Videos on the Stimulus

(Hat tip Not PC and Shane Pleasance for links)

Now that the TARP (Toxic Assets Relief Programme) in the US has cost over $27 trillion (according to the inspector-general for the programme), now seems a good time to post some videos on the subject -they often explain more than many essays.

Here's what 1 trillion (let alone 27 trillion) can buy (sorry for the size):



Here's how the thing started in the first place (although it probably doesn't stress the governmental role as much as it should:

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Ben Bernanke's superb foresight:



And last but not least, Ron Paul in the US Senate, who's currently trying to pass a bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

One Dead (So Far) in London Riots

The riots in London over the G20 meeting have left one protester dead. Frankly, this doesn't surprise me.

The further left you go on the political spectrum, the more violent protests usually are; and in a protest as vehemently anti-capitalist as this one, events were bound to turn violent. Violent protests, far from being a form of free-speech, are in most cases just a lot of angry teenagers and twenty-somethings who:

- have never run a business, let alone the huge businesses they've been protesting against;
-have never had responsibility for their lives assumed by other people. Most protesters are not working-class people with a genuine interest in living independently -they're usually middle class.
-turn not to principles on reality, but the arbitrary to justify their assertions ("everything's relative", "you can't prove reason's relationship with reality", "one man's freedom is another man's chains" etc)
-think their ideas are "rebelling against the system". They think they're "cool" for the lack thereof.

If the protesters are really interested in the plight of the poor, they'll engage in the most noble and greatest of all human actions: the act of production- of which their reckless violence is the opposite.

Yet More Stimulus News

On the subject of the latest Obama stimulus (only a few days ago he injected US$1,000,000,000,000 into the US economy) fellow libertarian Paul van Dinther has produced a Google Earth image showing how much area would be taken up by US$100 bills if they were all laid out side by side to make US$1,000,000,000,000.

The result just boggles the mind. (N.B.: Google Earth needed for this to work)

How Worse Will It Get?

As expected Obama and Pelosi's 1000 page stimulus package has passed both the US House of Representatives and the Senate, to be signed into law by Obama ASAP.

Let's go over some aspects of it: the bill is some +700 billions dollars of spending in various areas. First off, where will this money come from? They can take it directly from taxes -which the populace will notice directly, and not be happy about. Better to print money instead, and only notice it over a long period of time -when over stimulus can be passed. Glenn Beck shows the increase in the US money supply:



Secondly, what will the money be spent on? Rebuilding American infrastructure, economically, sounds like a good idea. But what's the point of building infrastructure if no one's going to use it? Infrastructure is built to facilitate economic growth now, when it is cost-effective. The sorry state of US infrastructure now is the result of over-enthusiastic government infrastructure building in the 50s and 60s, which couldn't all be maintained at once. Government planning in those days also centred around the suburbs, leading to unnecessary infrastructure projects.

Thirdly, is it moral to take money from those who still have it to use for projects that won't be used? To distort market signals leading to another collapse? Is it wise to take money from the producers who, like Atlas, hold up the American -and World- economy and give it to people whose only business is consuming without producing?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding: NO!

Stimulus V.2

Obama's new US$825b stimulus package passed through the House of Representatives today. Not good news.

He obviously hasn't learnt anything from the Bush US$700b (and now uncounable trillions) bailout, then!

Obama: New Frontiers for the Republicans?

With Obama's election result as the new President of the United States, America's taken a big leap to the Left.

However, this election result isn't about the new found sense of "hope" in American politics; it's a reaction to the smack of conservatism and a lack of willing to make proper free market reforms that have destroyed the Republican Party. It's Bush's budget deficits and Greenspan's policies of inflation, disguised as capitalism, which have triggered a reaction against the Republican Party in this election; and despite distancing himself from Bush rather well, McCain suffered for the same reasons that the NZ Labour Party is doing so.

And it's for precisely that same reason that Ronald Reagan did so much to help his party in the 1980s. America was hurting from the Oil Woes of the 1970s, and could not afford to look weak in front of the Soviet Union. Instead of following the detente policies of Jimmy Carter, he was a charismatic leader who made many substantial reforms, and in doing so made the Republican Party the party of reform.

Now, America is facing another economic crisis, high oil prices, a huge national debt, and a war on terror which has not delivered the results it promised (not that the terrorists shouldn't be hunted down and punished, but the general lack of doing so isn't helping). The Republicans have completely gone back on their principles, crying out about the "greed" on Wall Street* and how we'd all be better if we weren't unselfish. Philosophically, they are no different to the Democrats.

And that's where the problem lies.

So, hopefully, the overall outcome of this election will be good for America, as not only will Obama, providing he does try to keep his promises, prove socialism a disaster, but the Republicans will actually get back to their original principles of small government, and laissez-faire, with recent evidence and anecdotes to base the claims upon. The only question to ask now is, which politician is willing to promote the free market anymore? Best to promote socialism and the "all things to all men" policy under the guise of the free market, and do the same when socialism proves a disaster!

*Where do you not find "greed"?

Corruption of Democracy

A lot has been said recently of Labour's universal student allowances scheme, and it has been thoroughly debunked. The economics behind it is stupid, and so is the justification of "equality", "fairness", etc. So, I have nothing more to add to the general debates -apart from the fact that government hand-me-outs always work to destroy democracy and the political process.

Under a libertarian government which doesn't redistribute wealth, there is little incentive for different special interests and lobby groups (such as unions, businesses, organisations representing different groups of people) to heckle the government for cash -as the government recognises that it is not its job to hand out wealth. "Getting into bed" with government is a waste of resources. Similarly, in elections, the votes of a vast number of people don't go to whoever is promising the most benefits, as is the case today.

However, we have a government which is active in the redistribution of wealth -and when the government has money to give away, there's always going to be fighting about who should get it. Suddenly, it becomes worthy to try and get government to swing your way. The only problem is, that money could've gone to any other group, so different politically -minded groups start competing for money, and the end result is that whoever promises the biggest payouts gets the vote.

This is exactly what we're seeing today in New Zealand, and this "universal student allowance" is simply the latest bribe. And until government gets its hand out of our pockets, we'll continue having different lobby groups fighting and bribing politicians for resources.

Wall Street "Crisis"

No one doubts that Wall Street has been going through some tough times in the last few days, with some major collapses, bail-outs, and bankruptcy claims. Therefore, it is important to re-affirm that, in a free market, people and companies (especially the latter) need to be flexible.

The truth of the matter is, in recent times, both consumers and business owners have been protected, to some degree or another, by a safety net (for instance, the welfare state, or the recent bail-outs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US). The safety net, by "guaranteeing" economic security, has destroyed the basic need to be flexible; which is one of the most important traits a person or a business could have in a free market. It has also removed much of the need to make intelligent investment decisions (hence, the sub-prime mortgage crisis).

In a time such as ours, when events that happen half way around the world can be known here within seconds, and economic circumstances are constantly changing, more rapidly now than ever. Companies have to continually adapt to the changing circumstances to survive.

This is what we're seeing on Wall Street at the moment. Instead of proper, if drastic, market correction taking place, more and more financial institutions are being bailed out. However, financial assistance only helps to delay the eventual collapse-and magnifies it, as it now impacts the government and its expenditure. Having taxpayers money go to inefficient banks and financial institutions is a waste of money.

There's also interest rates. For a number of years, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low, which artificially bolstered the home loans market and, as thus, magnified the recent collapses.

The solution to all this madness, is, of course, to get the government out of the way of business, allowing them to succeed and fail based on their merits. By doing that, businesses will be forced to:

a) make smarter investment choices;
b) look for solutions in other areas for their problems, rather than making decisions under the pretense that the Government will bail us out;
c) force consumers to make smarter decisions in which companies to deal with;
d) stop irresponsible lending to people who can't pay it off.

All in all despite the stress that many people will have to endure during the market corrections going on at the moment, government intervention can only magnify the problem.

Food Crisis: Some Suggestions

There has been much hoo-haa recently around the world, especially in poorer countries, over the large rises in food prices recently.

But New Zealand, as a country, stands to gain A LOT. We have excellent farming land, advanced technology, and animals by the truckload. New Zealand could potentially make a huge deal of money out of this.

To ensure New Zealand's eventually triumph in the upcoming years in food production, here are some suggestions:

1) Remove "green" regulations to the production of food. Remove GM hysteria over food production. Invest in new technologies and capital for the most efficient food production in the world. Allow for more intensive farming. Issues such as water pollution caused by animal excrement and chemicals on the farm can be sorted out by privatizing basic bodies of water, such as rivers and sections of lakes. (This has worked very well in Scotland.)

2) Deregulate the market on a world scale. New Zealand has done very well by promoting its food products around the world, facilitated by free trade. This doesn't concern NZ, at least as much as the EU, which prevents the crucial development of African farmers from getting them to produce their food in the long term, independently. The same applies to the United States (and Canada?).

3) Slash other regulations to production. Slash limits on how much food can be produced at what price, what amount, etc. Important issues such as quality can be sorted out primarily by the market and organizations such as consumer watchdogs, with government interference only after an act of force or fraud has been committed.

There you go, some suggestions for the upcoming food crisis. Let's see whether basic principles of market economics are followed, and if not, how well the situation turns out otherwise.

Chinese Olympics: No Boycott

As you may have seen recently, there has been a load of debate on the NZ libertarian blogosphere as to wherever the 2008 Olympics should be held in China, due to its totalitarian government and human rights abuses, including mobile execution vans*.

I agree that China does have some serious problems with its totalitarian government, still communist in many respects. But it's for those reasons that I'm NOT for the boycotting of the 2008 Olympics; they could be ideal in shedding light on the current regime in China -just what it's been doing recently.

Up until now, commentators on both the left and right have been largely ignoring China's totalitarian aspects, instead focussing on China's recent economic boom, which has had a great effect in creating a Chinese middle class and getting many Chinese out of poverty. Most of this phenomenon occuring in China, however, has been largely concealed to the Exclusive Economic Zones and big cities. Outside of these growth-magnets, many Chinese still live in squalor, under an oppressive government that, despite the lift of regulations and introduction of some property rights since the 1980s, is still essentially communist, especially in social and political terms. Many of these people go to live in the cities to work in the factories, with very little money.

So, hopefully these Olympics will shed light on the plight of Chinese people who haven't been able to escape to the glitzy, Capitalist cities. It all depends, however, on whether the world wants to watch.

And while China's government is a concern, I wonder if it is the primary reason behind John Minto and other figures of the far left organizing protests and raising lefty "awareness" of the situation in China. Many of these people -whether in London, Paris, San Francisco or NZ- were wearing Mao badges 30 years ago, and not just because it was "the thing". China was FAR WORSE back then. I suppose they just hate the Capitalist elements that have been introduced since then, and the fact that a big, evil bourgeois class has been created.

But, at the end of the day, the only nation that can tame the tempered Chinese Dragon is the United States. Luckily, they, unlike Europe, actually act on their values and beliefs.

*Ever wondered why China's imprisonment rate is less than in the US!?

Government Destruction of Small Business

More socialist destruction of business -small business, not "evil" big business has come out from the government today. From Stuff:

"changes to be made to the Employment Relations Act:

* Someone working a standard eight-hour day would be entitled to a minimum of two 10-minute paid rest breaks and a half hour unpaid meal break throughout the day. The breaks would have to be fairly timed so a meal break was taken as near as practicable to the middle of the work period. If an employment agreement had more generous entitlements, then these would apply.

* Employers would be required to provide, where reasonable and practical, facilities and breaks for employees who wished to breastfeed. A code of employment practice would guide employers on how to uphold the obligations."

This little piece of legislation got me thinking: who is really hurt by Socialist taxes and regulations? Big business, which is supposedly the great morass of evil, or small business, set up by poor or middle class people, with a small clientèle?

The answer, almost without exception, is the latter. Rich people and corporations can afford to pay taxes and follow regulations. Small businesses have a lot less money, and less productive capability -and as thus, much less power to abide by governmental regulation. A big business may be able to provide breastfeeding stations, as laid out in the law changes, for its female employees at a small cost of total expenses. Even if a small business' breastfeeding stations aren't as clean and safe as a big business' equivalent, and there are less of them, the new stations create a much larger dent in the budget.

For a small business, having to provide such services amounts to little more than instant gratification on the employee's side. By having their perks now, the money that was supposed to be used for production and business growth, and as thus, more competition for labour, goes to these short term benefits, which may, at worst, put a small company out of business. Long term thinking and benefits are sacrificed to short term whim.

A small business, as well as having to abide by such governmental legislation, also needs, as a percentage, more money to spend in other areas. For instance, a large factory may have a lot more automation, and a much higher output per worker than a smaller factory. The smaller factory mightn't afford the extra cost of automation, and thus its output per worker is lower. However, the small business still has to provide the same services to its employees as the big business. This means less money used on increasing production (by means of either machines or workers).

Add to that the fact that big business has the power to "get into bed" with government. With a government which couldn't put a myriad of regulations over the economy (or any sector of human life for that matter), there'd be no incentive for businesses to lobby politicians to introduce legislation to crush the competition.

By regulating businesses in this way, government hurts who it claims to protect -poor, lower-class people looking to get ahead in life, both workers and businesses.

South Korean Tax Cuts

According to a recent report from Seoul's Yonhap News Agency, the Asian Tiger South Korea may be considering tax cuts in order to lessen the effect of the American subprime mortgage crisis.

To offset the effects, Yonhap has also quoted officials with the South Korean government suggesting other free-market solutions, such as lifting regulation on business.

This is good news for the Asian Tiger. If only we did things with the efficiency and skill of them -then NZ would be a far better place.

Slavery -Essay For School

Slavery -By Callum McPetrie

Slavery was an institution as old as humanity itself. It meant the ownership of one person by another, meaning that the slave was legal property. Often, the slave had to work constantly in bad conditions, and it was their owner who decided everything about their life. Although some owners were kind to their slaves, and gave them a certain amount of control over their lives, this was not often the case, especially in the early 19th Century when mercantilism, which propped up colonies around the world by the European powers, was in charge.

A History of Slavery

Slavery had been around for a very long time before then. Slavery was a commonplace institution in Egypt, where the pyramids were built off slave labour, and Ancient Rome, where people of conquered regions were made slaves (in fact, the word “slave” is said to have come from the word “Slav”, which was the race of people Romans made slaves most often). Slavery was also commonplace throughout the East, in China and the Indian sub-continent.

In the Dark Ages in Europe, and to a lesser extent Britain, slavery was replaced by serfdom. Serfs were similar to slaves in many ways. The Serf was tied down to a certain area of land, and worked in similar conditions to slaves who also worked on farms. Serfdom was a consequence of the feudal economic system in Europe at the time. It relied entirely upon agricultural output, so serfdom was considered inevitable. Life as a serf wasn’t easy, and many rebellions broke out because of it. Russia was the last country to abolish serfdom, which came about in 1860 under Tsar Alexander II. In most countries, however, it was abolished hundreds of years earlier.

In the 15th Century, Europe was on the rise again. As a result of the new mercantilist economic and foreign affairs policies in European countries, Europe looked for new land on which to build colonies, which led to explorers of the time like Columbus, who discovered the Americas in 1492 and carried many slaves on his ship, and Magellan. Mercantilism and colonization first became popular in Portugal, which started the slave trade, and Spain, before spreading to Britain, Holland and France.

In order to make mercantilism profitable, slavery was reinstitutionalized. Slaves were brought from Africa, both to Europe and its colonies, especially the Americas. Both the slave trade and work as a slave were brutal, and incredibly dangerous. Many slaves in the colonies did the same things that serfs did, which was to work on the land. Slaves, however, did far more dangerous work, usually on cotton plantations.

Enlightenment, Economics and Abolition

But in the 18th Century, the tide was turning against slavery. The Enlightenment was at its height, which produced many great minds dedicated to the principal of individual rights and freedom –which stood in direct opposition to the principles of slavery. Mercantilism was being attacked by the economists of the day, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who promoted capitalism –the economic system that logically followed from Enlightenment principles. As well as these men, many people opposed slavery on moral grounds, such as William Wilberforce. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, the great debate of the time wasn’t capitalism vs. socialism; it was capitalism vs. mercantilism and the aristocracy, opposed to change -and pro-slavery. The latter included many of the English writers of the time, such as Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens. Because of the economists’ opposition to slavery, the writers called economics “the dismal science” –a modern phrase that came from the pro-slavery conservatives of the time.

Two countries took the lead in the crusade against slavery: the (northern) United States, which was very new at the time, and Britain. The northern American states became some of the first places in the world to abolish slavery outright, and the founding fathers were planning to put a clause in the US Constitution to abolish slavery, which was rejected by the south. It took a long, gruesome civil war to get the southern American states to also abolish slavery. It should be noted here that the south was agricultural, and because of this slavery was commonplace, and the south was worse off than the north.

Britain, led by William Wilberforce and influenced by the great economists of the time, abolished the slave trade in 1807. This came at great expense to the government, which happened to be fighting in the Napoleonic wars at the time, and outlawed slavery outright in her empire some thirty years later –the first country in Europe to do so.

Abolishing slavery came at great expense to Britain. But over time, their investment was paid off. Slavery prevented slaves from using their talents to the best of their ability, instead consigning them to brutal physical work. After the abolition, slaves were somewhat freer to use their talents to the best of their ability, which greatly helped the slaves and the economy as a whole. It was on this premise that the economists advocated the abolition of slavery.

Other European countries abolished slavery soon afterwards. In France, the French Revolution of 1789 helped towards this, but France soon found itself in the dictatorial grip of Napoleon. It took another revolution, that of 1848, which also took place in Austria-Hungary and Prussia to properly set things straight.

The Effects Today

Slavery affected, and continues to affect, many people in a bad way. This is why decolonization was widespread after WWII. Slavery is outlawed everywhere, except in shady countries in Africa such as Sudan, where people still own slaves.

Slavery had the effect of dividing people into races, an effect which is still felt today, although not as greatly as it used to be felt. This led most importantly to the civil rights movement in America, where race riots were common in the 1960s and 1970s. Many societies still have a degree of racial division that can trace its roots back to slavery in the mercantilist era, and some of the problems associated with race today. Even so, the average African-American has as high a per capita GDP as the average Swede –which is 1/3 lower than the total American average.

In Europe, division of races is an increasingly large problem, which occasionally breaks out in riots in France. Germany and Switzerland also have similar divisions, which are manifest in their laws, especially immigration from North Africa. Immigration is a larger problem in Europe than the US, as immigrants tend to put money into the country in the US in the form of productivity, and take money out in Europe, usually in the form of welfare benefits.

Conclusion

Slavery was a horrid institution in human society, and considered normal for most of human history. It took a revolution of thinking in the 1700s to change this, and revolutionary economics, based on man’s mind as his highest asset, not the hands he slaves with.

Modern slavery came about as a consequence of mercantilism. Although it could be argued that mercantilism has its benefits, its costs were far greater. Mercantilism was also a system of government intervention, not of free markets. The move to the free market was one of the reasons slavery was abolished.

It was the great and courageous minds of the day that had slavery abolished. For that and for other reasons, we have to thank those minds for the prosperity enjoyed in Western nations today.

Hugo Chavez NOT "Dictator Perpetuus"!

In a smart move to combat Hugo Chavez's dictatorial ambitions, the Venezuelan people have voted in a referendum against Hugo Chavez being named "dictator for life" in Venezuela. Even so, those are still his ambitions. But still, a good step away from socialism and the trash heap of the world, in a nation that prefers capitalism more than the US.

I can imagine why. With the country being the incredibly dysfunctional, corrupt and dangerous it is (its murder rate is nearly 7 times that of the US), it's just not a place you want to be.

An Obvious Outcome

It should come as no surprise that the Wellington DHB is offering $100 shopping vouchers for new mothers who are out of the maternity ward in six hours or less. This overcrowding, and the treating of customers -customers who have paid, whether the Ministry of Health will admit it or not- as cattle, is the inevitable result of a flawed public health system.

Peter Cresswell once said on his blog, regarding the rampant problems our health services face on a daily basis, that a private hospital would love to be 98% full. Yet, no customers would be spared a bed. These are paying customers - not cattle, and they have a mind of their own. Unfortunately, that mind is more often that not confined to the poor quality of the public health system.

The American health system has the highest rate of survival for most operations, including those most common, in the world. There, you expect good service, and on the spot. For any leftist who complains about the price, let them know that "private" and "free market" are two different things. But for many people, the difference between "private" and "public" often means the difference between life and death.

Wellington Hospital's "crisis" mode isn't a crisis; it's now the norm. The mistreatment of patients in a very flawed and problematic system that as Sus, at Sus's Sound-Bites, can't "run a bath, let alone a business"- let alone a hospital.

Government Brainwashing in New Curriculum

Free, rational, critical thinking is a fleeting concept in today's world. And it looks like it's about to get a whole lot rarer, thanks to the NZ government's new curriculum.

The newly released curriculum has called for more focus on global warming and climate change (and, of course, the human impact); an emphasis on how much more important Maori people are than us; and of course, that notorious "tweaty" of Waitangi.

This new curriculum isn't about a dedication to true, politically neutral education in our schools. Instead, it is a PC cover-up for the government's true aspirations in our schools-the shaping of young and impressionable minds for the sole purpose of keeping the government in power, and furthering Leftist ideals in New Zealand. It's not about shaping Kiwi minds into the doctors and engineers, writers and artists, businessmen and intelligensia, "movers and shakers", of tomorrow. For instance, lets take the classic example of climate change. Instead of leaving it to the proper realm of politically neutral science, it is brought to the forefront-with all the more emphasis on human causes such as business, industry and technological development, which inevitably leads to, in their later years, these children falsely laying the blame on capitalism-and the want to slit industry by the throat, and lead us back into the Middle Ages.

No, this is not an exaggeration. This is the governments real want-control, control control over people's lives.

Another example is the emphasis on the "tweaty". The Treaty of Waitangi is the primary reason, among many, that keeps race relations so far behind in NZ. Rather than having one single Kiwi culture, where everyone makes their own contribution, the Treaty and the whole concept of race relations sorts NZ into two categories: them and us. It's the same basic problem that surrounds any ideology based on human traits, as opposed to humanity as a whole. The Treaty is used to make people today apologize for what happened 200 years ago. We have to apoloize for events that were completely out of our control-because of someone that is also out of our control-our skin colour!

Here's an idea for the curriculum: go back to tried and true methods. Abolish all the PC crap. Focus on knowledge, and its application-not just whizzing us through school in the hope that drunken teenagers will educate themselves. Bring back proper discipline-and then children will really learn!

American Medical Costs, and Who's Really at Fault

Three days ago, a man hurled his ill wife from his balcony, it has been said, because he couldn't afford to pay her high medical bills. Unsurprisingly, the left has been ranting on about it being a failure of America's free-market medical system. But not's what at fault here is not the American free-market system, but instead government meddling not just in America but also in other parts of the world.

It is without a doubt that America has very high prices attached to healthcare. Obviously, new drugs and medicines are expensive business, so drug companies have to go international to survive. However, in Europe the government artificially lowers prices of medicine so it (supposedly) can be provided cheap to all people. Because of this, in order to make a profit and keep investments in new drugs steady, drug companies have to raise prices on the American consumer. It is Europe's fault, not the the free-market system of America, that medicine is such a burden to people. If America were to implement the same price controls of Europe, there wouldn't be many drugs to keep people alive much longer.

American healthcare isn't exactly socialized, but it isn't exactly free-market either. Instead, it is a third-party system, where insurance is taken out to cover medical costs. Management and bureaucracy is a major part of American hospitals, as well as excessive regulation by the American government. For instance, everyone in the emergency room has to be treated, whether it is a sore thumb or fractured lung that they've got.

Americans are infamous as notorious suers (I once heard a story about someone suing McDonald's about their happy meals not being happy). Many American doctors are terrified of being sued with almost anything these days. Therefore, American GPs and hospitals have to take very high precautions against things going wrong, and this inevitably raises prices through the roof.

The solution is as basic as always, and that is to let medical providers compete on a truly free market, where you don't have excessive pricing for healthcare nor a die-while-you-wait universal healthcare system. Slash bureaucracy and let families and doctors take charge of medical care, because, quite frankly, universal healthcare is a failure everywhere. It only seems to be working in Europe because the prices are the problems of Americans, like the sorry women who got thrown from her balcony. And for peak's sake, do not sue for anything and everything under the sun.

Minneapolis Bridge Collapse: Why?

If there's any one event that tells a country that's its infrastructure is shoddy and in major need of repair, surely it is a bridge collapse in a city of three million people. Yet why wasn't the American Government prepared for this collapse, and why wasn't action taken beforehand to prevent this tragedy?

To be frank, I'm not exactly learned about Minneapolis bridge construction, so I can't really point to environmentalists and the like for not building new bridges to accommodate new traffic (although there are quite a lot of bridges in the city). However, it should be noted that the bridge, according to a federal report, was and has been in a poor condition for quite a time. So, once again, why wasn't action taken to repair the bridge?

Like many governments, the American Government is always somehow strapped for cash (except for when giving pay rises ad funding wars). This was a small bridge surrounded by several others, which would only need a relatively small increase in the amount of traffic to accommodate what would normally go over the collapsed bridge. Not a great deal of money would've been needed to properly repair the bridge. In short, it was a failure of the American Government to repair the bridge-not a hard task.

A better, free market alternative would be to toll bridges in the city that can be used for upgrading already existing structures and building new ones when needed. Because no one likes paying tolls, people would be more willing closer to work in the inner city instead of the sprawling suburbs forever in the distance. Only a minimal amount of taxpayers' money would be needed to keep bridges in good condition.

So why let bridges collapse when a market-based solution would be so much more effective?

Venezuelans...

This will come as a shock to Socialists, but certainly not to any Libertarians. From Investors.com, a Free Market News Source:

"Even in Venezuela, a country whose clueless ruling dictator explicitly seeks to destroy the private sector and rails against capitalism, a stunning 72% of the public support free markets."

...that's even greater than in America, the great Capitalist behemoth of the world.

Funny how the people who most support free markets usually come from Socialist/Communist nations...

(the survey was done by the Pew Research Center)

Common Fallacies about Capitalism II

There hasn't been a great deal to write about over the past few days, with life going on as usual. Because of that, I've decided to write a new "Common Fallacies about Capitalism". This one will consist of only 5 fallacies, but they'll be just as good as before. The original article can be viewed here. Also, it should be noted that this is the 100th post on my blog.

5) Capitalism is the Reason why the Third World is Starving, and why the Rest of Us are so Rich. 20% of the World's Population Consumes 80% of its Resources.
Two of the three arguments presented here are indeed correct: first, that Capitalism is the reason why the rest of us are so rich; and secondly, that 20% of the world consumes 80% of it's production, But there's a catch-22 here: 20% of the world (the people who have a free-market economy) PRODUCE 80% of its resources. Capitalism has been able to make use of resources-both natural and artifical-better, more efficiently and greater than any other system. The 20% of the world's population who consume 80% of the worlds (useable) resources do so because they have the means to do so, and are doing so more efficiently than at any other time in history.

The reason why the Third World is starving is because they have no freedom-and thus no incentive-to go out and produce for themselves. They have no property rights to protect what's rightfully theirs, and produce. However, it is correct when we say that the First World is a burden on the Third World, we have tarriffs and protection a plenty in the first world, wherever you go. Aid also has a negative effect on the Third World, by simply providing an incentive to rely on the First World. Observe that in the countries that have received the most aid, the economies have been shrinking.

4) Capitalism causes Excesses in Some Places and Depletion in Others.
Capitalism doe not cause excesses and depletion. Instead, there is a simple market mechanism to prevent this: if one man had a whole lot of computers he needed to sell to buy a helicopter he wanted, he would try and sell all his computers to people who want/need them at a low enough price that they'll be bought, but high enough to buy a helicopter (in which case it would be a boon to people who want computers for him to have more, so the market price would go down). If he sold enough computers to buy his helicopter, he would buy what he wanted, all the while diminishing his excess to people who want/need computers. The very fact that having one thing by itself is worth more than having two, three, 10,000 etc to any one person is how the market prevents excesses. If our man who wanted a helicopter made neither a profit nor a loss from selling computers and buying a helicopter, he would still have the same net worth after his enterprise, but there would be no more excess.

3) Capitalism is Responsible for Immoral Behaviour.
Capitalism is the system of non coercion, aka voluntary interaction between people. Because of this, Capitalism-in its proper meaning-can NOT be held responsible for people's decisions. Capitalism is an economic system that requires the seperation of economy and state. It does not force morality or a particular lifestyle upon people.

2) Capitalism Leads to the Depletion of sometimes Precious Natural Resources.
Many years ago, the developed nations were very much dependent on coal as their main source of energy. Oil was just some black liquid with no value that came up from the ground from time to time. But as time went on-as more and more coal was used-the devolped nations, and the developing nations also switched to oil, once useless, as their main source of energy. Coal didn't run out, as more and more competition meant that sources were hard to get hold of. Suddenly, uses were invented for oil, and low competition for the resource meant more companies extracting oil.

Nowadays, the same situation has happened for oil. High-tehc companies are developing more and more ways to use "alternative" fuels. Even the oil companies are looking into ways to develop these fuels. As with coal, oil will eventually take a back seat to new fuels and extraction methods.

1) Capitalism=Profits Before People.
There is a simple reason why, under Capitalism, this is a big lie: under Capitalism, all interaction is voluntary. To make a deal with someone else, you first must agree to their terms. Force is illegal, and any force is inherently anti-capitalist. The employee must agree, through a process of discrimination, to work for the employer. The employer must offer reasonable conditions if the employee agrees to work for him/her. Therefore, a business must consider the interests of their employees, as the employees can, as always, choose to leave if they want to.

Because of the fact that forced work-slavery-is inherently anti-capitalist, all work under capitalism is voluntary. Therefore, a company-or any organization-must offer whoever decides to work for them a good deal, or else fail and go under.