O’s Argument From Inflation

Barack Obama, Economy, Energy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation

“Game. Set. Match, Mitt Romney,” last night, did not mean that the arguments made during the second presidential debate were not both tedious and hopeless for liberty lovers.

I did perk my ears, though, when Barack Obama made an argument from inflation. Mitt Romney failed or was prohibited from following-up (although I’m not suggesting that he had the philosophical wherewithal with which to respond).

Obama suggested that an earlier drop in gas prices was due to America’s economic straits (partially correct), and was thus a bad thing (completely incorrect):

CROWLEY: Mr. President, could you address, because we did finally get to gas prices here, could you address what the governor said, which is if your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?
OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney’s now promoting.

In Austrian economics, deflation, “a sustained decrease of the price level,” is a good and natural market response.

Writes Doug French “In Defense of Deflation”:

Lower prices increase demand; they do not reduce or delay it. That’s why more and more people own flat-screen TVs, cellular telephones, and laptop computers: the prices of these goods have fallen, and people with lower incomes can afford them. And there are more low-income people than high-income people.
Lower prices don’t mean lower profits; nor do they mean that employees will be laid off. More demand for a good or service means more employees needed to produce those goods and services. “There is no reason why inflation should ever reduce rather than increase unemployment”
“Deflation is one of the great scarecrows of present day economic policy and monetary policy in particular”…

And here’s Guido Hülsmann on “The Economics of Deflation”:

Game. Set. Match, Mitt Romney

Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, Democracy, Elections, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Republicans

Mitt Romney won the second presidential debate too. That any normal person watching the brawl would have concluded. But in this country even the polls are bifurcated. GALLUP calls it for Romney (R: 50% O: 46%). An instant, non-scientific CBS poll says Obama curried favor with voters, 37% to 30%.

Because the bar for Obama had been set so low, dumbo’s passable performance fired up the base, not least the groupies at CNN. Chief cheerleader Jessica Yellin was over the moon, darting about fawning over Obama’s enthralled Democratic entourage. (She called it “interviewing.”)

I believe Ann Coulter predicted what has just unfolded. From the first debate, posited Coulter (on Hannity), liberals took away that no good would come from telling the truth about Obama’s dismal performance. Come what may they would, second time around, hail a tolerable performance as a momentous victory.

And this they’ve done, down to Andrew Sullivan, the borderline retarded crunchy con.

Playing Second Fiddle on Foreign Policy

Elections, Foreign Policy, War

In the vice presidential debate, Paul Ryan took the place Barack Obama had occupied a week earlier: that of loser. (Or, relative loser. BHO was an absolute loser against Mitt Romney.)

To the extent tonight’s debate revolves around foreign policy, expect a similar outcome. Unless Mitt Romney does a wickedly smart flip flop on foreign policy, articulating a patriotic, non-interventionist plan—he’ll be playing second fiddle to Barack Obama. Obama has killed Bin laden, doubled down in Afghanistan and continues to eliminate innocent Yemenis through drone action.

Yet the media has depicted the president as a thoughtful killer, agonizing over his kill lists with excruciating care.

Romney will not have that luxury. He’ll stand a chance of standing apart from BHO only—and only—if he changes course.

Microsoft Surface: ‘A Truly Productive Tablet’

Business, Capitalism, Human Accomplishment, Politics, Private Property, Technology

Today is an important day for America’s rotating kleptocracy and the comitatus—that is “the sprawling apparatus … that encompasses not only the emperor’s household and its personnel … but also the ministries of government, the lawyers, the diplomats, the adjutants, the messengers, the interpreters, the intellectuals.” The Democratic incumbent and the Republican candidate for president prepare for another round in the debate circuit, to see which one of them will inherit the earth.

It is no wonder that productivity and creativity are lost in the din over parasitical politics.

Today, the Microsoft Surface tablet went to market. To call this magical thing a “tablet” would be to undersell it. If it fails to win wide general appeal it’ll be because there is nothing quite like it, and because it is “a truly productive tablet.” Yes, The Surface provides the features that keep the average individual’s brainwaves from flatlining. But it does so much more. For example, “It runs as a full computer,” and sports a physical keyboard.

The no-nonsense Windows chief Steven Sinofsky is “almost unwilling to truly define the Surface as a tablet: ‘I’ve used a lot of tablets and this is not a tablet, but this is the best tablet I’ve ever used. And I’ve used a lot of laptops and notebooks, but this is not a laptop or notebook, but it’s the best laptop or notebook I’ve ever used.'”

Sinofsky has also ventured that The Surface “provides the best WiFi reception of any tablet today.”

The Surface’s dual Wi-Fi (“wireless networking technology that uses radio waves to provide wireless high-speed Internet and network connections”) antennae are the part my genius and his team nailed.

Congratulations.