how many dominos you have made fall, despite remaining under the radar. Hank Rearden’s dilemma, that is to say, trying to reach this higher sensation whilst being plundered by the state and the egalitarian mindset ingrained in society, paints this picture quite well.

If Rand emphasizes the need for a purpose in life that transcends empty words, how could so many criticize Rand and Randians as mere materialists who are simply wasting resources that could be better allocated? If entrepreneurs (including aspiring) desire to reach that higher sensation as described by Rand, why are they admonished by society as “greedy bastards?” Why is it seen as a sin by their contemporaries for scientists to want to profit off of their discoveries, if they view this as a means to reaching that sensation (As is the case with the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged)?

The truth of the matter is that those individuals described above have nothing to do with the descriptions and pejoratives assigned to them by much of contemporary society. They are not plundering resources that should be redistributed to those “in need” (whatever this means). They are not engaging in hedonistic self-indulgence, contrary to popular belief. Rather, the material gains they take on are simply a means to that higher sensation. It provides something for the individual to look back and reflect on, allowing him to think “Damn. I actually did that.” Thus, the lesson to be presented here is Rand’s distinction between “the man with a purpose” and the playboy. And she brilliantly weaves this into a scene involving Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart.

In the scene, Hank and Dagny were driving in a countryside and decided to stop at a very luxurious inn. Hank notices the types of people around him, commenting: “I’ve never despised luxury, yet I’ve always despised those who enjoyed it. I looked at what they call their pleasures and it seemed so miserably senseless to me−after what I felt at the mills. I used to watch steel being poured, tons of liquid steel running as I wanted it to, where I wanted it. And then I’d go to a banquet and I’d see people who sat trembling in awe before their own gold dishes and lace tablecloths, as if their dining room were the master and they were just objects serving it, objects created by their diamond shirt studs and necklaces, not the other way around. Then I’d run to the sight of the first slag heap I could find−and they’d say that I didn’t know how to enjoy life, because I cared for nothing but business.”

Hank then further comments: “Dagny, look at those people. They’re supposed to be the playboys of life; the amusement-seekers and luxury-lovers. They sit there, waiting for this place to give them meaning, not the other way around. But they’re always shown to us as the enjoyers of material pleasures—and then we’re taught that enjoyment of material pleasures is evil. Enjoyment? Are they enjoying it? Is there some sort of perversion in what we’re taught, some error that’s vicious and very important?”

In essence, Rand distinguishes the dichotomy of the individual and the object for both the man with a purpose and the playboy. For the playboy, material objects provide some sort of motivation and direction. They make the playboy feel content with himself. Since he lacks a guiding compass, a sense of purpose in life, he looks to these material objects to make himself appear grandiose and purposeful. In reality, he is very insecure in himself, and uses these material objects as a cover.

In contrast, the man with a purpose puts meaning into the objects themselves. That is to say, he reverses the dichotomy to signify that the objects deserve to be in his presence. For he has grinded his way to victory and has proven that he has a purpose in what he does. He has set himself as the standard through devoting countless years to making himself such. He can thus now look back upon it all and vindicate himself from the criticisms of cynics and sceptics.

Hank’s proclamation questioning if the playboys are really enjoying the material pleasures holds significant truth. For the playboy has no sense of accomplishment and is merely plundering his resources to quench his inferiority complex. We see this with rappers constantly bragging about the shoes and cars they have. On the other hand, the man with a purpose doesn’t view becoming rich as an ultimate end, nor a destination. Rather it is a means to and a reflection of his purpose, and a continuous journey in pursuit of bettering himself. If the collectivists want to admonish the latter traits as abhorrent, then they need to rethink their principles. For being rich and aimlessly droning on in life is no virtue. But how could reaching towards a purpose be a vice? Namely, what moral basis is there for society to strip one of their purpose?

We may now all ask ourselves: What sense does it make to say that all rich men are plunderers of resources and playboys (as society paints it)?

Be seeing you

Ayn Rand — Atlas Shrugged — Videos | Pronk Palisades






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

Aldi’s Owners Gained Riches by Cutting Prices – The Burning Platform

Posted by M. C. on December 3, 2019

Via Cato

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders continued to bash wealth in the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night. They view wealth as a zero-sum—that people at the top essentially stole their fortunes from the rest of us. Sanders said, “And we cannot afford a billionaire class, whose greed and corruption has been at war with the working families of this country for 45 years.”

The truth is that many of the richest people in market economies generated their fortunes by raising living standards for working families. Entrepreneurs have continuously slashed prices and improved product quality to the particular benefit of folks at the bottom.

I visited a new Aldi grocery store near me in Virginia last night. What a no-nonsense operation! The store was packed with customers. The secret is “no frills” and low prices.

The Wall Street Journal profiled Aldi today:

German discount chains Aldi and Lidl are capturing a larger share of U.S. grocery bills and pressuring U.S. retailers to respond.

The privately owned foreign companies have increased sales with their simpler stores that offer fewer products at lower prices. In response, U.S. grocers are lowering prices on staples such as milk and eggs and adding more products the discounters aren’t known for, such as fresh foods. The battle comes as supermarkets already are fighting to keep customers from shopping more online.

… Walmart executive Steve Bratspies said at a recent conference that the giant retailer is counting on its wider range of products and equally low prices to keep customers loyal. Other discounters are feeling the pressure to cut prices to match Aldi and Lidl. “You need to be at the lowest price to be taken seriously by your customer,” said Eric Lindberg, chief executive of Grocery Outlet Holdings Corp.

Aldi is owned by the Albrecht family of Germany, which Forbes counts as one of the richest in the world. They made their fortune not on the backs of the poor, but by serving the poor and everyone else. Food represents a relatively higher share of living costs for lower-income households.

I’m guessing that the Albrecht’s $36 billion fortune does not represent gold bars hidden under their mattresses at home in Germany. But rather it is active business capital deployed to serve millions of Aldi customers and push down prices and profits at other chains.

I don’t know whether Sanders and Warren shop at discount stores, but they should consider that much of the wealth they want to penalize stems from such entrepreneurial efforts—efforts that reduce poverty through innovation, competition, and reduced prices.

Be seeing you


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

City Hall Forbids Developer from Giving Consumers What They Want | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 16, 2019

Developers are always highly incentivized to identify superior opportunities. They do not need the government to encourage them.

Politicians habitually promise us greater economic prosperity, but their official policies usually contradict their promises. And if you dare to point out this contradiction, you will be ignored, as happened recently in London, Ontario.

First, let’s consider the source of economic prosperity.

Economic Prosperity is Driven by Entrepreneurs and Consumers

John, an entrepreneur, leases a building, buys materials, and hires workers to produce washing machines. If he is profitable, this means he has taken various factors of production – labor, raw materials, land (the building) – and combined them in such a manner that they are worth more as washing machines than the sum of their parts. That is, they’re now worth more to him than what he paid for them. He has created wealth. The new washing machines raise the standard of living of his customers. Profits are the market’s way – the consumers’ way – of telling John to continue doing what he is doing. He is using resources efficiently. Economic prosperity rises.

In contrast, losses mean that John has taken these various factors of production and combined them in such a manner that they are worth less as washing machines than the sum of their parts i.e. less than what he paid for them. He has destroyed wealth. Losses are the market’s way – the consumers’ way – of telling John to stop doing what he is doing. He is wasting resources.

Thus, economic prosperity flows from the efficient allocation of resources as determined by consumers in an unhampered market.

Economic Prosperity According to Government

In contrast, politicians believe the most efficient way to allocate resources is with arbitrary political edicts.

A case in point: City Council in London, Ontario refused a request to amend a zoning by-law to extend the Temporary Use of a developer’s ( Bradel Properties ) downtown property as a commercial parking lot.

City Hall’s report emphasizes “efficient use of land and resources” and says continued use of the parking lot discourages future development. Acceptable downtown development, according to City Hall, includes “retail; service; office; institutional; entertainment; cultural; high density residential; transportation; recreational; and open space uses.” However, “transportation” does not include parking lots because ( report p 6 ):

“The long-term use of the subject property as a commercial parking lot encourages vehicle trips to the downtown, which is inconsistent with the aforementioned PPS policies.”

Accommodating cars is inconsistent with the government’s policy of promoting “transit-supportive” development, based on concerns about climate change. Whether you agree or disagree with the government, it is clear that these policies do not encourage development, nor do they make the most efficient use of land and resources.

In most cities, cars are a far more preferred mode of transportation than the government’s public transit system. If development does not accommodate cars, development will be slow or non-existent. According to one major developer :

“The most important reason London has 700,000 sq. ft. of vacant office space in the downtown is because we do not have enough convenient parking,” said Shmuel Farhi, a top core property owner. “Every spot lost means one less potential new downtown worker.”

Moreover, John Fleming, London’s bureaucrat in charge of planning, admitted :

“It would be a lot easier if we knew that once parking lot permission is withdrawn, somebody would by default develop the land. We know that that’s going to take some time, and in that time, we’re going to potentially have a vacant piece of land that’s not being used.”

Exactly! Fleming’s comment reveals the ignorance of City Hall’s claim that continued use of the parking lot discourages future development. Developers are always highly incentivized to identify superior opportunities. They do not need the government to encourage them. If Bradel believed an opportunity was available to better satisfy the preferences of consumers (i.e. higher profits than the parking lot), the property would have already been developed accordingly…

Can You Plan Your Own Life?

The pinnacle of economic prosperity is achieved only when consumers and entrepreneurs are free to plan their own affairs through voluntary, unfettered association. Any manner of government intervention in these affairs is economically regressive. As George Reisman wrote (p 137–38):

“The overwhelming majority of people have not realized that all the thinking and planning about their economic activities that they perform in their capacity as individuals actually is economic planning. By the same token, the term “planning” has been reserved for the feeble efforts of a comparative handful of government officials, who, having prohibited the planning of everyone else, presume to substitute their knowledge and intelligence for the knowledge and intelligence of tens of millions, and to call that planning. This is an incredible state of affairs, one which implies the most enormous ignorance on the part of the great majority of today’s intellectuals, from journalists to professors.”…

Be seeing you

6 CARTOONS: The Central Planning #BeliefSystem Is Breaking ...


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

How to Turn America into a Shit-hole Country in 4 Easy Steps | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on April 19, 2019

By Joe Jarvis

Opening up the floodgates of immigration to people from shit-hole countries would not actually be a problem if America was a free country.

If people were free to keep what they earn instead of having it redistributed, free to defend themselves and their loved ones wherever they went, free to become entrepreneurs without impossible protectionist regulations, America would absorb and assimilate any number of immigrants and refugees.

That’s what happened when Ireland, Italy, and Scotland were shit-hole countries where my ancestors emigrated from. The Irish were poor as dirt, fleeing a famine. The Italians brought the murderous Mafia.

And according to Thomas Sowell in his book Black Rednecks, White Liberals, the Scottish immigrants started the southern redneck culture, ready to fight and kill at the tiniest insult to defend their “honor.”

But a lot has changed since then. You can’t leave your home without breaking a law, so American policing agencies would have to spend a lot of time, energy, and tax dollars beating the ‘Merica into new immigrants.

But why blame the immigrants instead of the system?

1. Tax the citizens’ wealth away (or just steal it outright)

Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax as part of her campaign platform for President 2020.

This would tax the entire net worth of individuals worth over $50 million, every single year.

This eventually guarantees that no one worth over $50 million lives in the United States. At which point the tax will creep down to the middle class as it always does (especially if inflation makes millionaires of all of us)… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment » The Holiday Oddly Called “Labor Day”

Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2018

Labor is a necessary part of the equation and yes, unions were started for a reason but…
What advances man beyond the stage of a land-labor existence is when capital and entrepreneurship are added to the equation especially when capitalists and entrepreneurs are allowed to operate freely in a complete laissez-faire environment.

In other words – It takes a village.

Just try not to think where the phrase came from.

By Robert Wenzel

You have to give it to socialists, lefties and interventionists in general, they are pretty slick when it comes to naming key elements of their movement.

Take for example the word socialism, what the hell exactly is social about socialism?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary includes in its definition of social:

marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with friends or associates

living and breeding in more or less organized communities especially for the purposes of cooperation and mutual benefit

None of this has anything to do with socialism. Socialism is about authoritarianism. The control of some over others. It is not about mutual benefit. It is about required action determined by authorities, backed up by force—since it is so distant from mutual benefit. If it was about mutual benefit, coercion wouldn’t be involved.

Socialism is many things but it is not “pleasant companionship” if the way you desire to act is in conflict with socialist leaders’ demands.

Then, of course, there is the word, progressive, used by interventionists who favor putting limitations on free markets and the accompanying advances. It is in fact regressive.

This brings me to today’s holiday here in the United States and Canada, Labor Day, which was created by anti-labor group leaders, that is, union leaders… Read the rest of this entry »

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