Category Archives: libertarianism

Libertarian (Trade) Deficits

Business, Debt, Economy, Free Markets, libertarianism

The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Libertarian (Trade) Deficits”:

“… I am confident the legendary Lou Dobbs understands that voluntary exchanges are by definition advantageous to their participants. Costco, 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. Silhouetted by the force of the state, this synchronized, magic market starts to splutter, and people suffer. That’s a no-brainer.

However, when it comes to the glories of an aggregate, negative balance of trade, allow me to respond to the typical libertarian post-graduate cleverness, as evinced by Dr. Boudreaux. In one respect libertarians are right: there is nothing wrong with my running a trade deficit with Costco, my hair stylist, or my GTI dealer, as I do—just so long as I pay for my purchases. The data demonstrate that Americans, in general, don’t.

All in all, by Vox Day’s account, ‘U.S. households, corporations and various levels of government’ owe fifty three trillion dollars! The consumption being lauded by libertarians is debt-driven consumption. In this context, a trade deficit is significant, inasmuch as it reflects not an increase in wealth but an increase in indebtedness.

To dismiss the gap between U.S. exports and U.S. imports as an insignificant economic indicator—now that’s silly. ” …

The complete column is “Libertarian (Trade) Deficits”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATED: Great Depression 2.0: An Interview With Vox Day (PART II)

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, libertarianism, Political Economy

The “infamous Internet Superintelligence,” Vox Day, author of “The Return Of The Great Depression,” needs no introduction. My WND colleague and fellow libertarian dishes it out on the impending depression, D.C. dummies (down to their position under The Bell Curve), the U.S.’ Marx-compliant financial system, and a dark future. As always, Vox makes this glum stuff fun.

The first part of my interview, “Great Depression 2.0: An Interview With Vox Day,” is available now on WND.Com. The interview continues. The sequel will be posted on Barely a Blog on Friday evening.

Be sure not to miss your double dose of Day.

UPDATED (July 2): AS PROMISED, YOUR DOUBLE DOSE OF DAY. You’ve read the first part of my Vox Day interview on WND. Now to the sequel, exclusive to Barely A Blog:

• Ilana: To mention the Fed today as anything but a hedge against inflation is to qualify as “Worst Person in the World.” Early Americans were not nearly as baffled about what the Fed did. Comment with reference to the on-and-off attempts to eradicate this Federal Frankenstein. What good would an audit of the money mafia do?
Vox: Keith Olbermann should have stuck to sports. He has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to economics. The Fed isn’t a hedge against inflation, it is the primary engine of inflation just as its three predecessors were. A genuine audit of the Fed will immediately end its political viability and probably its existence, which is why the Fed is fighting so desperately against the Ron Paul bill. But the end result is inevitable. The Fed can’t hide behind fictional statistics forever, as with the Soviet Union, people eventually begin to notice that they are not, in fact, wealthy and well fed.

• Ilana: My second favorite line in your book: “… the only sense in which mainstream economic theory is worthy of serious study is the sense that a flight recorder demands intense examination after an airplane crash.” (One quibble with this analogy would be that the flight recorder contains retrievable immutable truths.) What hope is there for an awakening if “mainstream economic theory” is precisely what is being seriously studied and heeded by those among us who are not reading Dick Morris?
Vox: The only hope is for economic sensibility to be restored post-crash. There are some positive signs, such as the widespread mocking of Paul Krugman’s belated warning of a “third depression” after the failure of the second stimulus. Krugman said a $600 billion stimulus package was needed, Obama got a $787 billion package through the Congress, and it failed anyhow. But the fact that these Neo-Keynesian clowns are still taken seriously and their models dominate the political discourse is an indication that a serious theoretical retooling will not happen until after the Great Depression 2.0 is well underway.

• Ilana: At first the pols conceded that what they had given us was a jobless recovery, which is a lot like a housewarming for the homeless. They’ve quit that Big Lie and are now touting all the jobs BHO has created. What’s going on? Tell us why official indices such as unemployment and GDP are not to be trusted.
Vox: Unemployment is dependent upon reducing the size of the labor force. So, if you’re out of work and aren’t jumping through the BLS hoops, you don’t count as unemployed. It’s a joke. GDP counts spending but doesn’t subtract debt, so it’s like saying that you’re rich because you maxed out your platinum Mastercard. Until the debt is paid back, you can’t properly count it as economic growth. And almost all of the GDP growth over the last 20 years has been nothing but debt growth. And now that the debt is shrinking as people and governments default, GDP will begin to contract oo.

• Ilana: I know who the “Zulus” are; I’m from that part of the world. You lost me with “Whisky Zulu.” Explain.
Vox: It’s just my personal reference to Weimar and Zimbabwe, two famous cases of hyperinflation. The Whisky Zulu scenario I consider is the hyperinflationary one that many inflationists favor. It’s a credible scenario anticipated by many very smart people, but I believe events are demonstrating that the debt-deflation scenario is the one that is playing out instead.

• Ilana: I agree with you that “the Great Depression 2.0 will be worse than its predecessor.” Debt. Consumption. Credit. Have at it (p. 211).
Vox: It’s pretty simple. I give 10 reasons in the book, but two should suffice for here. First, the amount of outstanding US debt to GDP is proportionately greater. It hit a peak of 287% in 1933, and 375% in 2009. Second, stimulus plans that extended and exacerbated the Great Depression were limited to the USA. This time around, Europe, Japan, and China have been actively engaged in their own stimulus packages as well, so the economic blowback is going to be much larger on a global level than it was in the Thirties. Except for Germany, which had its own particular issues related to losing WWI and the strictures imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, the problems faced by Europe did not rise to the level of a “Great Depression” because Europe’s leaders didn’t make it worse by listening to the Keynesians as Hoover and Roosevelt did.

• Ilana: It’s befitting that we end with perhaps the most important right in a free society. My favorite line in your book: “… one should always be deeply skeptical of any economic theory which … serves as a justification to allow one man to dispose of the property of another.” Private property has become a dirty word in an increasingly collectivist America. Not even Rand Paul, in his valiant defense of “private businesses” vis-à-vis the Civil Rights Act, could bring himself to speak to the sanctity of private property. People are comfortable alluding to “freedom of association” but not to what a man owns. Your thoughts with a view to what lies ahead.
Vox: Government can’t fix what government has broken. All of the desperate attempts to “fix” the global economy according to Neo-Keynesian and Monetarist principles are going to fail, state, local, and even national governments are going to default on their debts, and it’s going to be a very difficult road ahead for the next two decades. There will probably be a major war or two as well, as usually happens in times of large-scale economic contraction. But it is a second Great Depression, it’s not the Ragnarok. This isn’t a Democratic problem or a Republican problem and although the politicians will do their best to take partisan advantage of the situation, it is a structural crisis that cannot end until the structure collapses and is replaced with a more economically realistic one. Needless to say ownership—self-ownership, property ownership—will not fare well.

UPDATED: In Defense Of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Free Markets, Free Speech, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy

Tom Piatak’s article, “Nazis and Other Delusions: A Response to Hoppe,” is generating a lot of heat at Chronicles Magazine, edited by the peerless Dr. Fleming. Hans Hoppe, whom I know and like, is said to have referred to some prominent paleoconservatives, Pat Buchanan and the late Sam Francis, as national socialists.

Writes Piatak, “All the paleoconservatives present at the 1996 meeting with whom I spoke confirmed my recollection of this, and I can attest that Sam Francis understood Hoppe to be calling him a Nazi as well.”

Hard-hitting, for sure, I have always understood Hoppe’s “national socialism” comments to be a condemnation of the economic thinking of his philosophical foes. Besides being an unbelievably hackneyed and meaningless label, libeling someone a Nazi usually refers to their alleged anti-Semitism or racism. Hoppe’s libertarianism is the kind that doesn’t give a hoot if someone harbors such sentiments, just as long as the so-called Nazi keeps his mitts to himself.

That’s my position as a paleolibertarian. I don’t care if you hate me for being Jewish, just stay out of my face. In fact, I will go so far as to say that I despise sanctimonious neocons (like the stupid E. Hasslebeck on “The View”) who go out of their way to hunt down and humiliate anyone who shows “prejudice.” (I want to start a “Protect the Prejudiced” movement.) I think Hoppe is pretty much like that.

More important: Hoppe has been hounded by the PC police and accused of racism, homophobia—you name it. He is pretty uncompromising on race, culture—is a defender of the natural aristocracy and the West they way it ought to be. Mr. Piatak himself quotes the uncompromising Hoppe using designations such as “human trash” and “inferior people” quite comfortably. This doesn’t sound like a person who would turn around and, self-righteously, call another a Nazi.

Why would someone with Hans’ views,then, use the “national socialism” pejorative in the way he is accused of doing against his interlocutors? It’s just not Hoppe’s style. Coming from Hoppe, I am inclined to see any use of the national socialism label as descriptive of their economics. Economics is his field, after all.

“What have Hoppe’s fellow libertarians done on immigration since 1996?” asks Piatak. Unless he has backpedalled on immigration, Hans was one of the few libertarians to oppose the mass immigration immolation.

See “TRADE GOODS, NOT PLACES.” I’ve always taken Hans to be both anarchist and immigration restrictionist, which is, some would argue, inconsistent. “TRADE GOODS, NOT PLACES” does not paper over the inconsistencies:

Matters would be simple if all libertarians agreed that a constitutional government has an obligation to repel foreign invaders. They don’t, not if they are anarchists. Both open-border and closed-border libertarian anarcho-capitalists posit that an ideal society is one where there is no entity—government—to monopolize defense and justice functions. In a society based on anarcho-capitalism, where every bit of property is privately owned, the reasoning goes, private property owners cannot object if X invites Y onto his property, so long as he keeps him there, or so long as Y obtains permission to venture onto other spaces. Despite their shared anarchism, limited-immigration anarcho-libertarians and free-immigration anarcho-libertarians arrive respectively at different conclusions when they make the transition from utopia to real life.

The latter believe the state must refrain from interfering with the free movement of people despite the danger they may pose to nationals. The former arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: So long as the modern American Welfare State stands, and so long as it owns large swaths of property, it’s permissible to expect the state to carry out its traditional defensive functions. This includes repelling incomers who may endanger the lives and livelihoods of locals. [UPDATE (June 27): This, in my understanding, is Hoppe’s position.]

The open-border libertarian will claim that his is the less porous position. He will accuse the limited-immigration libertarian of being guilty of, on the one hand, wanting the state to take action to counter immigration, but, on the other hand, because of his anarchism, being at pains to find a basis for the interventions he favors. Not being an anarchist, and hence not having to justify the limited use by government of force against invaders, I hope I have escaped these contradictions.

This essay is in my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society. Get it.

By the by, Hans, whom many people vilify as haughty, can be a lot of fun.

UPDATE III: Beck Revised (Who Eats Nails? Spencer Or Mercer?)

Conservatism, Founding Fathers, Glenn Beck, History, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Race, Republicans

I’ve followed Glenn Beck closely and have concluded that overall, flaws and all, he is a force for liberty. One such example was when “Beck Broke From The Pack” to denounce perpetual war as the health of the state. Let us not forget how polluted are the waters in which conservatives swim. Glenn has changed that somewhat. Not for nothing does Sean Hannity keep his distance from Beck.

“Beck, Wilders, and His Boosters’ Blind Spot” discusses some mindless Beck missteps, such as mistaking “Geert Wilders, an influential Dutch parliamentarian working against the spread of Islam in his country, as a man of the fascist, far-right.” Unforgivable.

IMMIGRATION IGNORANCE:

Glenn also vastly overestimates the virtues of the “American People,” and underestimates the forces (state-managed mass immigration) that are dissolving what remains of that people and busily electing another. (Glenn: Once the country is 50 percent Third World, you might as well be talking to the hand.)

Nevertheless, I revised the “blithering idiot” verdict I passed some years back.

Richard Spencer has not. Glenn “going-to-school-with-each-new-show” has earned the contempt of the editor of AltRight.com.

The funny thing is that I second Richard’s analysis, as I have made the same points myself about Beck’s ridiculous fetishes (stop waxing fat about “Faith, Hope, and Charity”; build on life, liberty, and property, I wrote).

Beck’s (Harry) Jaffarsonian civil rights preoccupation and racial revisionism—sad to say, there were no black Founding Fathers!—are contemptible. But, what do you know?, I have been more forgiving of Glenn than Richard Spencer. Having been characterized as someone who eats nails for breakfast, I’m pleased when along comes a young man who is more uncompromising than myself, even if this guarantees he will not be playing footsie with this conservative tootsie (“intellectual windsock”) on Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel, a forum of and for the Idiocracy.

Read Richard’s superb analysis, “The Glenn Beck Deception: Inside the PC Lunatic Fringe.”

UPDATED I (June 22): I have been extremely careful to separate Beck from James Huggins’ Republican “freedom fighters” (see comment hereunder). Without much success. If you are convinced by Huggins’ GOP loyalism—and Mr. H has stuck to his guns, insisting these hacks stand for liberty—your learning curve is, well, wobbly.

UPDATE II: Here’s the “‘Mercer Eats Nails For Breakfast’ (Not)” accusation:

I’ve been called THE WORD WARRIOR…but I would run for my life if I saw Ilana Mercer coming my way! Does she eat nails for breakfast?— Anthony St. John

UPDATE III: Who Eat Nails for Breakfast, Spencer Or Mercer? Probably both, but Spencer wins out this time, I’m pleased to say. In case you think (sorry Huggs) that every tough-talking toots on Hannity’s “Great American Panel” can eat nails or swallow flames: tough, here, implies an ability to reason, and an uncompromising fealty to first principles. These must draw on fact and on history. To reason in the arid arena of pure thought is not what Richard (or myself, for that matter) does. Most libertarians, however, do so err.