Monthly Archives: April 2010

Update II: You Can Check-Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave!’

Economy, Europe, Fascism, Government, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Swiss bankers can no longer perform a function which in Switzerland is legal and commendable: helping private property owners shield their assets against legalized theft. The Swiss are not allowed to uphold victimless laws that contradict their ultimate sovereign: Uncle Sam.

YourMoneyInfo.com: “The Swiss laws do not consider tax evasion as a criminal offense. [They recognize that a man’s property is his and his alone?! Is this possible?!] The Swiss banks do not release the identity of the account unless the foreign government proves that the account holder has committed a crime. [Or unless pressured by big bully US, the protector of freedom the world over.]

The US has managed to dispense with the venerated traditions in the financial sector of an ostensibly sovereign state. I repeat myself, but next time you hear Messrs Hannity, Steyn and others of their ilk wax about the US being the last bastion of freedom, fire off a corrective email. Point out that our government lawyers have been prosecuting UBS AG, a Zurich and Basel-based financial establishment, and its American clients, for tax evasion. (You’ll probably be told that we should have declared war, or bombed Basel…)

When they are not bailing out failed financial institutions, our statists are bankrupting viable ones.

Recommended reading: “The War on Tax Havens”

And “Hotel California“:

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
‘Relax,’ said the night man,
‘We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!’

Update I: A “Robin Hood tax” they are calling it, and, no doubt, BHO will be on board: Under the guise of “sparing the taxpayers another massive public bailout of the financial sector,” the International Monetary Fund has “called for a financial stability contribution (FSC), which should be paid by all financial institutions, not just banks, and used to bail out weak and failing firms.”

Now note how these statists who are corralling us all into a big pen cleverly build their new scheme on a faulty premise: the idea that bailouts are a financial fait accompli. Since when? And who dictatorially decides to commandeer taxpayers monies to bail out financial institutions that ought to be allowed to fail? They do!

Update II (April 22): A correction to our reader hereunder: Neal Boortz is a “liberventionists”; “a statist, not a libertarian.” Anything he supports is usually an indication to the contrary

Updated: April Appeal

Barely A Blog, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com

Why are ilanamercer.com and the companion site Barely A Blog such good causes? If you don’t already know, do read “Why Support ilanamercer.com” for but a few of the reasons. Or spend some time burrowing in the archives of BAB and ilanamercer.com. You will come away convinced that IlanaMercer.com, a one-woman outfit, is generally ahead of the game and the pack—sometimes years in-the-lead.

Times are hard, but if you value the commentary and the community on this space; if you appreciate the time I spend in crafting daily, original, topical commentary, keeping the Comments Forum open for your venting; responding to Comments, and ensuring exchanges remain civil and grammatical—please consider showing your appreciation.

And all the more so given the new commitment I have undertaken.

As readers of this space know, I keep three lead blog posts open at any given time for comment. Of the three that propagate to IlanaMercer.com’s front page, I will try and make one about South Africa, my homeland and my homies. Together we will lift the curtain on a topic Mandela’s media prefer to ignore.

Regular readers and visitors, I hope, will send others to Barely a Blog and to www.IlanaMercer.com (articles archived under “South Africa”), so that blog and main site become a repository of choice for facts and analysis about what’s underway in the once glorious South Africa.

Thank you for your generosity,
ilana

Update (April 22): Thank you Haym—and to the few faithful, you know who you are.

Update II: Famine Afoot: ANC To Nationalize ‘Productive Land’

Africa, Crime, IMMIGRATION, Private Property, Racism, Socialism, South-Africa

The South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), a respectable think tank, has a hard time seeing convincing proof of crimes of racial hatred in the mutilated, violated remains of thousands of rural white South Africans (scroll down to Update III). The SAIRR is, thankfully, prepared to disbelieve the ANC when it warms of the impending nationalization of productive land, and then quickly retracts the rumor:

“Earlier this week the Institute’s new Unit for Risk Analysis described the proposed nationalisation of agricultural land in South Africa as a potentially cataclysmic event for South Africa’s economy. The Government has subsequently denied any intention to nationalise private property. We have reason to doubt their assurances and warn again that the nationalisation of agricultural land is now a published government proposal, that it follows a trend that saw the nationalisation of both mineral and water rights, and that it follows previous efforts to introduce far reaching expropriation legislation. The likelihood of the Government adopting this policy proposal is therefore something that South Africa’s domestic and foreign investors should be very aware of.

In a statement released to the media this week the Unit for Risk Analysis warned that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform had proposed two future land use models for South Africa in their Strategic Plan 2010-2013. The precise wording of their proposals is as follows:

“To facilitate this discussion, the Department is proposing two options: all productive land will become a national asset and a quitrent land tenure system either with perpetual or limited rights is envisaged. This may require an amendment to Section 25 of the Constitution. All tenure legislation will be subsequently reviewed and brought under a single national land policy framework. Option two will focus on a review of current tenure policies and legislation in order to maintain the current free-hold title system but within the ambit of a land ceilings framework linked to categorisation of farmers. Option two will also investigate a State Land Management Board to facilitate the management of State owned agricultural land and leases.”

On the first model, which proposes declaring all productive land as a national asset, we commented that, ‘Inherent in the proposal is that ownership of the land will [then] rest with the State. The State would then have the authority to declare who could work the land, for what purposes, and under what conditions.’

The second model suggests placing a ceiling on how much land individual farmers can own while maintaining a freehold land tenure system for South Africa. Regarding this proposal we warned that, ‘Commercial agriculture in South Africa depends on significant economies of scale to remain competitive. Undermining that efficiency via limited land holdings risks many serious repercussions, such as a steep reduction in agricultural investment and a commensurate fall in agricultural employment which will in turn drive up levels of rural poverty and provide an impetus for greater rural to urban migration.’

Relevant to both proposals we added that, ‘Government assurances that the proposals were merely a mechanism for taking failed farms back from black farmers were a red herring to conceal the State’s more plausible intention to wrest control of agricultural production from white commercial farmers,’ and that, ‘It is ironic that the Government would use its own failed land reform programme to justify the seizure of remaining productive land in the country.’

We forecast that if either of the proposals is adopted, South Africa will experience repercussions that will damage the commercial farming industry in South Africa.

The Government and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform have responded to our warnings by saying that there is no plan to nationalise South Africa’s farms. The Government has further stated that it respects private property rights and that this will not change. We have little confidence in these assurances and believe them to be an effort to mislead the public and the media.

In part, this is because the Government’s assurances are so obviously contrary to their own written and published plan. While various government officials in the last 48 hours have said that the plan does not talk about ‘nationalisation,’ it does talk about private owners ceding control of their land to the State which will then lease that land back to the farmers. The Government’s proposal also identifies the need to alter Section 25 of the Constitution which deals with and guarantees private property rights.

A second reason to doubt the Government’s assurances is that this latest policy proposal appears to follow an established trend of the State seizing control of what it regards as important ‘national assets.’

In 2002 through the Minerals and Petroleum Development Act, the Government took custodianship of all mineral rights in the country thereby ending private ownership. Mining companies had to re-apply for those rights in order to continue mining. This legislative step did significant harm to the mining industry in the country and to investor sentiment, particularly in the mining sector.

Similarly, the Government took control of all water resources in the country through the National Water Act of 1998. The previous distinction between public and privately owned water was eliminated, making all water a ‘public asset.’ Water allowances were imposed and the Government handed itself the authority of managing the country’s water resources.

What we are now seeing in terms of the Government’s proposed land seizure scheme is therefore a logical progression of government policy that has sought to bring under state control what it regards as important ‘national assets’.

The third reason to doubt the Government’s sincerity is that this latest proposal appears to be a continuation of a pattern of thinking that gave rise to the Expropriation Bill of 2008. The Institute published extensively on the bill, which would have given the State the authority to seize any fixed or movable property ‘in the national interest’ without paying compensation. Ahead of the 2009 elections the Government declared that the controversial Bill would be shelved.

The Government has recently admitted that 9 out of every ten land reform projects that it has managed have failed. Under these circumstances it is unlikely that this same Government will be able to successfully manage South Africa’s entire commercial farming industry. This is particularly so if they erode the capital value in agricultural land, which is important collateral that farmers have against which to raise loans to run their businesses.

We are therefore of the view that if either of the two proposals goes ahead then South Africa will experience a steep reduction in agricultural investment. This will translate into a commensurate fall in agricultural employment which will in turn drive up levels of rural poverty and provide an impetus for greater rural to urban migration.

Further we expect that South Africa’s ability to meet its food needs will be undermined. This will see knock-on effects on downstream food processing industries with corresponding falls in employment and investment. Upstream supply industries will see their markets shrink as demand for their products falls. South Africa will be forced to import a greater portion of its food needs, placing pressure on both the current account deficit and on food price inflation.

The above repercussions will see more poor rural people flocking to urban areas. The Government’s ability to meet service delivery demands will be compromised even further than it already is. In an environment of escalating protest action against Government on the peripheries of large urban settlements, this will pose a further challenge to the hegemony of the ANC.

It is uncertain to what extent the Government and the ANC identifies these risks. Certainly sentiment within the Government and the ANC ignored similar warnings on skills, mining, health, education, security, electricity, and labour market policy for which South Africa paid a heavy price. It is quite possible that the Government may therefore proceed with this scheme only to try and reverse the policy as its negative effects become more apparent.

It is also possible that the Government may identify these repercussions but proceed regardless in order to achieve what they may see as the more important end of breaking the back of white commercial agriculture and handing farms to black farmers. On this score the ANC leadership’s recent support for incitements to shoot and kill white Afrikaans farmers is pertinent. Certainly the Government’s attitude to white skills in the civil service suggests that they are willing to sacrifice performance for racial ideology.

We must also warn against regarding the second of the two proposals as a lesser of two evils. Destroying the economies of scale that make South Africa’s commercial agriculture sector viable will result in precisely the same consequences as we have spelt out above. Keep in mind that when Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe commenced its land reform programme it also commenced with a proposal of ‘one farmer, one farm’.

We therefore warn our readers and subscribers to take this latest policy proposal seriously, to identify the likely consequences of the proposal, and to prepare for the eventuality of the State going ahead with seizing all or part of South Africa’s agricultural land holdings. We caution strongly against taking Government assurances to the contrary to heart particularly when viewed against the track record of that same Government in nationalising mineral and water rights and in proposing legislation to seize any fixed or movable property without paying compensation.

* Frans Cronje and Catherine Schulze

Update I (April 19): Plans for the collectivization of farms are underway amid the carnage. Every online news page is full of death and suffering. Here are two additional news items that appeared alongside the story Conrad posted:

* Gruesome attack on F State family
* Two held for farm attack
* Elderly lady dies in grisly attack

You follow a link and with it more gruesome findings:

Farmer shot in bed (“nothing was taken”)

Update II (April 20): Vrye Denker writes:

Please help us. It’s all good and well that we intellectualize this issue in the comments section, but I am afraid we need more “tangible” aid. I want to get out of here but I don’t have the money or skills to leave.

Getting the word OUT is not merely intellectualizing. Most Westerners have no idea of the reality of life in sainted Mandela’s South Africa. Many of my South African readers, on the other hand, prefer to write to me personally. To which I say: why do you want to discuss life in that country with someone who already knows the awful facts? I’ve committed to keep the facts alive and current on this blog (despite a lack of time and resources) with the hope that the more public they become the greater the awareness of the need for a solution to the assault on ethnic white South Africans.

Search this blog (under South Africa) and you will find that I have discussed the options of immigration. I have also covered Canada’s courageous landmark granting of refugee status to a repeat victim of black South Africa. The gentleman in question was without resources, but was resourceful. I cannot recommend a course of action. All I can do is provide information. See the following posts for examples:

Exodus From SA to Israel

Advice to South Africans Pondering Emigration

What about Argentina for South African farmers, who are among the best in the world?

I am still awaiting my friend activist Dan Roodt’s call to action. It is his to make: He (not I) lives in the heart of darkness. However, and I say this cautiously, the white minority under assault needs to begin to organize. Think: How organized is the criminal enterprise renamed the South African Police Service—a mostly illiterate, ill-trained force, riven by feuds, fetishes, and factional loyalties? This lot is seizing fire arms from law abiding citizens and selling them for profit to other criminals.

Updated: A Political Takeover Of The Entire Financial Sector? (CHINA)

Barack Obama, Business, China, Debt, Economy, Government, Uncategorized

Writes Robert Bidinotto on Breitbart’s “Big Government” (the proprietor that was infinitely more forgiving about Bush’s big government):

As long as the Democrats continue to control Congress, we’ll have to endure an endless procession of initiatives for the federal government to take over industry after industry. Health insurance and college loans went under federal hegemony with passage of a single bill, known as “ObamaCare.”

Now, a new bill, referred to by the name of its chief sponsor, the ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, aims to consolidate a federal takeover of the nation’s entire network of financial institutions.

As Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute notes:

Does the bill, as [Republican Senate leader Mitch] McConnell said, “institutionalize too big to fail?” Of course. There can’t be any reasonable doubt about this. The bill authorizes the Fed to regulate all non-bank financial institutions that are “systemically important” or might cause instability in the U.S. financial system if they failed. . . .

The market will see immediately that the government has created Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs in every sector of the financial system where these large companies are designated for Fed regulation, including insurance companies, hedge funds, finance companies, bank holding companies, securities firms, and any other kind of financial institution the government wants to regulate. Since these firms will be too big to fail, they will be seen in the market—as Fannie and Freddie were seen—as ultimately backed by the government and thus safer firms to lend to than small firms that are not government backed. This will permanently distort the financial market, favoring large companies over small ones, and eventually force a consolidation of each market where these firms exist into a few large competitors operating under the benign supervision of the government.

In other words, this is another huge step toward fascistic corporatism, completing a de facto government takeover of today’s nominally “private” financial firms. These corporations would be reduced to the status of politically managed public utilities.

Professor Brad Smith of Capital University Law School stressed that latter point to me:

It’s important to note that this is not just about more bailouts, but it will be bailouts for the politically connected and favored. If the President and Congress think you are a “savvy businessman” (which means you support his party) you’ll be in the pink. But if you are a “corrupt Wall Street Titan” (meaning you don’t support his party) well .

Absolutely true. This is not only a federal takeover, but more specifically a political takeover of major financial corporations. Smith adds: “Republicans can rally public opposition if they get this message out there consistently.”

Ah, but therein lies the rub. The Dodd bill faces a cliffhanger vote in the Senate, perhaps as early as next week. And whether it passes in its current form may come down to the vote of a single Republican “centrist,” Susan Collins of Maine, who could thwart a successful GOP filibuster.

The repercussions of this legislation are as significant as ObamaCare. But even some Democrats are wavering on it. It can still be defeated.

I urge you to contact your two U.S. senators today. (And while you’re at it, make sure to send a copy of your message to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.) Tell them to oppose the pending financial reform legislation, the so-called “Dodd bill.” Tell them it represents “crony capitalism” at its worst, putting taxpayers on the hook for guaranteed bailouts of any and all financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.”

Tell them that this will give unfair market advantages to big, politically connected corporations over smaller, politically unfavored competitors. And that, in turn, will completely distort the financial-services marketplace, creating the false impression that large, government-backed institutions—like AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac—are inherently safer for investors and lenders than their smaller rivals. That can only encourage the consolidation of the financial-services sectors into a few gigantic monopolistic institutions, adding to the “moral hazard” problem of rewarding irresponsible businesses at the expense of their responsible competitors.

And you might want to add that we, the voters, will have the last word if power-craving members of Congress continue to imagine that they are “too big to fail” in November.

[SNIP]

Follow the links in Robert’s blog post HERE.

Update (April 19): Glenn Beck’s next milestone will be to quit the ranks of American Sinophobes, who “are fond of saying that the strength of the Chinese economy is derived from that government’s exploitation of its people.”

From “US In The Red And Getting Redder”:

The Chinese are ditching Mao for Milton, as Americans trust Oprah to pick their literature and leaders. Indeed China is changing. It is “out of the red” in more ways than one. The US is changing too: It’s in the red and getting redder. …
China has undergone considerable economic restructuring and market reforms, the consequence of which is a 300 million strong Chinese middle class. Poverty levels have receded from “53 percent in 1981 to 8 percent in 2001. Only about a third of the economy is now directly state-controlled. [Like the US] As of 2005, 70 percent of China’s GDP was in the private sector.” The Chinese financial system is duly being liberalized—banking is diversifying and stock markets are developing. Protections for private property rights are being strengthened as well.