Posted by AuthenticAuthor on 09/24/10
Last updated 09/24/10

On September 23rd, an Associated Press article by Jeannine Aversa titled Unusual worry for economy: Is inflation too low? caught my attention:

"It might seem that prices are rising wherever you look, including medical care and college tuition. Yet to the Federal Reserve, they might not be going fast enough."

"Oh boy," I thought, "I know where this is going."

The article continues:

"The Fed says a little more inflation might be just the thing to start a chain reaction that would ultimately create jobs - and to avoid a spiral of falling prices that could damage the economy."

Gee, how do falling prices hurt the economy Jeannine? I'm sure you know what's best:

"Once deflation takes hold, it can wreck an economy. Workers suffer pay cuts. Corporate profits shrivel. Stock values fall. People, businesses and the government find it costlier to pare debt. Foreclosures and bankruptcies rise."

Here Aversa confuses profits with prices; a common misconception. In reality, prices are simply exchange values between two different goods or services that reflect the level of demand in relation to the level of supply. As goods and services increase in relation to money, in this case, it follows that each money unit will be able to buy more, increasing its Purchasing Power. Profits, on the other hand, result from an efficient means of production and exchange to satisfy demand. Together, these reasons explain why ball-point pens, once expensive luxuries in the late 1940s, are now a dollar per dozen today.

The idea that unemployement should result from falling prices is thus preposterous in light of this evidence. In fact, just as how Jeannine can argue that people will be laid off when people spend less per good, so can I argue that lower prices on everything encourages more private investment. Unemployment is therefor not the result of free-floating prices!

Yet by Aversa's logic, such market processes should cripple an economy over time. This misunderstanding is largely the result of looking after-the-fact in major recessionary events, most of which involve significant drops in the Consumer Price Index, instead of looking before-the-fact to identify the causes of this drop in the first place. This is akin to blaming a breach in the rubber of a tire wheel for causing a blowout, while overlooking the rising internal pressures. Such poor methods of diagnosis naturally give rise to such false conclusions. In the case of our current Depression, the cause is not the blowout of deflation, but the over-leveraging of politically-connected financial institutions through the Federal Reserve banking system via inflation.

"And people spend less, convinced that prices will fall even further if they just wait. That trend has already emerged in the housing market. Many would-be buyers are standing on the sidelines, waiting for the home prices to fall further."

Prices ought to reflect individual preferences through freedom of exchange and contract; it shouldn't be manipulated by a coercive monopoly because you feel others are too cheap. If you want perpetual homelessness, you'll continue this exact policy Jeannine.

"The Fed's statment on Tuesday made clear that it's prepared to intervene to prevent deflation."

Uh oh...

"One way would be to make big purchases of government bonds to drive down long-term interest rates. That would help stimulate borrowing and spending."

As well as screw the U.S. bond holder. Yippee! Passing the check is easy!

"Yet deflation-fighting moves carry their own risks. Super-low rates lead to speculative buying, creating dangerous bubbles in the prices of bonds, commodities or other assets. A long period of super-low rates after the 2001 recession helped feed a housing bubble that burst and led to the 2007-2009 recession. "

Some people should not be writing Econ articles. Some people should get a clue.

Posted by AuthenticAuthor on 09/07/10
Last updated 09/07/10

"For whatever reasons, Ray, call it... fate, call it luck, call it karma, I believe everything happens for a reason. I believe that we were destined to get thrown outta this dump."

"For what purpose?"

"To go into business for ourselves."

"This ecto-containment unit that Spengler and I talked about is going to take a load of bread to capitalize. Where are we going to get the money?"

"I don't know, Ray. I don't know."

These are the immortal exchanges between the characters Raymond Stantz and Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters after being kicked out of their cushy jobs at a New York university and later embracing capitalism. Apart from its iconic family of characters, from sarcastic secretary Janine to Egon the "always serious", this, to me, was/is the real genius behind the Ghostbuster film franchise: its message that the greatest heroes are in the dirty work of defending liberty while taking risks. The dirty work, in this case, being the capturing of harassing ghosts, for a price of course. The occasional saving of innocents is free.

As a kid, I instantly fell in love with the concept and all the toys and gadgets that came with it, including the eventual cartoon series. Here was an idea that taught us that it was okay to face your worst fears, to be a hero, with only the power of your personal property and a slim chance that you'll make it big. In fact it demanded it, and in so doing sparked a whole revolution of entrepreneurial spirit among youngsters everywhere. Our imaginations weren't limited to conquering the supernatural either; I remember daydreaming about starting an entirely private agency to solve crimes for a small fee, similar to the then popular Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective book series. Others would take the more mundane route, yet nevertheless felt their ideas just as fantastic as the next one. After all, if someone could face off against a giant Stay Puft Marshmallow Man out of the blue, who is to say that your chosen career can't be famous somehow? Who is to say that a lemonade stand, for instance, won't lead to a victory for Justice?



Of course, the greatest foe to the Ghostbusters wasn't something with magical powers but something all business owners are well aware of, government, to which writers Dan Aykroyd, Rick Moranis and Harold Ramis made no effort to hide their disdain. As a self-studied anarcho-libertarian, I look back at this with even more childlike enthusiasm. You see, in the world of the Ghostbusters you didn't need anyone's permission to mind your business. You could even do it in the face of (gasp!) political opposition. Take this for example. In the first film EPA inspector Walter Peck makes a demand to Venkman that he be allowed to see their storage containment facilities:

Peter, seeing the threat clear as day, obliges, "No."

"And why not, Mr. Venkman?"

"Because you did not use the magic word."

Walter smiles, "What is the magic word, Mr. Venkman?"

Looking perplexed, Peter exclaims, "Please!"

Imagine having a discussion like THAT in today's age of widespread statist propaganda! If the government made a similar demand to oh, say, an internet-service-provider, it'd likely get its way. Oh wait, that's already happened! Silly me! Virtually everything is up for grabs by one bureaucratic agency or another, and very rarely will such bullies be defeated in court. The same was just as true for the Ghostbusters. Hating how their private organization was undermining its legitimacy, the state deems they should be punished for such insolence. After all, who needs the EPA if a gang of four, working as entrepreneurs, can clean up a city of menacing horrors? A modern-day Pandora's box is soon opened, and so enter the adventurers ready to defeat an ageless evil.

Now, I know what you must be thinking, "Whoa! They had dangerous equipment! Surely the government was right...right?" Well, let me tell you something; any entity that continuously declares war on non-threats and works on a military-industrial complex is not to be trusted with inspecting a positronic collider, let alone an ecto-containment system. Not on your life.

Like some sort of David-and-Goliath epic, our beloved heroes overcome this stupidity once again in the sequel, having been beaten down by court injunctions and lawsuits only to later rise again to save the day. The Ghostbusters are banned from practicing their business, which included their routine inspections that could had potentially prevented the city's buildup of corrupting ectoplast. They are eventually released from this restriction, and soon use the Statue of Liberty to free a baby from the evil clutches of an ancient tyrant. That alone deserves our attention, for the crew's exploits were more than just about keeping their unusual business afloat; they were defending the American dream from its most notorious villain, arbitrary force, and "The Big Apple" was the perfect battle-ground.

Having long heard the rumors that a part three is in the works, I am hopeful for the Ghostbusters' return to the big screen. The truth is that we are in desperate need of a reminder on how much we have lost over the past decades (nay, centuries!) to statist control. Publicly-funded schools are a disaster, the monopoly over money is ruining the economy, and human rights are eroding under the war on terror. Another movie like this would revive a lot of our lost faith in freedom, and perhaps even contribute to a total revolution of social thought. The likes of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney would be slimed in a most symbolic sense.

More importantly, we need more entrepreneurs, besides just film makers, who have the vision that respecting property rights can yield fruits between neighbors. They are the antithesis of Statism and living beacons for Liberty. They are the Statebusters, and it's high time they crossed the streams.

Posted by AuthenticAuthor on 06/18/09
Last updated 08/17/09

Just recently, the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset versus the RIAA has taken a turn for the worse; a retrial of her position has resulted in the jury members favoring the plaintiff, and fining her $80,000 per distributed song. Since she was sued for infringing upon the copyrights of 24 songs, that is a total of $1,920,000.

           Aint America wonderful?

          Putting aside questions of whether she actually did do something illegal, is distributing a song really the same as stealing $80,000?  The argument for an "intellectual property right" either assumes that ideas are scarce commodities and/or that the authors of such things have a right to be rewarded whenever someone shares them. The former clearly does not make much sense since the things in question multiply rather than diminish when shared; "stealing" by definition means that someone must have lost something to someone else. One could point out that copying debases the market value of certain information, yet no one has a right to a certain market value of their product anyway. By that argument, distributing seeds to your fellow farmers would wrong their competitors, even though it strengthens the production and trade of wheat for all.

           Whereas the former assumption is nonsensical, the latter infringes upon the property rights of everyone else. Contrary to what others may think, computers don't "download" information the same way you transfer liquid from one bottle to another. Instead, their hardware at a literal atomic level (electronic level to be precise) is aligned in such as way as to match whatever input it receives from a source. Thus, digital sharing is a lot like letting someone take a picture of something of yours. That is the beauty of the digital realm; no one can lose what they share. Very few things are "original", if any exist at all that is. Sadly, proponents of copywrite laws do not seem to understand or admit the blatant infringement of property rights that their position necessarily requires. Whenever someone declares that a certain peaceful use of your property is punishable with a fine, It is an act of extortion.

          Under Federal law, a defendant could be fined up to $150,000 per infringement under the Copyright Act. In the first trial, Jammie got off lucky with a $222,000 fine, so she could had settled then. Of course, that would had meant facing a crippling punishment anyway. No one could rationally fault her for fighting on, yet there are those who do so nonetheless. One has to admit at least that the Act is excessive, if not unconstitutional. What about the right against cruel and unusual punishment? If you ask me, it's an insult after injury no matter how you look at it.

Posted by AuthenticAuthor on 04/27/09
Last updated 08/17/09

Fear mongering is very profitable, and easy. All you have to do is demonstrate that:

          A) Something is very dangerous to people.

          B) You are relevant and can help prevent that something from happening.

          C) You are worth the cost, specifically tax payer money.

          After that, your business is assured as long as you recycle the process when public interest in you dies down. This principle applies to virtually every government agency totally dependent on taxes, from the Pentagon to the Drug Enforcement Agency, even the Center for Disease Control. And the C.D.C.'s newest and engrossing performance is the focus of this article. The Swine Flu is promised to be a showstopper.

It's Just A Cough!

So, is the swine flu as dangerous as what the C.D.C. makes it out to be? Let's check it out from their official website:

How serious is swine flu infection?
Like seasonal flu, swine flu in humans can vary in severity from mild to severe. Between 2005 until January 2009, 12 human cases of swine flu were detected in the U.S. with no deaths occurring. However, swine flu infection can be serious. In September 1988, a previously healthy 32-year-old pregnant woman in Wisconsin was hospitalized for pneumonia after being infected with swine flu and died 8 days later. A swine flu outbreak in Fort Dix, New Jersey occurred in 1976 that caused more than 200 cases with serious illness in several people and one death.

          Putting my great knowledge of Math to work, the death rate of the New Jersey case was at best 1/201. So, in a current population of 300,000,000 people in the U.S. as a whole, this new case could, theoretically, amount to 1,492,538 casualties (rounded upward), assuming everyone lived in something like New Jersey and all got sick. Scared yet? Of course, that death toll, based on the N.J. case, would be about .005% of the entire affected population. So we can be assured that humanity, on the basis of that case alone, would live on. And yes, on that case alone, you would most likely survive.

          But wait! This is supposed to be a serious epidemic right? Perhaps this strain is deadlier than ever before! Let's check the C.D.C. again for the latest case numbers to date:

U.S. Human Cases of Swine Flu Infection
(As of April 27, 2009 1:00 PM ET) State # of laboratory
confirmed cases:

California 7 cases Kansas 2 cases New York City 28 cases Ohio 1 case Texas 2 cases

TOTAL COUNT 40 cases International Human Cases of Swine Flu Infection
See: World Health Organization

          Hmmm, this ain't no Black Plague, which is historically known to have reduced roughly a third of Europe to body-piles, or even the Spanish Flu, which apparently had a much better mortality rate than this doom-bringer wannabe. Notice how we have no deaths in the U.S. (at least not yet!). Something tells me that I should fear Turburculosis or Malaria more so than the Swine Flu.

          But, I'm going to be fair here. The World Health Organization claims that in Mexico's capital, 854 cases of "influenza-like" illnesses were reported with 59 of those sick now dead. In San Luis Potosi, 24 I.L.L. were reported sick with 3 dead. Now it gets interesting, for it begs the question, "Why such a huge death rate in Mexico, if these were indeed Swine Flu cases?".

            This is only speculation, but I'd venture to guess that other more important factors played a role in those illnesses. Last year, Mexico City was dubbed Forbes's 5th dirtiest city in the world. San Luis Potosi, I suspect, probably has its share of pollution too. And this is beside the other factors concerning health care availability and poverty. Needless to say, Americans are better off in both arenas than Mexicans.

          Did I mention these were classified as "influenza-like" illnesses?

The Greatest Disease, And It's Not Swine Flu

The C.D.C., once again, has failed to convince me that there is a genuine threat to the nation other than itself. And once again, my corruption-senses are tingling. Major pharmacutical interests are at stake here in the newest microbial craze. The C.D.C. recommends, yet claims it isn't "endorsing", Tamiflu and Relenza for purposes of combating this invisible critter. You can bet that company investors will be absolutely bonkers over this news, and indeed they are. You can also bet that soviet-style flight restrictions and vaccinations will be suggested, if not mandated.

          But is this all for the public good, right? Vaccines and medicines provided by the government have always been beneficial...right?

          Well, it turns out that from many sources that it's not always the case. In 2003 United Press International reporter Mark Benjamin reported how C.D.C. recommended vaccines can sometimes have adverse effects, and may contribute to long-term debilitations. Such stories have already led to an increasingly growing amount of distrust over the C.D.C.'s apparent conflicts of interest, as presented in an article by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos of FOX News in 2006. Chances are that today the C.D.C. is actively planning to avoid any mention of those past faux pas in pursuit of more grandiose operations.

          Is there an alternative to the C.D.C.? Of course there is. It's Liberty. People can take care of themselves and others without centralized planning. Take a read of Robert P. Murphy's How The Free Market Would Handle Quarantines or Timothy D. Terrell's A Pox On Government Vaccines! for starters. The truth is that free markets provide all sorts of services and products to the average sick consumer, from ultra air-filters to alcohol gels to allergy medication. At the same time, property rights allow individuals to manage the contacts they have within their own establishment, and manage how their property comes in contact with others. Compared to this, the C.D.C. is like a dog barking at nothing and yet everything, always ready to grab attention whenever its owners wonder why they kept it in the first place.

          Better yet, it's like a noisy swine feeding upon the public trough. If we would just let it die by its own natural disease, we would all be better off.

About the Author: I am a graduate from the University of Texas at El Paso majoring in Criminal
Justice, a student of Economics, a Libertarian, a member of  the Campaign for Liberty, and a science­
fiction writer. I can be e­mailed at dbwcrimjust@yahoo.com.

Posted 04/27/09 Fu Manchu Belleville, MI

I'm not yet convinced this is the next "big one", but who knows. Interesting side note, Obama was in Mexico Saturday. Check out my blog from almost 2 months ago about vaccines being used as biological weapons if you want. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12735#38142

Posted by AuthenticAuthor on 04/22/09
Last updated 04/18/11

A recent article from the Associated Press denotes Obama's reluctance to loosen government restrictions on antitrust laws across the U.S.. Of course, the the President is not Congress, but oh well! To the public, when it comes to government a greater concentration of power is good. Yet when it comes to free enterprise, greater mutual cooperation between businesses is bad. Hmmm.

           Newspapers, however rare and financially weak, can adapt and ultimately conquer the threat posed by the Internet, the Justice Department's Carl Shapiro told a House panel.

           "We do not believe any new exemptions for newspapers are necessary," said Shapiro, an assistant attorney general for economics.

           Continued later...

           Still, Shapiro said Tuesday that any new antitrust exemptions for newspapers were "not the way to go." The Justice Department, he said, will weigh each merger proposal individually to determine if it would substantially harm competition and consumers.

           Just who is Carl Shapiro, besides being the Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division in the U.S. Department of Justice? From what I can tell by his speech on “Antitrust in Network Industries” he is a man of contradictions, especially considering that it was spoken before the American Bar Association! You can just imagine a muffled trumpet playing in the background at this bizarre situation.

           But let's move on. What can we learn from Shapiro's speech? He firmly believes that government intervention can tweak the economy to get the best of both competition and innovation. That sounds like a very noble pursuit but the problem with Shapiro's logic lies in his conclusion that there are times and industries where this is both necessary and justified. In truth, however, it's never necessary or justified.

           As I hope to make clear today, the mere fact that many of these industries are highly dynamic, and are experiencing rapid technological change, hardly implies that antitrust enforcers should sit on the sidelines, watching firms engage in technology and standards battles. To the contrary, our job is to ensure that incumbent firms do not use their power to block technological progress. At the same time, we must be careful not to impose any drag on the healthy competitive dynamic that prevails in many network industries. -Shapiro

           What power was Carl talking about? Gee, what possible threat could this power present? Well, it turns out it's the sort of evil that can be best understood in his “Parable” of the imaginary ZipGrapher program, which seems rather silly in light of the fact that every clever, reasonable and voluntary act he describes makes business growth possible and beneficial to society as a whole:

           So, even while you work tirelessly to improve your product, in no small part to drive upgrade sales, the very tactics that worried you when you were first getting started now begin to seem rather appealing. You are tempted to warn consumers of the dangers of switching to the new, incompatible HyperGrapher program. You are tempted to transform your intellectual property into a strategic advantage by blocking HyperGrapher from achieving full compatibility with ZipGrapher. You are tempted to tell consumers in advance when you are getting ready to introduce a new version of ZipGrapher. You are tempted to launch a "Come Back Home" campaign offering the latest version of ZipGrapher at rock-bottom prices to users who have recently tried HyperGrapher.- Shapiro

           Nowhere does this story include complaints from consumers about all this, who he admits would win from innovation and marketing. Oh yes, “tempted” indeed! How evil of successful entrepreneurs to outdo their competitors, and provide consumers with cheaper products in which they can use their savings for more productive purposes later! The irony is that the real powers of businesses are limited to their own property, whereas the power that Shapiro holds is over everyone else's.

           Shapiro argues that trusts reduce competition and degrade the quality of their products and services, whereas antitrust law serves to do the opposite:

           Most on point was Carl Shapiro, a deputy assistant attorney general comprising a panel of one. Acknowledging that newspapers are facing "significant pressures," Shapiro noted that antitrust enforcement exists to promote competition and innovation -- which, indeed, is now occurring within the newspaper industry, "with different participants adopting different strategies for survival and success.”

           If competition and innovation are so good (and they are), I would think we wouldn't be punishing companies for being successful. What kind of message does that send to competitors who wish to grow so that they may compete more effectively? What does it say to those who wish to improve upon their methods of production, to be more efficient, so that they me one day be big? What does it mean for the company that was broken up over an arbitrary definition of size and scope? Finally, what does it mean to anyone who gives a damn about property rights? The answer to all four questions is this: “It's better to be a thief than an entrepreneur.”

           So, what does this have to do with newspapers anyway? If newspapers seek to join forces in order to provide more marketable products to attract customers away from the internet, what is the big deal? Sounds to me like it's competition and innovation being reshaped and reborn under necessary circumstances. It's really nothing, unless the arm of the law gets involved. In fact, the law shouldn't be involved, period! And the same goes toward every other peaceful business agreement.

           To those who fear free market mergers, I would suggest reading Sudha Shenoy's “The Sources of Monopoly” and Hans Sennholz's “The Phantom Called Monopoly”. Both authors effectively dismantle the standard objections to the freedom to grow big. I especially recommend them to Carl Shapiro, who of all people should fear Government instead of voluntary exchange.