Recommended video from CATO Institute:
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/reasons-you-are-libertarian
For all, regardless of political persuasion.
-IVLG
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Free? Trade
How "free" is Free Trade?
It's not. The only thing free about free trade is the freedom to push for any special treatment you want. Which quickly and regularly negates the first half of the operation's name... Free.
Individuals with influence do this all the time. Special treatment.
I once was talking with an employee at a zoo. During our conversation, a big-name movie star, celebrity type came into the zoo with her children. Immediately she wanted special treatment: a golf cart to shuttle her and her kids to each exhibit, food and beverages, and a gift bag for the kids when they left. This person paid for nothing. Amazing? Normal. Too normal.
The same goes for any of the world's economic leaders. All of them have gained their economic status as a result of foreign trade. This trade between nations is typically governed by trade agreements. The details of these agreements are not always free of elements of protectionism. Often, and nearly always, trade agreements include "provisions" for tariffs and duties on products which a nation is attempting to discourage other countries from exporting to them. They are "protecting" their economy from the competitive imports they receive from other countries.
Crazy!
If you're not competitive with your trading partners, improve or find something you are competitive at!
What is your government really protecting you from? Lower prices. That doesn't seem like protection, though, does it?
"Well, they're protecting our jobs, though." How so? If everyone could buy everything cheaper than they are now through the removal of tariffs, do you think there's a possibility that some of that money may be invested in technologies and industries in your home country? The quick answer is "Of course it could and most likely would, as a normal part of any healthy economy."
I'm ready for free trade.
Bring it on.
It's not. The only thing free about free trade is the freedom to push for any special treatment you want. Which quickly and regularly negates the first half of the operation's name... Free.
Individuals with influence do this all the time. Special treatment.
I once was talking with an employee at a zoo. During our conversation, a big-name movie star, celebrity type came into the zoo with her children. Immediately she wanted special treatment: a golf cart to shuttle her and her kids to each exhibit, food and beverages, and a gift bag for the kids when they left. This person paid for nothing. Amazing? Normal. Too normal.
The same goes for any of the world's economic leaders. All of them have gained their economic status as a result of foreign trade. This trade between nations is typically governed by trade agreements. The details of these agreements are not always free of elements of protectionism. Often, and nearly always, trade agreements include "provisions" for tariffs and duties on products which a nation is attempting to discourage other countries from exporting to them. They are "protecting" their economy from the competitive imports they receive from other countries.
Crazy!
If you're not competitive with your trading partners, improve or find something you are competitive at!
What is your government really protecting you from? Lower prices. That doesn't seem like protection, though, does it?
"Well, they're protecting our jobs, though." How so? If everyone could buy everything cheaper than they are now through the removal of tariffs, do you think there's a possibility that some of that money may be invested in technologies and industries in your home country? The quick answer is "Of course it could and most likely would, as a normal part of any healthy economy."
I'm ready for free trade.
Bring it on.
Nuclear Iran: US Foreign Policy
In today's "global village" foreign relations is immeasurably important.
First and foremost, a nation has a responsibility to its citizens to
engage in relationships with other countries for economic reasons. When
you're the United States, it's an absolute necessity. How about politics? Today the United States gives away billions of dollars to other countries in the name of... Charity? Good Sportsmanship? Fairness? Economic Interest?
But, how far is too far? Should we be telling other countries what they can and can't do? If you think so, should other countries be telling the USA what to do?
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." -George Washington, 1796
Why do politicians tax our incomes then throw it over an ocean or two? WHY!?
They believe they're better judges of who needs my money than I am. Why else would they do it? WHY!?
WHY!?
But, how far is too far? Should we be telling other countries what they can and can't do? If you think so, should other countries be telling the USA what to do?
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." -George Washington, 1796
Why do politicians tax our incomes then throw it over an ocean or two? WHY!?
They believe they're better judges of who needs my money than I am. Why else would they do it? WHY!?
WHY!?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Interventionism and the Jobless Rate
The jobless rate has shot up to 10.2% according to a story in USA Today. Now, in the video that covers this story on USA Today's website, AP reporter Mark Hambrick says that if you factor in those people who have settled for part time work or have given up altogether, the rate is 17.5%. So, what is the real jobless rate? Well, we may all agree that the real rate is those who are actually without work and are still looking, that's a fair definition. However, the fact that the other numbers aren't reported to everyone, or aren't widely known seems to be... misleading? deceptive? Here's one person's take on it.
Now the question is: "What does interventionism have to do with the jobless rate, and what does that even mean, anyway?" Slow down, there. One at a time.
First, interventionism is defined by Wikipedia, here. Basically, it's when a government feels an undying need to interfere in an economy. For details on that, just google the word "federal" and add any of the following names of these Fortune 500 companies: AIG, GM, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc. For more interesting information on the history of government bailouts, click here.
Now for how this effects the jobless rate. I'll start with a question: Have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1920? No? You're thinking of the Great Depression of the 30's, right? There was a Great Depression in 1920-21, but it ended after about 18 months. How did we recover so quickly? I'm glad you asked! Well, listen carefully... The government did nothing. That's right, nothing. Well, that's not entirely true. They cut spending. What?! The government cut spending? That's absolutely absurd, you say? Well, that's what they did. Other than that, they did nothing. No propping up banks, no bailing out large corporations, no TARP, no TALF, no New Deal, nada. Nothing. Does that just defy all logic? Well, then doesn't that make you wonder for a moment, just for a split-second, "Could the Great Depression of the 30's have been much less painful for everyone had the government cut spending and kept out of business altogether?" Now that we've opened that possibility, read this article by Tom Woods (mentioned earlier in the IVLG blog). Then, track down this book by Amity Shlaes, entitled "The Forgotten Man." Both are well worth your time and will help you to get a clearer picture of what is really happening to your country right now.
Now the question is: "What does interventionism have to do with the jobless rate, and what does that even mean, anyway?" Slow down, there. One at a time.
First, interventionism is defined by Wikipedia, here. Basically, it's when a government feels an undying need to interfere in an economy. For details on that, just google the word "federal" and add any of the following names of these Fortune 500 companies: AIG, GM, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc. For more interesting information on the history of government bailouts, click here.
Now for how this effects the jobless rate. I'll start with a question: Have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1920? No? You're thinking of the Great Depression of the 30's, right? There was a Great Depression in 1920-21, but it ended after about 18 months. How did we recover so quickly? I'm glad you asked! Well, listen carefully... The government did nothing. That's right, nothing. Well, that's not entirely true. They cut spending. What?! The government cut spending? That's absolutely absurd, you say? Well, that's what they did. Other than that, they did nothing. No propping up banks, no bailing out large corporations, no TARP, no TALF, no New Deal, nada. Nothing. Does that just defy all logic? Well, then doesn't that make you wonder for a moment, just for a split-second, "Could the Great Depression of the 30's have been much less painful for everyone had the government cut spending and kept out of business altogether?" Now that we've opened that possibility, read this article by Tom Woods (mentioned earlier in the IVLG blog). Then, track down this book by Amity Shlaes, entitled "The Forgotten Man." Both are well worth your time and will help you to get a clearer picture of what is really happening to your country right now.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Real Cost of Gov't Intervention
Recent figures on the true cost of the Cash for Clunkers program and the First-time Home Buyers Tax Credit program show they are costing the government a lot of money... Let me rephrase that: YOU, the American taxpayer, are getting pick-pocketed by the U.S. government, and they can't even do that efficiently.
To elaborate, the brilliant Cash-for-Clunkers program was intended to boost car sales and to get gas guzzlers off the road, which would be replaced by shiny new fuel-efficient vehicles. For every clunker you bring in, you get $4500 toward the price of a newer, more efficient car. In order to administrate this program, the government has to pay people. They can't work for free, right? So, for every car that was purchased under this program, the cost to the government (i.e. you and me), was $24,000. What a bargain, huh? So, 690,000 cars @ $24,000/ea = $16.56 billion. Every man, woman and child in the U.S. just committed $50.95 each to this magnificent success of a program, give or take a dime. Keep in mind, too, this isn't really the case, though, because no children actually pay taxes and not every man or woman pays taxes either. So, for the taxpaying American, that number goes up.
Now, let's discuss the First-time Home Buyers Tax Credit program. This piece of work promised that the government, (read: you), would essentially pay $8,000 to anyone who chooses to buy a home for the first time, including four-year-old children. So far, this program is costing the government $10.8 billion in lost taxes. The trickle-down comes to $33.23 for every man, woman, and child in America. I say "So far" because it's not over. This program has been so great that it's being expanded! I should note again that the cost per taxpayer is different than the cost per person within the borders of the United States.
What does this imply for the national deficit or the budget deficit? Well, that's a whole different story that will need to be addressed later. I will give you a preview: it's not good news.
To elaborate, the brilliant Cash-for-Clunkers program was intended to boost car sales and to get gas guzzlers off the road, which would be replaced by shiny new fuel-efficient vehicles. For every clunker you bring in, you get $4500 toward the price of a newer, more efficient car. In order to administrate this program, the government has to pay people. They can't work for free, right? So, for every car that was purchased under this program, the cost to the government (i.e. you and me), was $24,000. What a bargain, huh? So, 690,000 cars @ $24,000/ea = $16.56 billion. Every man, woman and child in the U.S. just committed $50.95 each to this magnificent success of a program, give or take a dime. Keep in mind, too, this isn't really the case, though, because no children actually pay taxes and not every man or woman pays taxes either. So, for the taxpaying American, that number goes up.
Now, let's discuss the First-time Home Buyers Tax Credit program. This piece of work promised that the government, (read: you), would essentially pay $8,000 to anyone who chooses to buy a home for the first time, including four-year-old children. So far, this program is costing the government $10.8 billion in lost taxes. The trickle-down comes to $33.23 for every man, woman, and child in America. I say "So far" because it's not over. This program has been so great that it's being expanded! I should note again that the cost per taxpayer is different than the cost per person within the borders of the United States.
What does this imply for the national deficit or the budget deficit? Well, that's a whole different story that will need to be addressed later. I will give you a preview: it's not good news.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tom Woods
For our first post of substance, we'd like to feature Tom Woods (http://www.thomasewoods.com/). Dr. Woods is an author, educator, and a defender of liberty. We encourage you to browse his website for the many resources that are available there free of charge. In addition, he has written some insightful books that are worth the purchase price (Amazon book list: http://tinyurl.com/yfdp7u9). Tom has libertarian ideas about government and he advocates Austrian economic theory, which we'll discuss further in a later post. For now, take a look at his work and do some reading. A good place to start is with his bestseller, Meltdown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)