Category Archives: Free Markets

POTUS & Pompeo Make Great Strides On North Korea, Are Rewarded With Double Negative Headlines

China, Critique, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Trade

June 1, President Trump was impressive on North Korea, sharing a significant development with the media. He would “be meeting with Kim Jong-Un in the coming weeks as we seek to denuclearize the North Korean area and the entire Korean peninsula.”

“I think it is a getting-to-know-you meeting-plus. And that can be a very positive thing,” said the president.

POTUS and Mike Pompeo, U.S. secretary of state, had just met with Kim Yong Chol, a high-ranking North Korean, in talks to salvage the summit.

At the same time, the president indicated that he viewed China and South Korea as neighbors who should do the dominant policing of North Korea.

In addition to non-stop sneering during “programming,” the headline President Trump received from CNN today was a double negative, something along the lines of:

“North Korea Summit No Longer Cancelled.”

Why not run a positive headline?

“North Korea Summit is On.”

 

Comments Off on POTUS & Pompeo Make Great Strides On North Korea, Are Rewarded With Double Negative Headlines

Written by on

UPDATED (6/6/018): Guaranteed Taxpayer-Financed Income For EVERY Americans: If Degenerate Dems Take Over, Economy Will Tank

Debt, Democrats, Economy, Free Markets, Government, Labor, The State

When Democrats are not plotting on giving houses to the homeless, paying drug addicts to shoot up, and inviting the world to immigrate to the US—they’re scheming on the ultimate decadent, immoral and unworkable government plan: “guaranteeing every American a taxpayer-financed job”:

Senator Bernie Sanders recently promised to introduce a bill guaranteeing every American a taxpayer-financed job, should they want it. His colleague, Senator Cory Booker, has already written a bill which would test such a policy in 15 places with high joblessness. Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, three other potential presidential contenders, are co-sponsors. Ms Gillibrand will reportedly soon pen her own plan, too.

In addition to the cost of the program, the giveaway will expand the government payroll by 50 percent. Presumably to administer.

“In April 2018, about 127.34m people were employed on a full-time basis” in the US. (The Statistics Portal)

The Economist’s says America has 148m workers.

Of this, “Government at all levels employs 22.3m Americans.”

This, of course, is not free-market capitalism.

MORE: “Make work can’t work: A jobs guarantee is a flawed idea.”

UPDATE (6/6/018):

Comments Off on UPDATED (6/6/018): Guaranteed Taxpayer-Financed Income For EVERY Americans: If Degenerate Dems Take Over, Economy Will Tank

Written by on

1 Reason The State Department Turned On #RexTillerson: He Tried Trimming Budgets & Getting Rid Of Deadwood

Business, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Free Markets, Government, Political Economy, Taxation, The State

The Economist notes that Rex Tillerson was a poor secretary of state—but not for the reasons I would advance.

One reason for their opinion is that, “Disastrously for morale, he declined to defend his own department when the White House proposed cutting its budget by 25% or more … Mr Tillerson squandered goodwill with a corporate restructuring that felt to many staff like an invitation to resign. At one point, outside consultants sent round a questionnaire asking: “To optimally support the future mission of the Department, what one or two things should your work unit totally stop doing or providing?” (“Trump Unbound: In foreign affairs, America just moved closer to one-man rule,” March 17, 2018.)

TILLESRSON TRIED TO CUT GOVERNMENT! Defending your employees, The Economist here equates with increasing or maintaining the budget for the department, it diplomats, envoys and other career and or deadwood staff.

State institutions are self-reinforcing and not amenable to reform; they grow through failure.

So while it would be nice if state institutions were able to reform, because of the structure of incentives, the state cannot be corrected. The incentive structure underlying state institutions is antithetical to reform.

To correct processes that may be killing people—affirmative action, when the subject of special privileges isn’t qualified—you have to cut budgets in the billions. This likely will never happen, in state institutions, because they don’t abide by the profit motive. So to express belief in this is to express belief in the possibility of the state fixing itself.

The libertarian grasps that the state grows through inefficiency. The more it bungles—the greater its budget will be. Economically, the state’s incentives are inverted.  A private company, on the other hand, grows through economic and performative efficiencies; by singles the customer. The state is the opposite. As a monopoly, it need please nobody. For example, the education system is a giant failure.  Will it be scrapped? Of course not. The system will reward itself with MORE, not less, funds to fix the problem.

This is a structural fact of the state.

Why can the state grow and prosper through inefficiency? Because it has access to the funds of an indentured third party, taxpayers, and has the promiscuous use of the printing press.

A private institution can come back from the abyss, because, economically, it will go bust if it doesn’t start pleasing customers. However, if, like the Florida bridge collapse, a private enterprise is working in tandem with the state, then taxpayers bail it out.

Profit is privatized, loss is socialized.

Most people no longer read or understand the economics of the state. Ten years ago, I had readers who had at least read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson.

 

Comments Off on 1 Reason The State Department Turned On #RexTillerson: He Tried Trimming Budgets & Getting Rid Of Deadwood

Written by on

Trade Deficits In The Context Of State-Managed Trade And Systemic Debt

Capitalism, Debt, Economy, Free Markets, The State

THE NEW COLUMN is “Trade Deficits In The Context Of State-Managed Trade And Systemic Debt.” It’s now on Townhall.com.  

An excerpt:

…  What goes for “free trade,” rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic juggernauts—national and international—central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit and pollute as they please.

One of the promises Candidate Trump had made and hasn’t yet violated was to simply make these statist organs and trade agreements work for the American people. To wit, the president believes in reducing trade deficits.

Far be it from me to endorse tariffs as a means of reducing trade deficits. I am only here questioning the totemic attachment free-traders have to trade deficits, given that Americans live under conditions of systemic debt and state-managed trade that is anything but free.

If free trade is an unknown ideal, it is quite appropriate to question the alleged glories of an aggregate, negative balance of trade, in this “rigged system,” as Trump would say.

As to systemic debt: Yes, libertarians ought to oppose tax increases, which is what tariffs are. We hold that voluntary exchanges are by definition advantageous to their participants. Trader Joe’s, my hair stylist and the GTI dealer—all have products or skills I want. Within this voluntary, mutually beneficial relationship, I give up an item I value less, for something I value more: a fee for the desired product or service. My trading partners, whose valuations are in complementary opposition to mine, reciprocate in kind.

Ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), there’s nothing wrong with my running a trade deficit with Trader Joe’s, my hair stylist or my GTI dealer, as I do—just as long as I pay for my purchases.

And there’s the rub: The data demonstrate that we Americans, in general, are not paying for our purchases.

Americans, reports Fortune.com, actually have more debt relative to income earned than Greeks. “Indebted U.S. households carry an average credit card balance of $15,706, according to NerdWallet.”

Corporate America is likewise heavily leveraged.

The Federal government is the definition of debt. The U.S. national debt is over $20 trillion without federal unfunded liabilities. Those exceed $210 trillion, by Forbes’ 2017 estimate. Total public debt as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, announced the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, is 104 percent.

Our improvident government’s debts, liabilities and unfunded promises exceed the collective net worth of its wastrel citizens.

Given these historic trends, it seems silly to dismiss the yawning gap between U.S. exports and U.S. imports as an insignificant economic indicator.

Because of decades of credit-fueled, consumption-based living, the defining, current characteristic of our economy is debt—micro and macro; public and private. Unless one is coming from the pro-debt Keynesian perspective, is this not an economically combustive combination? …

… READ THE REST. “Trade Deficits In The Context Of State-Managed Trade And Systemic Debt” is now on Townhall.com.

The Mercer Column can be read on WND, as well, titled “State-Managed Trade Is Not Free:” “The defining, current characteristic of our economy is debt.”

It’s also on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine.