Much of Western culture and law can trace its origin back to this city of 2,500 years ago. The ancient Athenians learned that democracy is fragile and can lead to bad outcomes — not that other governing systems have proved to be more successful over the long run.
One of the fatal flaws of democracy is the recurring irrationality of the people to vote themselves benefits that they are unwilling to pay for. The idea of getting something for nothing is so powerful that politicians have used the same con everywhere on the planet for thousands of years.
The end is always the same. The music stops when the cupboard is empty. Greece is now Exhibit A in Europe, with others soon to follow.
For about four decades, that headline has most often been applied to the threat of global warming. Every couple of years, some notable comes out with a pronouncement that the governments of the world only have 5 or 10 years to make fundamental changes or we are all toast. The deadlines come and go, without action, and most people carry on with life as they always have.
Today, a number of Democrat politicians are telling us we have only 12 years to get rid of airplanes, farting cows and other hazards. Al Gore, of course, endorsed the policy proposals. Let’s thank them for sharing.
Meanwhile, there is a real crisis that is much more likely to adversely affect most people’s lives much sooner and with greater consequences than climate change, and that is the rise in government debt as a percentage of GDP in many of the major countries.
Such as someone who writes for The New York Times under the name of Michelle Alexander, who wrote a column published December 21, “None of Us Deserve Citizenship”
One of her choice sentences: “But for slavery, genocide, and colonization, we would not be the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world — in fact, our nation would not even exist.” Hmm.
Both North and South America were colonized by European countries that practiced slavery, and the United States was not the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery. That would be Brazil in 1888.
Ms. Alexander fails to explain to us why the United States became the wealthiest country, when the “genocide” she blames occurred mostly before the English colonization (that is, prior to the mid-1600s) and that slavery was common all through the Americas until the mid-1800s, not long before or after the United States abolished it.
She fails because she failed to get a decent education.
Zurich, Switzerland. What do the Paris riots, Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the dusky gopher frog, and Peter Wallison’s new book “Judicial Fortitude” all have in common?
They are all signs that the peasants have had it with the bureaucratic state and the smug elitists who have been ruling the globe. Despite never-ending attempts to quash it, the basic human desire for liberty keeps re-emerging.
Kings and assorted tyrants have attempted to rule their fellow man from the beginning of time. Democracy was created as a way of allowing the people to express their grievances and obtain change without violence. Constitutional republics, such as the United States and Switzerland, were created as a way of restraining government’s ability to diminish the liberties of the people.
The forces of control retaliated by empowering bureaucracies to ignore the will of the people. Yet they seem impossible to stop smothering our freedom, much less get rid of them. How do we do this? There is a way.
Berlin, Germany. Even though the Berlin Wall was destroyed more than a quarter-century ago and the city rebuilt, new propaganda wars are being waged here and elsewhere by the major and some minor powers in a more sophisticated way than the Soviets ever imagined.
Disinformation has always been a staple of states and spies, but now the world’s airways are being swamped with state-controlled TV “news” stations. Of the 83 TV channels I have access to in my hotel room, roughly 32 of the 51 non-German channels are largely owned or controlled by various governments.
This includes the Russian, Chinese, Qatar (Al Jazeera), Thai, Vietnamese, Armenian, Turkish, and Cuban governments. The Russian, Chinese, Qatar, Japanese and French governments have full-time English-language channels here in Berlin, clearly designed to reach an audience outside of their home-country nationals who may be living in or visiting Berlin.
These are almost entirely commercial-free channels, paid for by the taxpayers of their respective countries, and are now found in most major cities in the world, at some considerable cost. The question is: Why are they doing it?
Do you support free speech? How about free speech for climate change skeptics? For homophobes? For racists? For sexists? For white males? For even Donald Trump?
Those who defend free speech, as did the American Founding Fathers, understand it is not about defending speech you agree with, but defending speech you disagree with. Without free speech, there is no liberty.
The State Department diversity officer, John Robinson, has just warned the staff that they may be penalized for engaging in "microaggressions," which include jokes or other comments that someone who hears them may find offensive.
In a recent letter, he referred to a definition of microaggressions as "everyday verbal, nonverbal and environmental slights, snubs or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory or negative messages to target persons." In other words, whatever you hear may be considered a microaggression if you choose to be offended.
Such vague and infinitely elastic laws and regulations are the bread and butter of all totalitarian regimes.
The presidential candidates have been decrying the real stagnation in income over the last seven years. People are unhappy but are not rioting in the streets. Why aren’t they?
Because despite wage stagnation, most people are living much better. How can that be? It is because those reviled capitalists all over the world are creating more and better goods and services at lower cost, and in doing so improving everyone’s real standard of living, well-being and happiness.
There are now 2.6 billion smart phones in the world — a product that is less than 20 years old. The Apple iPhone is only 10 years old, but it has changed the world.
Some economists have calculated that 20 years ago, if one had to buy all of the devices that do what iPhone apps can do, it would have cost much more than $3 million (that does not include those features that could not have been bought at any price two decades ago because the technology did not exist).
And that’s only the start of an endless succession of million dollar gifts capitalism has bestowed upon each of us.
If a member of Congress told you that he was going to use some of your hard-earned tax dollars to support an international organization that demands that you pay higher taxes, what would you say?
Unfortunately, the question is not hypothetical, because that is exactly what is now happening. Congress is giving more than $70 million a year to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which has morphed over the last two decades from an organization that promoted trade and growth policies to an organization that pushes for higher taxes, which will reduce economic growth.
Meanwhile, the organization’s officials and lobbyists in Washington undertook an active campaign to wine and dine members of Congress and other agents of influence in order to preserve the funding they obtain from U.S. taxpayers, which accounts for about 25 percent of the OECD budget.
Here’s how we’ve been sold out for the cost of a nice lunch.
What the world’s major central banks have been doing is not working. Rather than go back to the tried and true, they are now digging in deeper on policies that are bound to fail, such as the move to negative interest rates, which many will find personally harmful.
The first bank-like institutions started more than 2,000 years ago by serving as a place for safekeeping of one’s gold and silver coins, with the understanding that the “bank” would lend out some of these coins in exchange for a payment — known as interest.
But now the financial world has been upended with the efforts of the major central banks to ...
This past week, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court gave notice that there is a limit to how much of their and Congress’ power they will allow the executive branch to grab.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been expanding its own definitions of what it is able to do under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court, in essence, said enough is enough when it put a stay on the EPA’s initiative to limit carbon emissions from power plants, in response to suits brought by several dozen states and industry groups. This was just one of several recent defeats of the EPA by the courts.
The tragic loss of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did, at least, ignite a discussion of the proper way to interpret the Constitution and may cause the next president to pick more justices who respect liberty. As Justice Scalia once noted: “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”
The American Founders created three branches of government — the legislative, judicial and executive — to serve as checks and balances on each other in order to limit the abuse of the people by those in government.
The Founders also created America as a federal constitutional republic and not as a democracy. This distinction, which too few Americans understand, is what preserves our liberties, even though many have been eroded.
What does a "progressive" stand for? How does this differ from what a liberal, conservative or libertarian stands for?
More so than in most years, the presidential candidates are debating about labels. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders got into an argument last week about what a progressive is, and Mrs. Clinton enlightened everyone by telling us "the root of that word, progressive, is progress."
There are two conflicting philosophical views as to the proper role of government. One sees the role of the state to protect the individual from the transgressions of others, while at the same time protecting the individual from the state in order to ensure individual liberty.
The other view is that the function of government is to protect the collective, and to directly provide for individual needs.
Correctly said, there is an endless struggle between "libertarians" and "statists."
A major reason for the growing distrust of government is the double standard whereby government officials and employees often suffer no consequences from incompetence, misbehavior and even criminal violations of the law.
In the common law, there is a general principle that if a person is damaged by the actions of others through negligence or illegal behavior, he or she has a right to redress.
The actions of government officials and employees are often far more damaging than those in the private sector, but they are protected by “sovereign immunity” and civil service protections.
Sovereign immunity is a “legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.” It comes from the ancient concept that the “king can do no wrong.”
Since we don’t have kings in America, one way to get rid of much corruption and criminal malfeasance by government bureaucrats would be to substantially get rid of sovereign immunity. Let’s take what’s happened in Flint, Michigan as an example.
Do you know what socialism is? Hillary Clinton struggled to find an answer when recently asked.
Socialism is a system in which the government owns or controls the means of production, and allocates resources and rewards.
Sen. Bernie Sanders proudly proclaims himself a “democratic socialist.” Many in the Democratic Party seem to have no problem with this and, in fact, are embracing him and his ideas.
America -- and its unique success as a nation -- was built around individual liberty and opportunity, not collective coercion. All too many no longer understand what the American Founders were trying to, and largely did, achieve. It is a tragedy that too few Americans understand the dangers of unlimited government.
The young people who support Mr. Sanders, and even Hillary, seem to be generally ignorant of why America worked. Many do not want the government to restrict unfettered abortions or their right to smoke pot, but seem to be oblivious that socialism and big government makes everyone into an economic slave.
There will be a recession in the United States and much of the rest of the world in 2016.
After reading the above sentence, you should be thinking, what possibly could the writer know that the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration do not know given all their resources and all of their professional economic forecasters?
If one looks at the forecast record of the IMF and the Fed over the past several decades, one will not find any case in which a year of positive growth was followed by a year of contraction in which the IMF or Fed anticipated the recession in April of the growth year.
Given the evidence, economic forecasting is far from an exact science, and forecasters and model-builders have much to be modest about. In fact, I do not know for certain that my opening sentence is true or not, but the following is my case for why my assertion is more likely to be true than the various official forecasts. There’s a quartet of reasons.
Do you know what type of person the various presidential candidates would appoint to the Supreme Court?
The next president is likely to be able to pick several Supreme Court justices, and those decisions will influence the direction of the American republic for decades in the future.
Despite the fact that we have had numerous "debates" between the candidates, we still know little about their governing philosophies. It would be helpful if the moderators for this Thursday's debate (1/14) delved more deeply into the way they would conduct themselves as president than just asking questions about current events or what they think about the other candidates.
Here are some real questions the moderators could ask instead of gotchas.
Those who have not studied economics often rely on the press, who are often equally ignorant of economics and, hence, are unable to differentiate between sense and nonsense. While The Wall Street Journal (and particularly the editorial page) normally gets it right, The New York Times and many other newspapers too often let political bias get in the way of the facts.
It is particularly disappointing when a former great newsmagazine, The Economist, allows very sloppy reporting and analysis on serious economic topics. This week, The Economist published an article, “Indecent Disclosure” (1/02) describing tax reform proposals of the Republican candidates as “exorbitant,” putting forth “hugely expensive” plans before “accounting for economic effects.”
The whole point of tax reform is to reduce the economic drag of the current US tax code -- which The Economist correctly describes as “a mess.”
But the article implies that higher tax rates will always bring in more revenue (which they appear to view as desirable) and lower tax rates will bring in less revenue. For very low rates that is true, but for high rates, it is false.
The economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek warned us about the limits to knowledge and forecasting. What we do know, however, based on past behavior is that some future events have a much higher probability of occurring than others. So, now for 2016:
*There will be a major disruption in the global oil market, leading to higher prices, and this is why…
*There will be another financial crisis, and global economic growth will be less than the most recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast, and this is why…
*Iran will let the world know that it has a nuclear bomb while publicly denying it, and this is why…
Happy New Year anyway.
Why do billions of people, Christians and non-Christians alike, look forward to Christmas?
It is a holiday that makes almost all children, and most adults, happy. Globally, it has evolved into a non-threatening holiday that non-Christians can embrace with good cheer. Merchants of all faiths love it because it means more sales. And it is a joyful holiday that promotes peace and good will toward others.
There are, of course, those who dislike Christmas – atheistic socialists who hate anything to do with religion and commercial activity, fundamentalist Moslems, and those who are openly hostile to even the origins of Christianity.
Some Christians are, and have been for the last two centuries, unhappy about the way Christmas is celebrated as it has moved away from its religious roots -- perhaps without fully realizing that the secular Christmas celebrations around the globe, for the most part, also carry the indirect message of helping others, along with peaceful and happy coexistence.
The chance of dying in a terrorist attack in any year in the United States is less than one in a million (even including the terrible attack of the approximately 3,000 killed on Sept. 11, 2001).
Many in the media over-hype the chances of dying in a terrorist attack while at the same time underestimating the number of potential terrorists and terrorist cells among us. At times like these, it is important to be rational about relative risks and prudent in mitigating them.
Most people have little understanding of the relative risks of dying when using various forms of transportation. Commercial airlines are by far and away the safest form of transit per passenger mile. In fact, you are about 62 times safer in an airplane than an automobile for a long-distance trip.
What most people have even less understanding of is the relative risks to our freedom that Washington bureaucrats and politicians create compared to those of Islamic terrorists. The former, it turns out, is far greater.
Those who survey such things show that faith in government and politicians has fallen to record lows. But many other professions have also seen a decline in public trust.
The government produces a "food pyramid" and dietary guidelines telling us what is good for us to eat and what is not. But it keeps changing -- eggs and whole milk were bad, and now they are good.
Global warming alarmists keep telling us the science is settled -- but doomsday keeps being pushed back. Not one of the major global warming models predicted the recent 18-year pause in global warming. Is it any wonder most of us now ignore the constant warnings of warming by Mr. Obama?
Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Why has Honduras lagged behind its neighbors and much of the rest of the world?
It is resource-rich, has deep-water ports both on the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, is very scenic and, because of its mountain terrain, has sub-climates that meet most people’s preferences.
As can be seen in this table, Honduras compares poorly with neighboring countries and some other countries of similar size. Guatemala next door has a per capita income roughly 50 percent higher, Costa Rica three times higher, Chile five times higher, and Switzerland and Hong Kong about 12 times higher than Honduras’.
Honduras lags and suffers because of the lack of the rule of law and economic freedom. Now, a highly innovative program based on free market capitalist principles is being launched to come to the rescue of Honduras.
Your Thanksgiving dinner is going to be less expensive.
This year the average person will need to work 2 hours, 21 minutes and 57 seconds to pay for all the items in a standard Thanksgiving dinner for 10 people -- a work reduction of one minute and 8 seconds from last year. Back in 1986, the average person needed to work 3 hours, 12 minutes and 27 seconds to pay for the same dinner, or 50 minutes and 30 seconds longer than a worker today.
This is the great beauty of the capitalistic system -- in real terms, as measured by the time necessary to work to buy most anything, the price falls year after year.
Life expectancies have continued to grow both in the United States and worldwide (an amazing average increase of about three months per year for the last 150 years) -- despite all of the scare stories about what is going to do you in. Life expectancy is a good proxy for overall levels of health.
Real gross domestic product per capita (inflation adjusted) is now about three times higher than it was in 1950, and can continue to increase forever because of endless innovation and productivity growth (which, of course, is dependent on sensible economic policies).
Do not expect to get a higher real rate of interest on your savings — ever. Traditionally, people could expect to receive 2 or 3 percent more than the rate of inflation on their savings or money market accounts.
For instance, if inflation was 2 percent, many people received 5 percent interest per year on their government-insured savings accounts. The IRS would then tax the entire amount of interest received. So, even after inflation and taxes, most received a small, 1.5 to 2 percent real positive rate of return on their savings.
Contrast the current situation with what people traditionally expected. Now, if you are lucky, you may be receiving a half percent or so interest rate, about equal to the rate of inflation, yet the IRS still taxes you on this meager amount even though you have had no real interest income. So, at the end of the year, you are worse off — a negative return — because you did the responsible thing, and that was to save for your retirement or for various emergencies that come along with life.
The following is a simplified but accurate description of how we got into the mess and why the situation will not get better ...
Whatever happened to "no taxation without representation"?
Are you aware that the American government has been slowly giving away its power to international bureaucrats to determine how its businesses and citizens are taxed?
Most wars do not turn out the way the people who started them intended. Setting aside the hot military wars, look at the consequences of the “war on drugs” and the “war on money laundering and tax evasion.” The global war on money laundering and tax evasion has failed in the three decades since it began in earnest, and it is now on its way to undermining the rule of law around the world, the legitimate role of financial institutions, and the right of sovereign governments to determine their own tax policies.
The new anti-money-laundering laws and regulations have resulted in millions of Americans who live abroad and others living outside their home countries being unable to get bank accounts and other financial services in the countries where they live.
There was good news for Argentina last week.
It was expected that Daniel Scioli, the Peronist candidate and political heir of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, would win the presidential election. Much to most people's surprise, Maurico Macri, the more free-market-oriented mayor of Buenos Aires, won almost as many votes as Mr. Scioli, forcing a runoff, which Mr. Macri has a good chance to win.
The Peronists (named after former dictator Juan Peron) have had political control much of the last 70 years, and it has been a disaster for the country. In 1900, Argentina was one of the 10 highest-income countries in the world, having an estimated gross domestic product per capita of roughly 80 percent of that in the United States.
Successive Argentine governments have squandered much of the wealth and potential of the economy, so now Argentina ranks approximately 57th in per capita income.
In contrast, Chile moved toward enhancing economic freedom, including increasing free trade, the rule of law and protection of private property, and curtailing corruption. The result is that Chile now has the highest per capita income in South America.
Ultimately, if you continue to spend more than you take in -- whether you are an individual, business or government -- there will be a day of reckoning. Puerto Rico is likely to reach that day by December 1st.
Back in June, the governor of Puerto Rico, Alejandro Garcia Padilla, announced that the government debt of $73 billion had grown so large that it was no longer "repayable." At that time, many of us who have had experience with countries in fiscal crisis made recommendations (see my America's Greece) to avoid what is now almost certain to happen.
As is its pattern, the Obama administration waited until the last minute -- this past week -- to unveil its "solution," dubbed "Super Chapter 9." Chapter 9 is a provision in the U.S. bankruptcy code that allows local governments in U.S. states, but not the states themselves (including Puerto Rico), to declare bankruptcy.
Typically, this “solution” will make the problem worse rather than solving it. The causes of Puerto Rico’s problems are clear – and so are the remedies. Here they are.
On Sept. 29, Congress held a hearing on the rules proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would likely destroy much of the small-dollar loan industry and drive many low-income and poor credit-risk people into the arms of loan sharks.
The CFPB rules are so costly that most lenders will likely go out of business — by government intent.
Officials in the Obama administration’s IRS and Treasury have been callous and mean-spirited in destroying the ability of millions to obtain needed banking services, without providing legal and low-cost alternatives.
President Obama has made clear his intent to kill the coal and other fossil fuel industries. The results are that energy costs are being driven much higher, that hundreds of thousands of workers in these industries are now losing their jobs, and that low-income people will suffer the most from unnecessarily high energy costs.
These and so many other examples provide evidence that Democrats are sadistic towards the poor.
If Hillary Clinton were to be elected president, what economic policies would she propose and what would be the effect on the economy? To try to get an answer, I have looked at her statements, her campaign website, and her Senate record.
Mrs. Clinton has recognized the major economic problem of slow growth and stagnant incomes, and her economic platform is called, “A plan to raise American incomes.”
Unfortunately, the plan is largely a list of feel-good statements with very little specificity and contains nothing that would have a major positive impact on economic growth. (In fact, some of the proposals, such as increasing the minimum wage and overtime rules, would be negatives).
So let’s take a look at what she has done, not what she says.
Grand Cayman. Government is supposed to make life better for people — particularly the poor — but the U.S. and European governments are increasing the misery of the poor.
In the popular culture, Cayman is viewed as place were tax evaders and money launderers put their wealth. The truth is quite different in that most money laundering takes place in the big financial centers like London and New York, not Cayman.
For many years, Cayman has had information exchange agreements with the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Treasury and the major European governments — so one would be very foolish to put money in a Cayman bank with the intent of not getting caught for tax evasion or money laundering.
Cayman is a high-income jurisdiction as a result of having a prosperous financial sector (having nothing to do with illegal activity), a vibrant tourist industry, and an increasingly diversified economy.
It also provides a good example of how the US government in collusion with others is increasing the misery of the poor in countries around the world.
Are you aware that there is an international effort to increase taxes, including those paid by Americans?
Next Monday (Oct. 5), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, based in Paris) will release its “final package of measures for a coordinated international approach to reform the tax system under the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project.”
In plain English, what the OECD bureaucrats are attempting to do is put in place minimum international corporate tax rates, and companies will be required to share sensitive and proprietary information with non-Americans who may misuse it.
The OECD started life several decades ago as a trade promotion and statistical organization created by the few big, rich nations. As bureaucracies tend to do, the OECD grew in number of members and engaged in “mission creep,” most notably becoming a lobbying organization — using taxpayer money — for those wanting higher taxes.
The OECD should be re-titled OMGTB, the Organization for Money-Grubbing Tax Bullying.
Estonia is a most improbable success, in that a mere quarter of a century ago it was still under domination of the Soviet Union as a very poor backwater on the Baltic Sea. Now it is a developed country and a member of both the EU and NATO.
Estonia has been the most successful of the former communist-controlled countries, in part because of excellent political leadership since independence, including the remarkable Mart Laar -- the father of the economic reform, who served as prime minister from 1992-1994, and again from 1999-2002.
The Estonians now have the rule of law, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the EU, a balanced budget, free trade, and a flat-rate income tax -- all of which have led to their high economic growth and prosperity. Here’s how they did it – and why theirs is a country of the future.
Zurich, Switzerland — When you think of Switzerland what comes to mind?
Beautiful lakes surrounded by the Alps; a rich country with happy people; the home of milk chocolate, expensive watches and discrete bankers; a peaceful country that has not been at war in more than two centuries?
All that is true, and even more. Switzerland is at or near the top of almost every measure of a successful country, including the just released Human Freedom Index compiled by the Cato and Fraser Institutes, and others.
The world would be far better off if a majority of its countries were run like Switzerland. And in this way too: almost no one knows who the president of Switzerland is. Do you? That’s also something to emulate.
Would you vote for someone who you believe knowingly lies to you? The problem for the American people is that candidates from both parties lie on a regular basis, and so it is all too rare that a voter has a choice between someone who will honor his or her promises and someone who will not.
A substantial majority of the American people believe that Hillary Clinton is not a truth-teller — for very good reasons. The fables about Benghazi, her private email server, and the conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation are so transparent that only those who live in an alternative universe find her statements the least bit believable. Mrs. Clinton is only unusual among the Washington political class in that her fibs are so blatant and obvious.
More typical are the less-obvious broken promises of many Republicans.
Would you call yourself a “socialist”? Webster’s dictionary defines socialism as “a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole.”
Modern-style socialism was born during the French Revolution — with the Conspiracy of Equals. In his classic work “Heaven on Earth” about the rise and fall of socialism, Joshua Muravchik, wrote: “Once empowered, socialism refused to yield its promised rewards. The more dogged the effort to achieve it, the more the outcome mocked the humane ideals it proclaimed. Yet for a century and a half, no amount of failure dampened socialism’s appeal. Then suddenly like a rocket crashing to earth, it all collapsed. Within a couple of decades, socialism was officially repealed in half the places where it had triumphed. In the other half, it continued in name only.”
It was an ideology that claimed ...
President Obama says we should trust the Iranians to do self-inspections and not to cheat on the nuclear deal. Hillary Rodham Clinton says we should trust her when she tells us that she had only deleted personal emails from her private server and did not send or receive any classified emails. I cannot think of anyone I know (who is not in government) whom I would trust less than Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
The reason I trust people in the private sector more than I trust people in government is that most often those in the private sector who lie, cheat and steal, or just make honest mistakes, can be held accountable, while those in the public sector who do the same often can get away with a simple, lame "I am sorry" at best.
When the folks at BP were involved in an unintentional oil spill, the company was fined $54 billion, and the top executive, Tony Hayward, as well as many others in the company were, in essence, fired.
When the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) was involved in an unintentional spill, heavily polluting a river in Colorado with dangerous heavy metals a couple of weeks back, Gina McCarthy, EPA administrator, had nothing to say but "sorry."
What is the purpose of financial regulation?
Advocates of more and more financial regulation say it is necessary to protect the consumer against greedy bankers and other financial professionals and institutions. The latest power grab is the Labor Department’s “Conflict of Interest Rule.”
The awful irony is that every day, government fails in its fiduciary responsibility to spend taxpayer money wisely. If the administration spent more time making sure that the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the IRS and others are well managed and not corrupt, rather than taking on a largely non-problem and turning it into one, Americans would be better off.
The Labor Dept’s power grab is as if a guy from the mafia comes and tells you that for a big fee, he is going to protect you from the carwash overcharging you.
“American, single-handedly, saves 600 African antelopes and 12 baby elephants — by killing a lion.”
As you read the first part of the previous sentence, you most likely are thinking “this is a good guy.” But when you read the last part of the sentence — particularly if you are a cat lover — you may be thinking “this is a bad guy.”
Adult lions on average eat about 15 pounds of meat a day. In the wild, they feed primarily on medium-size animals, such as antelopes and occasional baby elephants.
The late Cecil the lion, killed by the American dentist, was reported to be about 13 years old. Cecil probably consumed roughly 70,000 pounds of meat during his life, which likely included many hundreds of antelopes and baby elephants.
When you see a wildlife movie where a lion is chasing an antelope, do you root for the lion or the antelope? Even if you are a cat lover, how many antelopes do you think should die to feed one lion?
A study by the Royal Astronomical Society, published in Science Daily on July 9, concludes that solar activity will be exceptionally diminished in the decade of 2030-40 as it was during the Maunder minimum of 1645-1715, a period of sharply lower temperatures known as the "Little Ice Age."
Lower temperatures would be far more damaging than moderate global warming, because agricultural production could be greatly reduced. Note: there are many scientists who think changes in solar output, and/or changes in cloud cover can easily swamp changes in CO2 levels in affecting the earth's temperature.
New satellite data, reported in Nature Geoscience on July 20, shows that Arctic Sea ice has now bounced back to levels last seen in the 1980s when modern measurements began. At the same time, southern sea ice around the Antarctic has grown to a thirty-year high from when it first began to be measured. Climate scientists admit that their models cannot account for the rise in sea ice.
By the way, did not Al Gore tell us the Arctic Ocean would be free of sea ice by the summer of 2007?
What recourse does a citizen have when government employees violate the law and do harm, and then they are protected by the government? Our federal Government was created to protect person and property and ensure liberty, but it has increasingly become the abuser rather than the protector.
If the government will not act to protect the citizens from government officials, what can be done? One action is to take the government to court as organizations as do the Institute for Justice and Judicial Watch. But that is a long and costly process
So in addition to calling for help from these fine organizations, here’s a suggestion to take matters in your own hands.
What is money? The coin and currency that you have in your pocket? The balances you have in your checking, money market or savings account? How about the value of your stocks and bonds?
The government (mainly the Federal Reserve) provides numbers about the money supply -- M1, M2, M3 and M0, which only goes to show that there is no simple definition on which all agree.
The economist-technologist-philosopher George Gilder, who has written many bestselling and provocative books, including "Wealth and Poverty," "Microcosm," "Telecosm," "Sexual Suicide" and "Knowledge and Power," has now produced a remarkable essay titled, "The 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money."
In sum, Mr. Gilder argues that money is information, and that at some point a bitcoin-like non-government money will emerge on the Internet whose price will merge with that of gold, becoming bitgold.