Sean Medlock, AKA Jim Treacher and writer for the Daily Caller, was struck by a State Department SUV. Mr Medlock’s knee was fractured in the incident. Not only was Medlock not given a reason or an apology from the State Department, Medlock was issued a citation by D.C. Police for jaywalking, despite the fact that Medlock was apparently in the crosswalk at the time of the incident.
[h/t: Tucker Carlson]
Posted in Government, nonsense | Tags: Daily Caller, Jim Treacher, Sean Medlock, State Department, Tucker Carlson
The US Department of Justice has said that it is still not satisfied with a deal that would allow search giant Google to build a vast digital library.
It said the plan failed to address antitrust and copyright concerns.
It echoes objections by online retailer Amazon, which has said that Google’s plan to scan and distribute millions of books online could lead to a monopoly.
I’ll admit it—I like Amazon, but that is ridiculous. Does the DoJ come running every time a competitor complains about another company?
Posted in Government | Tags: Google, Amazon, department of justic, google book
Buttonwood of The Economist has this very interesting read where the author compares the euro to a form of a ‘gold standard’ because countries in the euro-zone cannot pay off their debt by inflating euros, as the euro is controlled by the European Central Bank (ECB).
The downside of this is that if the ECB decided to inflate the euro, there is nothing that a euro-zone country can do about it, other than leave the euro-zone. And, since monetary policy is decided by the ECB, there is a higher risk of euro-zone business cycles, should the ECB decide to have artificially low interest rates. That is always a possibility with central banking, which is really nothing more than the central planning of the banking industry by a private organisation. The problem with central banking, therefore, is trying to determine the ‘appropriate’ interest rate(s). There is always a very good chance that the interest rate will be artificially too low or too high.
This is further evidenced by the fact that the an increase in the stock of money is most often a leading, procyclical trend of the business cycle. This means that the stock of money reaches its peak before GDP reaches its peak (boom) prior to the eventual decline (bust) of GDP.
The only reason to borrow money is to use it, to consume or invest. Because of this, the demand for loans has an indirect, positive relationship with the demand for the goods to be purchased with such loans. One of the most important of these relationships is the relationship between various loans and the demand for certain types of capital, where capital is factor of production—a good that is used in the production of other goods or services that is not completely used up in the process of production (examples would include buildings, vehicles, equipment, etc.).
Artificially low interest rates require a surplus in the stock of money, i.e. the creation of new money. Because of the workings of inter-market monetary flow (money cycles; it doesn’t stay in just one market, especially since lowering interest rates increases the opportunity cost of saving), this surplus of money leads to malinvestment, particularly in the markets for capital goods.
Another reason for the leading trend of the money stock is that all investment, including malinvestment, is included in GDP, so if malinvestment increases (ceteris paribus), GDP will likewise increase.
Eventually, of course, malinvested capital looses its market value, causing the bust, the decline in GDP.
The Economist reports that opposition in Iran is refusing to back down, despite the execution of two persons accused of attempting to “topple the government.”
As I stated previously, economic sanctions against Iran would just harm opposition forces.
Posted in Government, economics | Tags: Iran, Iran sanctions
Privatize marriage. A Michigan woman was given six months to divorce one of her husbands; she was also sentenced to fifteen days in jail and a year on probation. Now what business is it of the government to know how many spouses someone has?
And—why in the hell is that a crime?
Posted in Government | Tags: marriage, polygamy, privatize marriage
I Like… HB 2726
Firearms and Ammunition – As introduced, authorizes persons with handgun carry permits to have a handgun in their motor vehicle on a public college campus as long as such handgun is stored out of sight and the motor vehicle is locked. – Amends TCA Section 39-17-1309.
Posted in Gun Rights | Tags: guns, guns at college
Tom Humphrey has a sampling of the latest bills filed in the legislature:
A state law requiring sellers of illegal substances to pay a special tax or face penalties and seizure of their property was struck down by the state Supreme Court last year. Sen. Randy McNally and Rep. Charles Curtiss have produced a bill designed to answer the court’s objections and put the “crack tax” back on the books. (SB3134/HB3164)
Just read the stupidity.
Humphrey:
About 1,100 bills were filed in the Legislature last week
OH, GOODY!!!
Even better:
Raise Cigarette Taxes
By 2.25 cents per cigarette for manufacturers not participating in the “master settlement agreement” wherein major tobacco companies are already making annual multi-million dollar payments to the state. (SB3133/HB3646). Sen. Randy McNally and Rep. Mark Stewart.Increase Seat Belt Fines
The fine for failing to buckle up would increase from the present $10 to $50 under SB3014/HB3408 by Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Tracy and House Transportaiton Committee Chairman Bill Harmon.
Posted in Government, nonsense | Tags: crack tax
All too often I hear nonsensical ramblings from leftist “progressives” clamouring against “capitalism.” These people have declared, and incorrectly so, that capitalism has led to failure; it was capitalism, they say, that led to the financial crises. Many on the left have the ever-growing erroneous view that capitalism is nothing more than government supporting big corporations at the expense of the working man.
A real capitalist, of course, understands the true workings of capitalism; that capitalism is not, as many believe, the government supporting the special interests of mega corporations. On the contrary, capitalism is the government not supporting the special interests, allowing them to fail or succeed on their own accord.
The most annoying misconception of capitalism is that of the workings of corporations. The left has simply decided to ignore the fact that the corporation is something created by government. In order to form a corporation, one must file with the government; in other words, the very existence of corporations is in itself government intervention into the economic workings of society. Allow me to note that it is not my purpose here to argue for or against the existence of corporations; I’m simply showing the flaws of the anti-capitalist rhetoric that exists.
For the sake of argument, however, assume an economic system where the government does not interfere in the economy. In this system, one cannot file for articles of incorporation with the government, as the government does not interfere with the economy. There is now a fundamental question: can a corporation exist in this society? Clearly, the answer is no. Yes, people can form “companies” and even possibly have some limited liability via contractual negotiations, but it is very unlikely that a company could become a legally separate “person.” In this system companies would consist of partnerships and sole-proprietorships.
Such an economic system does not exist; thus, we have corporations. This leads to an examination of corporations. A corporation, at its most fundamental core, is an organisation formed by an individual (owner) or individuals (owners). Assume the latter, a corporation owned by individuals, and assume also that this corporation is a profit-seeking business. Here we essentially have a collective of individuals coming together acting in their own best interests.
In a natural sense a collective cannot have rights, as a collective is simply a group of individuals; it is the individuals within the collective that have rights. The only way a collective can exist is through free individuals wilfully exercising their individual right to assemble as they see fit. A corporation, as with any collective, has no natural rights by virtue of its existence. It is the individuals within the corporation that have natural rights by virtue of their humanity.
Recently there has been much controversy over the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on first amendment grounds. The greatest front of opposition to the court’s decision comes from the left, while most support, on the other hand, comes from the right and libertarian circles.
Personally, I support the court’s decision. I support the decision not because I support some artificial rights of a corporation (I don’t), but because I support the right of individuals within a corporation to freely make decisions and exercise their natural rights. As stated previously, a corporation is a collective; it is the individuals within the corporation that retain natural rights; this includes the right of individuals to freely assemble themselves and use the funds thereof to support, oppose, or endorse political candidates.
Using this natural-rights basis, corporations are really no different from unions, which, despite McCain-Feingold, had the legal ability to endorse and fund candidates. Likewise, unions, too, are nothing more than collectives—individuals exercising their natural rights to freely assemble as they see fit. So why then should a collective group called a “corporation” be treated differently from a union, another collective group? I expect that is a question the left cannot answer.
Posted in First Amendment, Government, Politics, economics | Tags: First Amendment, supreme court, libertarianism, capitalism, freedom, corporations and natural rights, corporations and capitalism, corporations, unions, collectivism, individual rights, right to assemble, McCain-Feingold, campaign finance, US supreme court, scotus, big business
Posted in nonsense | Tags: che Guevara, communism, Hitler, Mao
In a post yesterday, Paul Krugman said “it does look as if this recovery is going to be jobless for quite a while.”
My only response to this is that a recovery isn’t jobless. Even though the unemployment rate continues to hover around 10%, the preliminary report shows that about 85,000 jobs were lost in December. Remember that persons are only included in the unemployment rate that have been unemployed for four weeks or less; persons unemployed for longer that four weeks are considered “discouraged” and “no longer looking for work.”
In another note, I’m waiting on more reports to come in from the Department of Commerce about various sales figures. I’m also waiting for the GDP figures to be released.
The reason I’m anxious to look at these numbers is to see whether or not aggregate demand has fallen overall, despite a small increase in the CPI. A decrease in overall demand with rising prices will indicate that the overall demand for money is increasing, but the overall supply of money in increasing faster than monetary demand, meaning that the stock of money is increasing, i.e. inflation. If this is true, it is troubling because a fall in aggregate demand (consumption) should mean an increase in the overall demand for money; in other words, a fall in aggregate demand should mean deflation, a contraction in the stock (quantity supplied) of money.
