Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts

Thursday, 23 July 2009

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.

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

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)

Thursday, 29 January 2009

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!

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

The Truth About Recessions

The numerous bailouts of financial institutions and "financial stimulus" packages promised by both George Bush and Barack Obama have not stopped the financial crisis from plunging to ever-lower depths. As more and more money is pumped into the economy, the crisis grows worse.

What officials from governments in the US and around the world don't realise is that attempts to increase consumer spending are exactly what you don't want in a recession. Prices need to fall for the economy to start up again. Recessions are caused by overvaluation of products and services, by using a claim on future production to buy those products and services at current levels. Normally, this would be alright, as money would be diverted from other areas of spending to paying off debt. However, government inflation and expansion of the credit supply have led to artifically increased demand for products, and as thus, price hikes.

A recession is a large market correction, putting the prices of goods and services back at their true levels of demand. Therefore, the last thing government should do is to try to keep prices at their overvalued levels, in the interests of preserving an unsustainale economy.

Instead, with falling prices, businesses have the opportunity to rejuvenate themselves, as not only does demand for consumer goods falls, but also capital, natural and human resources. It also means that failed business and economic models can be replaced with better ideas -this is seen in the fact that many great corporations were formed during a recession. If anything, it means that people can start working from the ground, up.

Over the long term, a recession is a boon to the world economy. There is always short-term suffering (caused by the shortfalls of the inflation-induced boon-and-bust cycle), but it is far better than holding off for an even greater doomsday in the future.

Thursday, 30 October 2008

Winston Peters' "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"



Libertarianz is now part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", according to Winston Peters. It's true!

Sunday, 5 October 2008

That damn bailout...

The Bush-Paulson bailout, even after being rejected on Monday, successfully went through the House of Representatives on Friday, meaning that American taxpayers will now be an extra US$700,000,000,000 out of pocket (and now have over $10,000,000,000,000 of debt to pay off). The money will be going to try to prop up a flawed financial system, and to delay and magnify further economic collapse.

Over the past few weeks, you undoubtedly would have been hearing, from all political groups and figures, from Sarah Palin to Winston Peters that this collapse has been caused by "greed", capitalism and spectators. Similarly, no one actually tackles the proper root of the problem (artificial credit expansion) and instead advertise great new systems of regulation and government interference. In other words, more power to politicians.

However, in a free market, banks only have so much money to lend out (and if bank prints their own money such as in America pre-civil war, it can quickly become worthless), and are accountable to the people who deposit their money in the bank. Low interest rates signal that people are more willing to take risks for business expansion and economic growth, and that the bank has a lot of money to lend out. High interest rates mean that people want to be more conservative with their money.

Under a free market, interest rates set by banks go up with inflation (as the money gets devalued with time). However, in today's mixed economy, governments set official interest rates. And as thus, they also set inflation at a steady pace, to ensure there's always money on hand to lend out, to ensure economic growth (which is what we've seen during these two decades, with the dot-com bust as an interval).

Unfortunately, this artificial economic growth does not encourage proper, responsible investment, and this can be seen in middle-class America -and New Zealand- with the rise of the McMansion (although many regulatory policies are involved there). The building and buying of McMansions is generally hard work, but, from hearing stories about loans worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with 0% deposits, it's happening alright.

The inevitable result of stupid business decisions is business failures, job losses, and share market crashes, such as we've seen with Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, and many New Zealand finance companies. What this current collapse signals is a market correction, caused by governmental inflation. Also to consider, is the fact that money gets devalued by inflation, which is a double-whammy for everybody.

Wednesday, 17 September 2008

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.

Wednesday, 27 August 2008

Beijing Olympics: Bring on London 2012!



The Beijing Olympics ended with a hiss and a roar on Sunday - a satisfying end to one of New Zealand's most successful Olympic Games ever, with three gold medals -won by Tom Ashley, Valerie Vili, and the Evers-Swindell twins. On top of that, we won one silver medal and five bronze medals.

However, it didn't come cheaply. New Zealand's government spent nearly NZ$10,000,000 for every medal we won! No matter how well we did, the government had no right to exert any money off taxpayers for the Olympics (or any other sports event).

Instead, the New Zealand Olympic effort should be privately funded, by donations and sponsorship from businesses and private individuals.

Other than that quibble, I am pleased with the Beijing Games, which were enjoyable to watch. So, bring on London 2012!
________________

Another interesting thing happened on August 24: I turned 15 -which means I'm now old enough to drive!

Friday, 23 May 2008

A Tale of Two Budgets

Two budgets were released on Wednesday this week. One was the typical tax-and-spend budget promulgated by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, promising a "tax cut" of $16 a week that will be eaten up shortly by inflation and the rising cost of living; the other was the Libertarianz Alternative Budget, that was put out by Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton. (A full spreadsheet outlining the budget in detail can also be downloaded from that page.)

Libertarianz will cut government spending and give back public money in the form of a true tax cut, $220 dollars per week. Libertarianz will slash the regulations and taxes on our economy, allowing New Zealand to truly surpass Australia in living standards and a growing economy; and help the poor and disadvantaged in society -by giving them back the money that was took from them, and regurgitated out in the form of "benefits."

Libertarianz will also enable New Zealand to defend itself properly, by buying new military equipment, such as brand new fighter jets. Libertarianz believes that a free nation should be able to defend itself, and works towards that end.

Libertarianz will paying no-hopers on the welfare state to breed, allowing voluntary charity and a work ethic to take its place. By legalizing victimless crimes, Libertarianz will put more resources into fighting real crime, and getting New Zealand away from the #1 spot in sexual assault, property crime and child abuse, in the world.

As well as the things mentioned above, Libertarianz will create, within a few years, one of the most dynamic, diverse and flexible economies in the world being able to adapt to changing market conditions rather than stumbling behind the rest of the developed world in GDP.

It's enough to make you vote Libertarianz!

Tuesday, 26 February 2008

Tax News

Some good news from around the world recently, regarding tax rates. Poland is introducing a new flat tax rate of 17%, to be introduced in 2010-2011. Poland will be the latest member to join Eastern Europe's highly successful Flat Tax Club, with nations such as trail-blazing Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia and the Czech Republic been responsible for most of Eastern Europe's growth recently.

Iceland and Taiwan are cutting their corporate tax rates. Iceland already has a flat tax of 36% (hardly ideal, admittedly), and is going to drop their corporate tax rate from 18% t0 15% (compare this with the corporate tax rate in the US, which is 39%+). Taiwan's corporate tax rate is going to be cut from 25% to 17.5%.

Although our politicians here in New Zealand, both on the Left and Right, are promising tax cuts for the 2008 election, why don't we follow this promising trend in the world and flatten our tax rates? Flat tax has been incredibly successful in all nations it has been implemented in. When/if we do, Kiwis will finally be deserving of the Tiger status that all our ingenuity, unfortunately, hasn't been able to achieve.

Friday, 19 October 2007

An Inconvenient Truth

The Nobel Peace Prize has made clear its political intentions in giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Inconvenient Al Gore recently. The driving forces behind the Peace Prize have stopped genuinely giving the prize to people who advocate and fight for actual peace, but instead have given in to feel-good environmentalism.

What they fail to realize is, after the hundreds of thousands of millions of contradictions and lies in his works are gone through, that it is very clearly a political stunt on his behalf-for political reasons-for instance I've seen a link on PC's blog that says that over half of all scientists disagree with the AGW "consensus". A lot more people than are portrayed are actually above the nonsense that is environmentalism. The fact that not a lot, lot more debate is portrayed amongst climate scientists and meteorologists is the fact that now, millions of jobs and billions of dollars depend on AGW being true and happening.

The two reasons why environmentalism is still with us, frankly, are: money and power. It's just a damn shame that most-perhaps 95% of environmentalists, except for the ones in high positions, fail to realize so.

Tuesday, 25 September 2007

Bankrupt France

"I am at the head of a state that is in a position of bankruptcy. I am at the head of a state that for 15 years has been in chronic deficit. I am at the head of a state that has not once passed a balanced budget in 25 years. This can't go on."

That was the statement that French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told farmers on the French Mediterranean island of Corsica, who (surprise, surprise) were demanding more government money. Mr Fillon is going to announce the French budget for 2008 next week, which will have a fine deficit of €41.5 billion. Already, France has not had a balanced budget since 1982.

The black hole of Socialism is determined to keep France the most dysfunctional state in the West, and one of the most dysfunctional states in the world.

Sunday, 27 May 2007

Essay on Taxes

The following is my entry into the ACT on Campus Essay Competition 2007. I'm not betraying the far better Libertarianz, but instead this is an opportunity to get known in politics, and better my skills in writing.

Why a Low, Flat Tax Rate is Ideal for New Zealand
By Callum McPetrie

In this day and age, the government has a firm grip on many parts of our lives. We see government in healthcare, education, welfare, and a whole lot of other activities, which means that the government has been taking an increasing interest in our wallets, too. But what happens when the government digs its hand-or its foot, according to some Capitalist economists-into our money? Is the money used for better, or worse? And how is this government intervention affecting our economy?

First, lets look at some countries with very different tax systems, and what the outcome has been.

Case Study: Estonia

Estonia is a nation of 1.4 million people located on the Baltic coast south of Finland and east of Sweden. Like its neighbours Latvia and Lithuania, the nation was a part of the USSR until 1991, when it gained independence after the “Singing Revolution”.

After the Soviet break-up, the outlook for Estonia was very grim. Inflation was at 1000%, the economy was downsizing at 30% every year and 92% of trade was with Russia. The conditions Estonia was facing were worse than those during the Great Depression!

During these fateful years, a young man called Mart Laar became the Estonian Prime Minister. He was very inexperienced and had only read one book on economics-“Free to Choose”, by Milton Friedman. Despite some forecasts of 30% unemployment if the flat-tax reforms Laar proposed became a reality, Estonia soon had new, flat-tax system. The economy boomed. Growth at higher percentages than those of the Asian tigers was realised. Businesses flooded into Estonia, and the country benefited immensely under its new system.

Only 16 years on, and Estonia is now the ideal model for post-Soviet countries. It is a very high-tech country that has been dubbed “the Silicon Valley of the Baltics”. Over 80% of taxes are now done online, and within 5-20 minutes. The tax rate is currently at 22%, but will be lowered to 20% by 2009 and to 18% by 2011. All around the Internet and in publications over the world, people are raving about the success that Estonia has been enjoying. Several other Eastern European nations, inspired by Estonia’s success, have now adopted their own flat-tax systems.

Case Study: France

In contrast to booming Estonia, France is one of the most Socialist countries in Europe. Government spending and revenue accounts for over 60% of GDP. The top tax rate is 49% (although this will be lowered thanks to President Sarkozy), and that is for people who earn just 48,000 Euros a year! If you earn over 8,383 Euros you get taxed at 19%. Over 14,754 Euros per year, and the rate is 28%. 23,889 and 38,869 Euros will land you a 37% and 43% tax rate, respectively.

It is because of these crushing tax rates, along with all the other Socialist intrusions into the French economy, that men and women from all over France are now crossing the border to work. Every day, thousands of Parisians commute to London, in the more Capitalist UK, for jobs there. The French economy has been stagnating for years and there is much to be shown for it. Over half of French households live on less than 2,000 US dollars a month. Many French businesses have been outsourcing jobs away for years; the unemployment rate has not been below 8% since 1984. In the Pas-de-Calais, the region with the most beneficiaries per capita in France, the unemployment rate is 13%.

What of the Nordic States?

The Nordic States have high tax rates, just as high, in most cases, as France (although it should be noted that Sweden elected a Conservative Prime Minister last year). The Nordic States also have large welfare states. So why are they remaining competitive?

Sweden, the country I’ll look at here, was in 1850 poorer than the Congo is today. Yet during the period between 1850-1900, Sweden became one of the richest countries in the world thanks to trade with Britain. Sweden’s economy was unremarkable until the 1970s, when the country started introducing higher tax rates and more labour market protections, and the country dropped from 4th to 14th richest country in the world. Because of this, Sweden had a sluggish economy not dissimilar to the French economy today. In the 1980s and 90s Sweden cut a good deals of taxes (there is no current inheritance tax and gift tax) and regulations. Another reason why Sweden and other Nordic States aren’t suffering is because of the fact that many people who invest in the country live outside of it. Despite the fact that Sweden does not have a government instituted minimum wage, unions keep it at about 65% of the median wage, which is barring many immigrants from poorer countries from entering the workforce. If this continues, combined with less Swedish innovation in future times, it could pose a serious problem. Many skilled immigrants that come to Sweden in search of jobs leave soon after, which is also an issue facing Sweden in the future.

How a Flat, Low Tax Rate would Work in New Zealand

New Zealanders are well known across the world for their entrepreneurial spirit and hard-working attitude (which the current Labour government has all but destroyed). New Zealand is an isolated country, which means that because overseas products cost more to import, our industries could stay more competitive under a low, flat tax rate and provide more jobs. NZers would be free to produce more, meaning the country’s quality of life would rise.

A flattened, lowered tax rate would mean less money spent on government services. However, this is more than made up for by the extra productivity caused by lower taxes. People would be free to invest, meaning more wealth is created and more money is poured into businesses, and jobs are created. Because of the decreased government burden in people’s wallets, more citizens could afford to use more efficient private services.

Many opponents of flat, low taxes say that they unfairly benefit the rich. Under the type of tax system I am discussing, the rich would have a lot more money in their pockets. But the opponents of flat, low taxes fail to realise that the majority of the rich man’s money goes is invested in his business-to make more money. More jobs would be created this way. Because of the decreased government intervention, more people could afford to run their own businesses, and as thus there would be more competition in the labour market, so workers could have a decent say about their working conditions without resorting to unions.

That is why I support a flattened, lowered tax rate for all New Zealanders.

Sources:

http://allez-francais.com/lib/pe120402.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18127494/

http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/76.htm

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Estonia

The Free Radical No.74, Page 09, “Why Does Sweden Work?” by Johan Norberg

Friday, 18 May 2007

Libertarianz Alternative Budget 2007

The Libertarianz have released their annual alternative budget-a rather good alternative to the useless pile o' crap released by Michael Cullen. The Libertarianz budget can be viewed at their site, here.

I agree with all of it, and I do think that government should be rolled back progressively-not from under the carpet like in some situations. In the transition to a Libertarian state, we need to make sure that no one is affected badly to a major degree by making sure that private charity goes in conjunction with the rolling back of government welfare.

Sunday, 13 May 2007

Tax Cuts. Why the Big Squabbles?

All across the terrestrial globe, nations are cutting their tax rates. From Estonia to Australia to (soon-to-be-cutting) France, nations are feeling the positive effects of lower taxes. In Estonia, my favourite nation, the tax rate is at a flat 20%. The tax-cutting countries are enjoying higher growth, greater prosperity and more entrepreneurship than the small amount we have here. Yet we have a surplus of billions.

So why not, Michael? What's so evil about tax cuts? Or are you really against production and prosperity?

Tuesday, 8 May 2007

...And what allows the Gangs to Thrive?

Everyone in New Zealand is appalled by the shocking incident just a few days ago when some piece of filth shot a baby in Wanganui. What horrendous actions carried out by someone who ought to be imprisoned for the next two decades.

But the deeper question behind this is "what is responsible for these gangs going about killing everyone?"

An investigation will quickly reveal that illegal drugs are responsible for the ongoing thriving of gang activities here in New Zealand, and indeed all around the world. As drugs can not be supplied by a free market, the drug market goes underground where it's controlled by gang cartels and shady figures, all out to reap the excess cash and above-market prices that prohibition delievers. It's not a secret that many gang members now and during Al Capone's time in the 1920's like prohibition. Prohibition distorts the actual market price of drugs, making them all the more expensive, and the criminals all the more richer.

I've gone over too many times that this leads many addicts, who are often (or soon will be) parts of the lower socio-economic rungs, to steal, cheat and lie to get their drugs. In a proper market with all the checks and balances (aka competition), the price drops back down to the market rate, and less stealing is required.

Making a crime out of drugs also diverts police funds away from actual crimes, like rape, murder and theft, onto victimless crimes, as the name suggests, without a victim. Prohibition leads to gangs getting away with more horrendous crimes like this.

If drugs are to be controlled by a free market, the price would fall and gangs will have to look for other sources of income. Police dollars can be used on serious crimes, making gangs all the more vulnerable. But the way it is, the law bows down to them.

We wouldn't have so many baby killings, either.

Tuesday, 1 May 2007

Labour now owes $194,000 to NZ Public

Libz Article

At last, the Labour Government has finally handed over the $825,000 it owed to the New Zealand Public from last year's stolen election. But there has been one hidden cost: Labour handed it over as a gift, and now owes $194,000 in gift duties. Even the Greens Party leader agrees.

So, Labour, the extra $194,000 please?

Friday, 27 April 2007

Helen Clark. Ugh

In a recent press release, PM Helen Clark said, "We're only spending money on the essentials."

So that includes two million dollars on radio singalong courses at polytech? She should also look at how much of our GDP gets gobbled up by the government. If she really is only spending money on the essentials, it certainly doesn't reflect in our police, military, courts and prisons.

Sunday, 15 April 2007

Common Fallacies about Capitalism

It's not often we meet Socialists who can debate about economics in a rational way and without referring to the Utopia that they want. But for all you who need a bit of a primer for debating with them, I've made a list of common arguments you may hear from the Socialists about Capitalism (and Globalization) and how to combat those arguments in an effective way, which will leave them with something to think about. These are the top ten arguments (and what to do about them) you'll hear:

10) Capitalism encourages Racism.
This is a very common misconception. Capitalism favours people on their productivity. This is true throughout the entire market. In a Capitalist economy, it doesn't matter who owns the house-be it a Communist, Nationalist, Mexican, Asian, Gay, Lesbian-but what condition the house is in. Similarly, a business hires people on the basis of their productivity. Racism becomes a waste of money in a Capitalist society. Productivity, not race, sexual orientation, political beliefs or gender matters in the Free Market.

9) The Market fails to provide essential services like Healthcare and Education. It also fails to provide welfare for poorer citizens.
Many people wonder why the healthcare and education services in almost every country in the world range from bad to abysmal. Here in New Zealand, the government reports surplusses of up to $7,000,000,000 yet much of our school system is underfunded and the healthcare system is in a huge mess. It is true that private schools and hospitals are expensive. But that's because there is no-or at least a small amount of- competition, so the owners can keep their prices high. But in the competitive free market, schools will be suject to the law of supply and demand, so consumers can and will choose the best school for their children to attend. Schools will have to lower their costs whilst raising their quality to attract customers. To keep quality high, schools will employ only the best teachers, and keep them happy-and productive-with generous wages and benefits. As with all workers, there will a market for teachers, a lot greater than today's market.

Socialists point to the American healthcare system as proof that a free market in healthcare doesn't work. The problem is that America's system isn't a free market. It is a third-party system (aka, employers more often than not have to provide discounted insurance) and is strangled with regulations. Americans are infamous for litigation, which further raises prices. The healthcare system in America is far from being a free market.

As for welfare, in a free market welfare is supplied vountarily by private charities. These are a far better alternative to government-provided welfare because these charities have genuine compassion for the people they're helping. And as I'll discuss, Capitalism increases wealth for all people by increasing production.

8) In a Free Market, the poor keep getting poorer, as machines introduced will keep lower-paid workers out of jobs.

As machines keep getting more advanced, workers don't get out of work, but instead work in different sectors of the economy-this is a natural process in the transition from an agrarian to industrial and then from an industrial to a service-sector economy. The transition is beneficial to workers in the fact that most service-sector jobs are a lot cleaner than industrial-sector jobs. It also means that instead of working manually to produce, we can instead make ultra efficient changes in the way we produce-for instance, by inventing machines that do jobs faster than humans, that can be hugely beneficial to a society. The machines mean that workers can instead do other, less dangerous tasks while production still stays at a high level. Notice how unemployment rates in the Western world aren't too different than what they were, say, 100 years ago.

7) In a Capitalist society, businesses will just employ who works for the lowest pay. The Market will also keep wages as low as possible.
In a free market, businesses will not employ who works for the least money, but instead they'll employ who they feel is the best value for money. This is the reason why IT businesses are outsourcing not to sub-Saharan Africa, but to India, where the IT workers are the best value for money. Workers are an investment. Companies will always seek out the workers who provide the most "bang for your buck"-so if that means paying them $100,000 a year, the business will likely do so. This is also why, in a free market, wages and productivity ultimately go hand-in-hand. Any outside attempt to artificially raise wages will end up raising the unemployment level, as they cut out the less productive workers.

An often ignored fact about treatment of workers under Capitalism is that Capitalism provides competition in the labour market. In the high-growth economy that Capitalism creates (because the incentive to start a business is so much greater), workers have a variety of options they can work for. Companies have to compete for these workers, and as thus need to make the incentive to work for them all the more greater. No one is forced to work for anyone, so workers need to agree to work for a company, in order for that company to employ them.

In the ideal Capitalist society, the employer and the worker would decide together what conditions the worker would work under, his pay, his benefits, etc. This automatically gives the worker an upper hand when deciding what he wants out of a job.

6) The market is responsible for the creation of monopolies.
In a Free Market, there is only one way to become a large company and/or monopoly: to offer products superior to that of the competition. If the monopoly continues to offer better products as it did when competition was around, no harm is done. But if a monopoly raises it's prices and/or lowers the quality of it's products, the monopoly has just left the door wide open to competitors to offer better products. Competitors, attracted by the potential for greater profits, will then enter the market with better products, and consumers will start buying from the new business. The monopoly will either better the quality of its products to stay a monopoly, or try and buy every new market entrant out-not an easy task considering the profits that can be made by offering products better than those of the monopoly.

As for markets being the reason corporations are "big and scary" to many Leftists, that's hardly an effect of the market, but instead of government intervention into the market-which will be discussed later.

5) Market Forces are the reason behind many of today's Wars.
The Free Market is not responsible for today's wars-governments are. The Market is based on a policy of non-coercion. Instead, the Market will seek out the most peaceful road to prosperity, as no one likes to be caught in the crossfire of war. Pursuing a policy of free trade with other nations is how the market handles foreign economic issues. The Free Market, not war, brings prosperity and freedom to nations. After all, how many wars are there today between nations that have a policy of free trade towards one another?

4) Capitalism causes Inequality, between person and person, country and country. Because of this, Capitalism also causes Isolationism in societies.
Although it is true that under Capitalism you have ultra-rich people like Bill Gates and John D Rockefeller, Capitalism doesn't create nearly as bad inequalities as it may seem. The good majority of people in the Capitalistic societies of today are Middle Class. When arguing about inequality, many Socialists point out to the percentage of Americans currently living below the poverty line (12%) as proof that Capitalism makes the world a more unequal place. In reality, only 1/3 of the people below the poverty line in the States stay there for more than two years. 2/3 are in "temporary poverty", meaning that they stay in poverty for less than two years. In fact, the median time below the poverty line in America for people in "temporary poverty" is only four months.

Contrary to Socialist rhetoric, the ultra-rich contribute to making the world a more equal place. For instance, if Steve Jobs of Apple Computers invests $1,000,000 towards expanding his company in India by employing 1,000 more people, he has just put those 1,000 people on more equal terms with the rest of the world, by providing them with an income they can use to raise their standard of living.

Capitalism does not cause isolationism, as man is free to do whatever he wishes to and with other people-providing he doesn't commit an act of force or fraud. A man can gain huge values living with his peers, such as knowledge, trade and mediation. Capitalism doesn't force people to be isolated. In a Capitalist society, living alone from other people only works to man's detriment.

3) As businesses in a Capitalist society only care about profits, they'll willingly destroy the environment if it means more profits.
This argument ignores the basic institution of a free market, that being property rights. Property rights give people incentives to protect their property from pollution, as it'd be in the owner's best interests to keep their property in tip-top condition when selling time comes around. It also makes you seem respectable to other people, which is many cases is incentive enough to look after your property. In a Capitalist society, older, more polluting technology is less productive and more prone to faults than newer, cleaner technology, meaning that, over the course of industrialization, many countries will actually become cleaner than what they were before, as man can become more independent of the environment. For instance, (Capitalistic) America is regrowing it's forests. To most Socialists, this should be unthinkable considering the American impact on the environment. But it's happening, because businesses don't need to rely on forests for resources as much as they did 50-100 years ago anymore.

Under Capitalism, Property Rights coupled with continuing development ensure the cleanliness of the environment. We have now seen from history the huge impact on the environment when Property Rights have been removed. The USSR was going through an environmental crisis just before it decipitated.

2) In a Free Market, Government always favours big Business more than the "little guy". Government essentially "gets into bed" with big Business.
Corporate Welfare is not a thing of the Free Market. Instead, it is an error of the government. The Free Market doesn't give any exemptions to big businesses from the law as under a Free Market, the same laws are applied to everyone. Capitalism states that no one can commit an act of coercion against another, and that applies to big business just as much as everyone else. As, under Capitalism, economy and state are separated, corporate welfare and governments favouring corporations are a sign of government intervention in the economy, not an effect of the Free Market.

1) Capitalism is based on Greed. It is just about profits, profits, profits. Even if everyone but a small elite get left behind, that won't matter in the mind of the Greedy Capitalist.
One thing is correct here; Capitalism is indeed built on self-interest. But here's where it differs from all the other socio-economic systems in history: Capitalism bans all acts of force and fraud against other people. You can not, therefore, go out and steal your car from someone else. In a Capitalist society, you have to produce to get ahead of everyone else and pursue your self-interest. Voluntary trade is also an option, but ultimately won't get you ahead as in a society with a standard of value, aka money (bartering is useless because material values change from person to person, and makes economic calculation impossible), your overall net worth can't increase by merely trading-unless you rip your trading partner off by selling above the market rate. Production is the only way to increase wealth.

So, in order to increase wealth, the Capitalist must produce. The problem is that while his mind can lead to production on a massive scale, his own two hands can't accomplish much. He must employ other people to work for him, and as we already know people must agree to work for him, in order to work for him. Once this is done, production is greatly increased. But still, this is relatively minor compared to machines, which I've already gone over. The production brought about by the "greedy" Capitalist leads to tremendous creation of wealth-which disperses itself, as people voluntarily buy his products-the fruits of his labour. Money will then go into production, and then voluntarily disperse itself again in the form of products.

So yes, Capitalism is built on greed. But Capitalism uses greed to hugely increase the quality of life anywhere in the world wherever, whenever it has been tried.

Wednesday, 28 February 2007

NZ gov't surplus: NZ$1,000,000,000 ahead of forecast

The New Zealand Government has recorded a budget surplus of NZ$4.4 billion for the second half of 2006, which was far higher than the forecasted surplus of NZ$3.4 billion. The government also has only NZ$423, 000,000, in debt, which was less than half the forecast NZ$860,000,000. Although the government said that tax collection and spending were in line with forecasts, the extra billion came primarily from miscellaneous sources.

That's 4.4 billion dollars the government could've saved taxpayers in tax cuts.