The Chinese Are Stealing Your Jobs....NOT! Well, sort of...

This was originally a FB response edited to fit this format. --HF

By James Fisher

I watched Peter Navarro’s state propaganda video posted here already and would have to spend hours to dismantle it.

The problem with conservatives is that when a left winger like Obama is in office you understand that government economists are really just state propagandist, but when a conservative is in office you guys lap up the exact same state propaganda posted on CSPAN and other state owned media outlets.

The problem is that you’ve never actually studied economics, and therefor have no scientific foundation to judge another economists by.

I would suggest reading Man-Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. This is a layman’s version of Mises treatise on economics “Human Action”.

Your own life has been made bounds wealthier by the Chinese. This bunk about the Chinese stealing our jobs is the same economic argument that robots steal our jobs. For example:

If you lived on an island and had to produce everything you have from food to shelter you would be extremely poor and work constantly. Then one day you found a magic robot that would do everything for you. You would not be mad that you lost your job. You would now be far wealthier. You could do anything you wanted with your time and produce far more goods for yourself.

The same is true if others will produce the things cheaper than you once did.

For those who think that the Chinese, who are producing things cheaper than we can, are stealing all our jobs, try to imagine this:

What if the Chinese tomorrow could start producing all cars for 1/10th the price of Americans?
They are just as good but instead of the average car costing $30,000 new, it was now produced by the Chinese for $3,000, and sold to Americans.

You would argue this is horrible because all Auto jobs would be lost. And yes, those jobs would be lost. But the overall wealth increase outweighs the job loss by far ($27,000 to be exact).

Those workers, who lost jobs, would eventually produce something else, and now our economy has super cheap cars and the something else those workers would have to do. And all Americans that would normally buy a car for $30,000 now buy one for $3,000 and spend $27,000 elsewhere that supports the new jobs that need to be created.

If you can’t see this and still want to argue against it.

Ask yourself, if the Chinese didn’t just make the cars for $3,000 but instead gave us all our cars for free. Would this be good or bad for Americans?

Because if you believe that allowing those who make things cheaper will only steal our jobs, and this is supposedly bad, you must also argue that if another country just sent America all its cars 100% free as gifts, this would make us poorer.

So these Chinese stealing our jobs argument makes you have to also defend the idea that you getting a car for free is bad for you and Americans.

You are basically arguing that if cars magically fell from the sky, this would make us all poorer because then there would be no jobs making cars.

I hope you can see this is nonsense.

But it must start with a knowledge of economics, if you want to avoid all these common state propaganda economic fallacies put forward by those like Peter Navarro.

This post only tackles one of them, you can see why I’m not going to dismantle the rest. Unless someone wants to bring up another.

Americans Called Terrorists by Reid

Senator Harry Reid has done exactly as I predicted the state would do. He is naming people like myself a Terrorist. He has called the heroic Americans that stood up to Federal tyranny, Domestic Terrorists.

The Federal government has literally bankrupted 52 of 53 ranchers in this Nevada area dispute, and they are after the last man standing, who refuses to leave. People flocked to help their fellow American, and the state slaps the label of terrorist on them.

You may think this is no big deal. It's just name calling, and it's like calling someone a Nazi. The problem is that this is far from true. Once they label someone terrorist, a whole new set of unConstitutional laws now apply. They will hold you indefinitely without trial, even murder you, once this label has been applied. Its not accidental that Reid, the one of the most corrupt of all politicians, who is working with the Chinese to put solar farms on land in Nevada, called the Rancher a "Terrorist". Although, it must be known that the Solar Project was cancelled due to the inability to find customers (read here).

If your not following this story, I am begging you to take 5 minutes a day to keep yourself informed. I am literally begging you.

Listen to what Harry Reid says about them. Then go to You Tube and watch the actual videos and read Bundy's side of the story and the government's.

Read it from both the conventional media (who barely cover this huge story), and also read it from alternative media like Benn Swann's web site or Info Wars or Drudge report. Look at the difference in coverage. One is state propaganda, and the other actually has real videos and eyewitness accounts from the actual Ranch.

I truly believe this story may end up as the shot heard around the world, and it is ever so important you know the truth about what is happening!

--Jim Fisher

The Extremist

 The extremist. When the media or government refers to the extremist, what they are referring to are views that are extremely different than theirs.

Their views say a government that sells its unborn children into massive debt is legitimate. My own view is that this is immoral.

Their views say that trying to control every country in the world through force and starving their citizens and murdering both them and our own soldiers is absolutely legitimate and makes us safe. My own view is that this is immoral.

Their view is that stealing massive amounts of hard earned money from its own citizens is legitimate. My own view is that this is immoral.

Their view is that it's perfectly legitimate to counterfeit billions and billions of dollars and give that money to rich bankers and also steal a trillion dollars from its citizens to give it all to rich bankers, and it's all perfectly legitimate. My own view is that this is immoral.

Their view is that when they conduct all this counterfeiting, theft and spending and the economy fails because of it, then it's ok to blame the free market, and say they need to have more counterfeiting, theft and spending to fix the economy, and this is legitimate. My own view is that this is immoral.

Meet the extremist. I am the extremist. I am the radical. Yet I don't feel extreme or radical. I feel like I speak common sense in an extremely radical world.

Written by Jim Fisher

Solar Panels Are Voo Doo Ecoomics

The other day, one of my company's employees spoke to us about the "reality" of solar power becoming cheaper. Cheap enough that the average person can afford it. This could affect utility companies such as the one I work for. He offered an example of Solar City as one of the biggest companies. So I decided to look into it.

As it turns out, depending on your situation, solar power with Solar City could be a good deal, but again, it depends on your life style and potential future plans. You can check the Solar City's lease program here.

BUT...Now for the other proverbial shoe. Everyone knows solar panels are similar to wind generators. The cost to produce and maintain are more than the energy they produce. If you check out these comments on Solar City's product, you will see one person who said he paid $15K, but that the government subsidized $5K. Even USA Today wrote an article about this fraud as well. (read Newsbusters article too)

So there you have it. The average consumer may be getting a good deal, but at what hidden cost? Somebody is paying for this. If the Utility companies are paying for the "extra" electricity, then you have the Federal Government and Utility companies paying for the same electricity. In other words, the Federal government is paying for a product to produce electricity that the electric company will also pay for. So what appears to be good economics is in reality the very Voo Doo economics Leftists accused of Ronald Reagan.

In other words, the reality is that solar panels are not cost effective, but as long as the Federal Government gives money away like candy, then, for the short term, we can pretend to save the environment & money. But sooner or later, the bill will come due.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=41084

 <<A case challenging the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is being weighed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts where state law requires schoolchildren to recite the pledge daily as a patriotic exercise.>>

The problem I have with this whole debate is that both sides force the issue as if there were never any other views on the subject either in recent history nor historically from our Founding. Since the article is posted on a Baptist News Website, I have to wonder just how far Baptists have come from their roots historically.

Could you imagine the same Baptists that wrote to Jefferson about the First Amendment as being people that would ever have recited anything remotely close to the Pledge of Allegiance, much less going to a State school by force and being forced by the State to swear allegiance to it? Especially since governments were their biggest fear in the world precisely because more Baptists died at the hands of State officials during the Reformation than all other denominations combined!

Stop thinking Left. Stop thinking Right.

Liberty. Friends, Think Liberty! It is an alternative way to think about the entire debate.

How Intelligent People Can Be Useful Idiots Too

President of HSLDA, Home School Legal Defense Association, Michael Farris, has posted an article explaining his interaction with a defender of Common Core, David Coleman, president of the College Board. You may read the article here.

The article demonstrates how men of opposing views may have a serious discussion without name calling. But I want to point out some of the obvious problems of those of the political Left & Right who are being used as "useful idiots".

Now I must be clear. I do not mean by the phrase "useful idiots" that someone such as David Coleman is an idiot. He is obviously not an idiot. I also believe that David Coleman has "good intentions" in his desire to improve the education of American children. Even Michael Farris had to admit from listening to Coleman's presentation of Common Core,

"From a pedagogical perspective, there are clearly some good ideas contained in it."

But as Farris points out, the problem isn't about some of the so-called good ideas that are a part of Common Core, but the real fundamental problem that leads to other major problems. It is being run by the Federal Government, a centralized bureaucracy intended to grow in monopolistic power.

In other words, it is not about education, but about power dressed in education. Notice Coleman's interaction as recorded by Farris,

"To his credit, Mr. Coleman noted that he was not acting in a vacuum. There are centralized mandates for education in play virtually everywhere. And many of them have very marginal educational utility. I agreed with his assessment of many current centralized standards."

Even Coleman recognized the problems of centralized power in this section of the article:

When he asked me why I thought that the Common Core was worse than other standards, I indicated that one of my chief concerns was the creation of the database that would track students throughout their educational career.

His answer surprised me. He didn’t like the database all that well. It was not originally part of the Common Core, but other people have seized the opportunity to make a centralized data collection effort through the implementation of the Common Core.

Do you see the problem that Coleman refuses to really address. He may not like a centralized database, but he is willing to chuck liberty under the bus in order to gain what he perceives as a better American education system. But in the end, the people who desire power will gain more power and nothing will change because the foundation to the problem is not being challenged.

It is not about education. It is all about centralized power.

No Longer Fooled By the Not So Serious

Some time ago I noted how Rush was upset that 3 million or so conservative voters didn't vote this last time around. Then when the IRS scandal broke, it became Rush's scape goat for why these people didn't vote. Yes, Rush has actually been arguing on his radio show that conservative voters didn't vote because the Tea Party and others were harassed by the IRS.

Now I know we think that is completely silly, but today Rush made an observation about the Republicans that we all knew and know to be true. They were never serious. The only problem is that he refuses to speak about the obvious disconnect between the Republicans and the missing voters. He said on today's show,

RUSH: I don't think they were ever serious about repealing health care, the Republicans.  I don't think they ever were.  I think that it has been lip service from the get-go.  The votes to stop -- I mean, the leadership, House and Senate, I don't think they've ever really been serious about repealing Obamacare, especially since the Supreme Court decision.  I don't think so.

So there you have it. I have argued before and I will continue to argue as such, that many modern conservatives are in many ways more akin to Classical Liberals. They are just now hearing men like Ron Paul argue for a more consistent and real case for liberty and living it out.

Since we [I consider myself one of them] are tired of the lies from the Republican Party, and since we know they will do nothing to advance liberty, and since we know the Modern Left is just pro-Statist State, then there is no place to go but to refuse to give our consent to the ruling class by participating in their voting scheme to endorse them or to grant them justification for their existence.

Now does Rush see this connection? I think he must unless of course he is so blinded by his own failed Neo-Conservative position that he fails to make the connection. Rush is no dummy. Anyone who makes up the idea of the IRS scandal as to blame for the missing voters is purposely looking in the wrong place to fool an audience. However, at least 3 million of us are no longer fooled.

It is time to change.

Yeah, That Walmart

James Fisher

I was recently debating public schools vs privatizing the education system. (Of course I'm for a free market education and not public)

When the other person said to me-

"Yeah, that's exactly what we need, a Walmart owning and operating all the schools"

He said this as if it should be self evident that Walmart is a bad thing for society?

 

So I said- you mean the Walmart that has made almost everything we buy less expensive? Making it possible for the poorest among us to own 60" LCD HD TV's and $20 phones with calling plans almost free and all sorts of wonderful things?

That Walmart?

The one that took minimum wage jobs with no benefits away from Bradlees and K Mart and turned them into $11.00 per hour jobs with health insurance and 401 K programs?

The Walmart that personally made me richer by saving me tons of money as well as time because I can do my food shopping and everything else at the same time?

That Walmart?

How awful!

Then he responded with the usual line about buying from the Chinese etc etc...

Because apparently its Walmarts fault that the Chinese produce products less expensive than Americans and regardless of this economic fact Walmart should buy more expensive products and let another business kick its ass.

Perhaps the answer to that problem is for the state to stop murdering its businesses to death through regulation and taxes and we could once again outcompete the Chinese.

I'm all for Walmart education. Truth is that would be very unlikely, unless of course a business figured out how to give us far better education so we all decided to send our kids there.

The free market works.

Join the revolution!

How Much For Your Security

James Fisher

What if the good citizens of Massachusetts hire a security firm to prevent terrorist attacks in Boston?

We all got together and chipped in equal money and paid the best private security firm we could find?

Then the bombing in Boston happens!

What would we good citizens do?

We would likely fire them, or at least judge their performance accordingly and take the best plan going forward.

Maybe that means hire a different firm? Maybe we demand a refund due to failure?
Maybe we review their techniques and find out why the failure happened?

What we would not do is instantly give them a raise and more power to interrupt our lives.

Yet this is exactly how government services work.

When they fail, unlike a private market business, their failure means they didn't have enough of our money. They didn't have enough power and right to invade our privacy and civil rights.

So they must now get more powerful, invade more civil rights, take more of our money.

This is the difference between getting your services from the state or the market.

Where the market service must serve you to your exact desire or you shit can them, the state reserved the right to fail in serving you and tell you it's your fault for not giving them enough power and money!

Rush: Where'd They Go?

Last Tuesday I managed to catch a moment of Rush's show while he was lamenting the inner problems of the Republican Party as it related to the missing 4 million voters. He stated,

RUSH: That's it. Four million Republicans that did vote against Obama in '08 sat home in 2012. Do you realize that if those four million had shown up, Romney would have won? Question: Why didn't those four million show up? Is it because of amnesty? Is it because of abortion, immigration, contraception? No way! Well, it might be. It might be the fear that the Republican Party was gonna go in that direction. Those four million said, "The hell with it!" More likely it's that. The party wasn't conservative enough in its messaging.

I personally think Rush is missing something obvious, and that is consistency. After voting for over 20 years for what I thought would be conservatives, I have discovered my own blindness, and I think many others have too.

Rush wonders about amnesty and abortion and a conservative message, but what about the police state growing up all around us? What about the never ending war on terrorism, and the fact that anyone may literally be considered a terrorist?

It is deeper than that though. I think Libertarianism is becoming more popular as an explanation of the world while offering real answers to the issues before us. I personally think many conservatives are beginning to see that the State grows in power no matter who is in charge, Left or Right. Even Rush has said as much many times.

So when a real candidate enters the Republican nomination process with real answers about how to deal with the real fundamental causes of our nation's problems, Rush calls him a dunce and refuses to deal with his ideas, doing the very thing he claims liberals do to Conservatives.

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and Rush is as inconsistent as they come.

Americans...A Free People

The War of Secession from Great Britain (you may call this the Revolutionary War, but it was indeed secession) was based on the idea that our rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) comes from our humanity NOT from the government.

This was the American idea.

That we are all created equal in RIGHTS (not equal in material).

For the first time the idea of Nobility was struck down. Nobility was the previous system where men were born with rights over other men.

This appeal to man's logic of the nature of our rights is the Jeffersonian system of a free people that we have come to know as American.

That our populace has this engrained in its history must be carried forward, not dissolved.

This is who we are!

A free people!

Free from the tyranny of the state.

By Jim Fisher

Why Ludwig Von Mises?

James Fisher

35 minutes ago via mobile ·

The Mises Institute.

Named after the most brilliant economist ever, and you likely never heard of him.

Why?

See if I can shed light.

Ludwig Von Mises born in Austria-Hungry 1881 wrote the most thorough treatise on economics called "Human Action" where he begins by doing what was never correctly or thoroughly done before. That is defining economics. What is the science of economics actually studying? People think its about money and markets, but it's really about studying "human action".

Not psychology, but purposeful human behavior. In that all actions human take starts with a feeling of uneasiness. Were it not for this feeling of uneasiness there would be no reason for action. From scratching your nose to leaving for work in the morning, all action requires this.

Then Mises goes on to tell us the other prerequisites for human action, like the belief the action will change the outcome and the actual means to act.

For example, the human action of eating a sandwich. First you must have a feeling of uneasiness- Hunger! Then you must have the belief that eating will remove this uneasiness - that's pretty simple, we all believe that eating makes hunger go away. Then you must have the means to eat. Food, money, hands, whatever.

Perhaps this seems boring to some, but it is very important as it defines the starting point for what economics is, the study of human action, or what Mises called Praxeology (another thing you likely never heard of)

After Human Action, Mises gained a little fame and taught in Switzerland where he wrote a book called "Socialism".

In this book Mises completely dismantled the hopes of socialists everywhere by bringing forth the "great calculation debate".

Mises proved socialism was unworkable because of it not having any meaningful price system, so it could never calculate the allotment of resources correctly, thus ending in a tragedy of resource misallocation, which as Russia showed us, will result in starvation and countless other problems.

Mises brought forth a great number of reasons socialism couldn't work, but "The Great Calculation debate" was the one most socialists economists tried to actually answer.

Of course Mises writings got him in danger with the Nazi's, and he eventually fled to the U.S. and taught for the rest of his life.

When one calls himself an "Austrian Economist" as I do, this is why. We are students of Mises and others he descended from.

There are other schools of economics such as "Keynesian economics". These schools fail to even define economics. Why? They think it to be a hard science like physics or biology. They come up with complex models to attempt to predict prices that are meaningless. Why? Because it all boils down to human action, and that can never be predicted with any real meaning.

Mises set out to use economics to rationally explain our world of human actors with a real theory of prices, and the law of marginal utility, and the business cycle and what causes it. He showed us that economics can never predict with certainty, but if we rationally explain the past correctly we can understand what is likely to happen if we repeat it. But to not repeat we must have correctly identified causes and effects.

Mises was the first to tell us that the business cycle (the boom and bust cycle like we just saw in housing) is a result of monetary expansion (printing too much money).

He was the only economist to warn of the Great Depression before it happened.

He explained how the roaring 20's was a boom caused by massive printing and how, as fun as it was, it will eventually lead to a bust.

Mises was the first to define this cycle so clearly.

So why is this important?

Why the Mises Institute today?

The Keynesians don't believe printing too much money causes the business cycle. They believe its a natural phenomenon of the free market. The believe that printing money is how you fix it.

And Ben Bernanke agrees.

The Austrians say that Alan Greenspan printed too much money and caused the housing crisis. To fix it, we need to stop printing, stop interfering with the market and let the bust take hold.

Mises said the bust part of the cycle is tough because that's when the market corrects itself. All the people that went into housing must reallocate into where demand really is (because it never was really in housing, that was a false demand caused by too much money). But once people move into sectors where there is real demand, the economy is repaired.

But the Keynesians, like Bernanke, say no, we need to print our way out. People need more credit to keep buying more housing. We can't let the bust take hold. We need to re-inflate housing.

So he printed with QE1

Then printed with QE2

Now QE 3 with unlimited printing. He has been printing since the collapse and is determined to make it work.

You need to pick a side.

Ludwig Von Mises?

Or

John Maynard Keynes

All that printing is destroying our currency. Oil is over 3.50 because of inflation, that's the truth he'll never confess.

It's time to learn and choose!

James Fisher

A storm is coming.

The government tells us that we are on the up and up. The recession is ending and economy getting better.

As a student of Austrian economics, I say the exact opposite as do most of my fellow Libertarians.

We understand the business cycle is caused by the increase in quantity of the money supply. Bernanke has printed more new money than any Fed chairman in the entire history of the Fed from 1913 to now.

So I am telling you, the worst is coming. And it's coming soon. This will make the Great Depression look like nothing in comparison.

So you have two opposing predictions. One from our government officials. One from the group of Libertarians who have done their homework on Austrian economics.

When you see the coming crisis as it hits us, I hope you will look back and remember who spoke the truth.

And when the moment hits that you realize there is a group speaking the truth, then perhaps we should listen to their advice on how to get out of the crisis.

The government will blame the free market saying it is out of control and profit motive needs to be curbed by our rulers. They will ask for more of your money to get you out of this free market crisis.

The Libertarians, like myself, will say the truth. That it is government and not the free market that created this crisis. And the solution is in freedom. To keep all your money, not enslave you further by giving more to the state.
To rid ourselves of the miles of regulations.

And most importantly, to rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve System. It is the Fed that gives our government the ability to spend into oblivion. It is they that cause all inflation be increasing the money supply. It is they who bring more corruption to an already corrupt system.

When the crisis comes. And it will within 4 short years. Remember who said it was coming and who said it wasn't.

The School Bus Law

James Fisher

4 hours ago via mobile ·

I'm driving behind a school bus today with someone who knows me and my Anti-government philosophy.

As the school bus stopped he asked-"what about the rule that you can't pass a school bus?"

What he wanted to know was if we were absent government, who would make law? This is a common debate for the need of government. Who can make law but government right?

Wrong!

Law is just like language. No one or no government is needed to decide what is the correct language. Yet there is only one correct language for English.

Only one correct spelling for the word "harmonica".

How is that possible? If there is no authority to decide what is right and correct, how does that happen? How is there a correct English language?

Its simple (and the answer is not Websters decides). People speak and write back and forth every second of every day. Websters or Wiki only serves to codify what people are actually using as language. The document the official language, but as people change the language through new uses and spellings, Websters documents those changes. And language is always changing.

In a Free society, law works the same way.

The rules are, what people say and do each and every day. There is no formal law written that you cannot cut someone in line. Yet when someone does it, we can call him on it. This is an example of Libertarian law.

Absent a formal state or government, all law would work the same way. And unlike today where law is a reflection of corrupt politicians whims. Libertarian law would be exactly what all people agree should be.

For example; with government you end up with a law that gambling is illegal, except for the government, they are allowed to hold gambling to their profit.

In a Free or Libertarian society, gambling would just be legal for everyone. Because this is how we as a people would agree on law, we would not care what others do that does not affect us.

Government seeks to give itself a monopoly on gambling profits and it can because it has the guns and power of force.

In a free society absent government, there would be no such monopoly. People would gamble if desired and casinos would be 100 privately owned and its none of anyone's business who gambles, because gambling has no victim other than the gambler himself. And law is not to stop people from hurting themselves. Only to prevent people from hurting others.

Believe it or not, we have a right to hurt ourselves.

But back to the point- Law does not need a central overlord state to be present.

Just a language forms with all the "I before E except after C" rules, so would law form the same way.

Absent the government. Law would be a perfect representation of what people really believe the rules should be.

Just like no cutting in line, no calling others after 9pm, smoking in others cars without asking, all have no government law, yet are still present as rules in our society. So would all law.

If someone murdered absent the government, we wouldn't all wonder if the person was wrong or right to murder. We all would still know murder is against the law!

We're All Dead Anyway...Right?

James Fisher

November 24 via mobile

"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs, in the long run, we're all dead"- John Maynard Keynes.

Who is Keynes? He is the man who rewrote rational economics with his "General Theory" and destroyed a science for the majority.

His General theory is nothing more than garble and spit up contradictions, but he did something other economist did not think of. He told governments exactly what they wanted to hear.

That they could spend their way to prosperity. When the economy slows and unemployment is high, just get the aggregate demand going again and everything will be okay.

He destroyed 100s of years of progress by economists. Not that their information is not there. It still is, and many of us know where to find it. But trying to overcome the forces of the state when it gets this new tool of a supposed economic science which is telling them to spend more is almost impossible.

Most economic text books use Keynes as the foundation. So most of our economists today are trained in this false science.

This is one of the reasons why the Fed gets away with printing so much money and stealing your savings. They say they have science telling them to increase spending and aggregate demand.

Any rational person understands you can't spend your way to being richer. That saving will always increase wealth while spending decreases it. It's 2 year old smarts. But Keynes convinced a whole system into a lie.

It wasn't through some evil Genius that he did it. It wasn't some master plan. It was simple.

Governments steal and spend anyway. That's how they work. They must steal and spend to exist. So the first person, who was able to make an attempt at justifying this as a good backed by science, would be a hero to the states around the world.

Back to the Keynes quote?

This was his response when people asked him about the obvious affects of spending in the long term. If we always spend to fix the economy and create debt, then the debt will hurt the economy and makes us spend more to help it.

What about the long term Mr Keynes? Wouldn't this just be a cycle downward?

His answer?

"In the long run, we're all dead."

Rules Rules Rules

James Fisher

Rule driven behavior vs Profit driven behavior.

Often people think we need government bureaucracies like the FDA or EPA because we can't have just profit driving decisions on how business behaves. We must instead have rules driving their behavior as well.

Were it not for these agencies, the profit motive would be a destructive force.

Examine this closely. What is profit driven behavior? It is business figuring out what people will pay for. Meaning it is what people in society actually want.

People think that a drug company would sell snake oil as a cure for cancer for profit and so we need the rules of an FDA to prevent this. These evil companies must have a rule driven watchdog to stop them from selling us snake oil.

If there was no FDA, would there be companies doing this? Would these companies survive.

Were there no FDA, would you blindly buy any cancer drug? Or would you perhaps do a little research?

Profit driven behavior means the companies who best serve society survive, while the snake oils disappear due to no profit.

Rule driven behavior means a bureaucrat decides what drugs are available to you, not society's actual preference.

There is a different way....America's 3rd way....

Libertarianism.

Tyranny Wrapped In A Box Of Science & Politics

James Fisher

The progressive

The progressive realizes not where progress is made. All real human progress has been made by the market. By individuals figuring out what other individuals really want, need and more importantly, will part with their own savings for.

Yet despite the evidence of the market being responsible for real progress, the progressive seeks to centrally plan progress by the force of the state.

He says:

"We should do X"

"People need to be X"

"We shouldn't do X because the environment X"

Not realizing any time one makes a statement like this, it really means the force of the state guns is needed. Otherwise, if it were voluntary, it would just happen.

The progressive is responsible for horrors and setbacks to real progress.

For it was the progressives that were first to support Hitler.
The progressives looked to plan human development through sterilizing portions of population.
The progressive has no concept of evil and good. These are just relative terms to them.

Progress does not need to be forced onto people. That's tyranny!

For the progressive is tyranny wrapped in a box of science and politics.

Yummy Cupcakes No More?

James Fisher

Yummy cupcakes no more?

Just the other day I wrote a rant on teachers unions not realizing I was predicting the future in my piece. (Please read below on Unions)

I honestly had no idea that this was happening when I wrote it.

Hostess Cupcakes will close its doors. Their union is in the middle of striking.

The CEO says it doesn't matter if the strike ended a week ago, they still must close their doors.

So I want you to think about this for a second. The business has filed for bankruptcy twice since 2004. They have been hanging on by a thread running at a loss for years.

So what does their union do?

Go on strike! Think about that. Your company is dying and if you want to keep your job you should do everything in your power to help them. But instead, you walk out on strike to demand more from them?

Union president says that their failure is from a decade of financial mismanagement. As if he would know. But to me it doesn't matter. Your company is dying. Strike? How can putting the last nail in the coffin be the answer?

Their union has been battling them for years with strikes.

Like I said, unions choke off their companies until only the non-union companies are left standing with less competition.

Its a self correcting system in the free market. This is why you see very little unions in the private sector. The problem corrects itself.

Its also why you see the unions in the public sector instead. Where they can thrive because there is no failure. The failure just means higher taxes for the private sector.

So now 18,500 jobs will be lost because of unions. What else can you argue? That a company loosing money should have paid its workers more?

I wonder how may of those 18500 wanted nothing to do with the union, but had to go along because of the force unions use? How many would have been happy to stay at work but couldn't?

Quantitative Easing Or Just Plain Stealing

Evan Mulch shared Deep Thoughts, by Ben Bernanke's photo.

Quantitative easing is a euphemism for an inflationary strategy of monetary policy pursued by central banks. The bank adds money to its balance sheet ex nihilo (out of nothing), and uses the new money to purchase government securities, thus increasing bank reserves, raising the prices of government securities, and lowering their interest rates. It is equivalent to simply printing additional legal tender. ~Credit for this definition goes to the Mises Institute

Why We Are Hobos

James Fisher

The Tea Party is officially a failure. For it failed on many terms. But I now understand why it failed.

It was supposed to be aligned on 3 issues

Fiscal responsibility

Constitutional limited government
Free Markets

Although these 3 values are good ones. They tea party should have one core value.

Liberty!

It should use Liberty as its benchmark.

Now the Tea Party is dead and all but co-opted by the establishment. It's time for the Libertarians to take hold.

Want to join something that really means something and can't be co-opted by the establishment?

Start by reading Murray Rothbard and visit Mises.org