Showing posts with label Robert Wenzel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Wenzel. Show all posts
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
A Key Indicator to Watch that May Be a Strong Indicator of Future Price Inflation
By Robert Wenzel
The Fed has pumped massive amounts of new money into the system since the financial crisis of 2008, so where is the price inflation?
Part of the answer is soaring productivity, especially in the energy and high tech sectors,
But another part of the answer is the strong desire by individuals and corporations to hold on to large cash balances. A very rough indicator of this is the declining velocity of money, since the crash.
There was a major decline in velocity during the Dot Com Bubble, but the it started to recover again, only to nosedive in line with the more recent financial crisis.
What could turn this around? At this point, consumer and corporate optimism. Which is why I keep a close eye on the the Thomson-Reuters/University of Michigan sentiment index. The more optimistic consumers are at this point, the more likely they are going to spend more of their cash balances.
The preliminary October sentiment index "unexpectedly" (by Keynesian economists) increased to 86.4 from the final September reading of 84.6, according to a source who has seen the numbers, reports WSJ.
It's a continuation of increases in sentiment since the lows reached during the peek in the financial crisis.
At some point, the sentiment will become so positive that consumers will start spending so aggressively that it will overpower any productivity gains and that's when price inflation will really kick in. Timing on this is always difficult, but the trend is pretty obvious.
The Fed, Paul Krugman and most Keynesians (except probably Marty Feldstein) do not understand this. They are simply watching the current price inflation trendline (of just under 2%) and are projecting this out in their heads without understanding the powerful underlying force that will eventually cause price inflation to rocket.
Be prepared my friends, it's coming.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
The Fed has pumped massive amounts of new money into the system since the financial crisis of 2008, so where is the price inflation?
Part of the answer is soaring productivity, especially in the energy and high tech sectors,
But another part of the answer is the strong desire by individuals and corporations to hold on to large cash balances. A very rough indicator of this is the declining velocity of money, since the crash.
There was a major decline in velocity during the Dot Com Bubble, but the it started to recover again, only to nosedive in line with the more recent financial crisis.
What could turn this around? At this point, consumer and corporate optimism. Which is why I keep a close eye on the the Thomson-Reuters/University of Michigan sentiment index. The more optimistic consumers are at this point, the more likely they are going to spend more of their cash balances.
The preliminary October sentiment index "unexpectedly" (by Keynesian economists) increased to 86.4 from the final September reading of 84.6, according to a source who has seen the numbers, reports WSJ.
It's a continuation of increases in sentiment since the lows reached during the peek in the financial crisis.
At some point, the sentiment will become so positive that consumers will start spending so aggressively that it will overpower any productivity gains and that's when price inflation will really kick in. Timing on this is always difficult, but the trend is pretty obvious.
The Fed, Paul Krugman and most Keynesians (except probably Marty Feldstein) do not understand this. They are simply watching the current price inflation trendline (of just under 2%) and are projecting this out in their heads without understanding the powerful underlying force that will eventually cause price inflation to rocket.
Be prepared my friends, it's coming.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
Friday, October 10, 2014
How Millennials are Different From Baby Boomers
By Robert Wenzel
Oh boy, it appears that Millennials overall are less likely to choose difficult subjects to study, don't like to work while they are getting "educated," and have no significant desire to settle down at start a family.
We all know that Millennials are the first generation to have had access to the Internet during their formative years.
But their differences, as a group, with Baby Boomers goes well beyong that. They are the most
Oh boy, it appears that Millennials overall are less likely to choose difficult subjects to study, don't like to work while they are getting "educated," and have no significant desire to settle down at start a family.
We all know that Millennials are the first generation to have had access to the Internet during their formative years.
But their differences, as a group, with Baby Boomers goes well beyong that. They are the most
Saturday, October 4, 2014
THE BIG QUESTION: Spending Money for Masters' Tuition Or Saving The Money In Case of an Ebola Outbreak
An EPJ Reader emails:
My reply.:
In my view there is very little reason to set aside money for an Ebola outbreak. I side with Dr. Paul on this that the dangers are way overblown (SEE: Ron Paul Warns of Ebola ‘Overreaction’).
As far as putting money on the side in anticipation of a money supply crash versus paying tuition, I think you are looking at things very wrong here.
In your lifetime, you are likely to go through many ups and downs in the business cycle, as long as a central bank like the Federal Reserve is around. Some of them could be very severe cycles with very strong price inflation and potential destruction of the dollar.
Your Masters' degree question is a long term question about career moves over more than just the current cycle.
The question you should be asking is whether a Masters degree will make a significant difference in your ability to survive and prosper over these periods of crazed Fed manipulations of the economy.
I can't answer that question for you without knowing many more details about you. Just for starters I would need to know the college that you would be attending, your major etc.
The specific college may be very important. I would advise almost anyone who has the opportunity to go to Harvard, MIT, the London School of Economics, Stanford etc. to go. Largely because of contacts that can be made and because of the cachet that comes with a degree from one of these institutions. A degree from one of these institutions signals to most in the business world that you are smart, even if you are an idiot. It helps you get a foot in the door. And the contacts could be very important because they might provide access to money and brain power, while not everyone in the Ivy leagues is bright, there will be some that are very bright and you will be rubbing elbows with them. It is a great way to build a powerful, quality Rolodex, but, of course, there are other ways to do so.
Any other college or university would depend on your major. If you are attempting to learn a skill such as accounting or engineering, then an advanced degree may be valuable from almost any college or university. An advanced degree in English literature will be much less valuable, and an advanced degree in, say, gender studies might set you back to your thumb sucking infancy.
So you have to compare what a masters degree will mean specifically for you long-term versus alternative uses for the money. Holding back tuition money to prepare for an economic crash is unlikely to be a sound move. Preparing to protect wealth during periods of economic volatility is for people who already have significant money. Periods of economic volatility are very tricky and it is about trying to protect significant wealth rather than protecting tuition money.
On the other hand, there will be people who make major money from a small pile by correctly trading the business cycle, these people will emerge. But there will be very few of these people and it will be extremely difficult to pull it off, most who try will eventually lose most of their money from swashbuckling trading.
Tuition money could also be used alternatively for a business project. If you are the next Bill Gates and you have an idea comparable to Windows then it makes no sense for you to continue in college (as it didn't for Gates).
Another alternative is to do what James Altucher has suggested and use the tuition money to travel the world for a year and learn what is going on. A good part of eventually being a successful entrepreneur is to have many experiences so you individually get to see how different pieces of the world come together and how you might be able to rearrange a couple of the pieces for serious profit.
BOTTOM LINE: It is your world, make it interesting but think long term and take steps that will be important long term. For each individual these steps will be different.
-RW
With the recent decline in the stock market, the possibility of getting out of control, now that Ebola is in my home state, and I have my Master's tuition coming up next week, would it be wise to save that tuition money, and keep some extra liquidity in case Ebola gets worse and the money supply crashes again?
My reply.:
In my view there is very little reason to set aside money for an Ebola outbreak. I side with Dr. Paul on this that the dangers are way overblown (SEE: Ron Paul Warns of Ebola ‘Overreaction’).
As far as putting money on the side in anticipation of a money supply crash versus paying tuition, I think you are looking at things very wrong here.
In your lifetime, you are likely to go through many ups and downs in the business cycle, as long as a central bank like the Federal Reserve is around. Some of them could be very severe cycles with very strong price inflation and potential destruction of the dollar.
Your Masters' degree question is a long term question about career moves over more than just the current cycle.
The question you should be asking is whether a Masters degree will make a significant difference in your ability to survive and prosper over these periods of crazed Fed manipulations of the economy.
I can't answer that question for you without knowing many more details about you. Just for starters I would need to know the college that you would be attending, your major etc.
The specific college may be very important. I would advise almost anyone who has the opportunity to go to Harvard, MIT, the London School of Economics, Stanford etc. to go. Largely because of contacts that can be made and because of the cachet that comes with a degree from one of these institutions. A degree from one of these institutions signals to most in the business world that you are smart, even if you are an idiot. It helps you get a foot in the door. And the contacts could be very important because they might provide access to money and brain power, while not everyone in the Ivy leagues is bright, there will be some that are very bright and you will be rubbing elbows with them. It is a great way to build a powerful, quality Rolodex, but, of course, there are other ways to do so.
Any other college or university would depend on your major. If you are attempting to learn a skill such as accounting or engineering, then an advanced degree may be valuable from almost any college or university. An advanced degree in English literature will be much less valuable, and an advanced degree in, say, gender studies might set you back to your thumb sucking infancy.
So you have to compare what a masters degree will mean specifically for you long-term versus alternative uses for the money. Holding back tuition money to prepare for an economic crash is unlikely to be a sound move. Preparing to protect wealth during periods of economic volatility is for people who already have significant money. Periods of economic volatility are very tricky and it is about trying to protect significant wealth rather than protecting tuition money.
On the other hand, there will be people who make major money from a small pile by correctly trading the business cycle, these people will emerge. But there will be very few of these people and it will be extremely difficult to pull it off, most who try will eventually lose most of their money from swashbuckling trading.
Tuition money could also be used alternatively for a business project. If you are the next Bill Gates and you have an idea comparable to Windows then it makes no sense for you to continue in college (as it didn't for Gates).
Another alternative is to do what James Altucher has suggested and use the tuition money to travel the world for a year and learn what is going on. A good part of eventually being a successful entrepreneur is to have many experiences so you individually get to see how different pieces of the world come together and how you might be able to rearrange a couple of the pieces for serious profit.
BOTTOM LINE: It is your world, make it interesting but think long term and take steps that will be important long term. For each individual these steps will be different.
-RW
Monday, September 29, 2014
A Response to Walter Block on Rand Paul
By Robert Wenzel
Wow, I was half way through working on a point-by-point rebuttal of Walter Block's defense of Rand Paul (SEE: The Opening of Debate Between Robert Wenzel and Walter Block on Rand Paul), when something occurred that I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined.
Rand Paul delivered to me on a silver platter clear evidence of why he is dangerous for libertarianism.
Thus, I am going to halt my point-by-point rebuttal and take Rand's own words to show why Rand is a problem for libertarians.
I have written:
Indeed, I am not even convinced, that if pressed in the framework of political expediency, that there is any libertarian principle that Rand wouldn't sell out on. Rand is not his father, speaking truth to power. Rand is about seeking power....And therein lies the problem. Rand takes focus away from the hate of the state. Those who do not understand the nature of the state may see Rand as some sort of savior. He will not be. The only way the state dwindles is by more and more people, on at least a gut level, not trusting the state, and more and more people losing hope in the state. Rand, like Ronald Reagan did, drives an opposite point home. He brings false hope that somehow he will be the great state tamer, a kind of snake tamer that will tame the evil ones behind the curtains while allowing the state apparatus to be used and remain in tact. What he really does, in fact, is tame the radical revolutionary fires of individuals...Do we have any evidence of Rand doing this? I believe there are many instances, but let's take a very recent example, the Silver Platter case, his smearing of Walter Block as a racist.
This is what Rand had to say about Walter, as reported in a major new profile piece on Rand in The New Yorker:
“I really was disappointed,” Rand said, his voice rising. There was a quote “from some guy who I’ve never met saying something about how slaves should have been happy singing and dancing because they got good food or something. Like, O.K., so now I’m in the New York Times and you’re associating me with some person who I don’t know.” He went on, “It’s one thing to go back and interview my college professor or groups that I actually was with. But I was never associated with any of these people. Ever. Only through being related to my dad, who had association with them.”This is outrageous behavior on the part of Rand. I consider Walter deserving of the Nobel Prize. In 2012, I wrote:
Just a year ago, I would not have added Walter Block to this list [of those deserving the Nobel Prize], but the more and more I think about his book, Defending the Undefendable, and other writings where Block has written observations about extreme liberty and economics, I have begun to see the great service that Block has done. No one else has thought or written about liberty and economics from these perspectives.And how does Rand paint Walter Block? He distances himself from the man, though I am sure he has read Block (SEE: Rand Paul Sucker Punches Walter Block) and, in that clever wording style, Rand implies that the NYT characterization is correct, that Walter is a racist. And therein lies the problem with Rand, he will do anything to advance his steps towards the 8 Year Throne and behead anyone in the way. Walter Block was in the way.
One really has to think if he had not rushed to the defense of, from an economic and libertarian perspective, the prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and others, would anyone else have, ever? It's a special kind of genius that can recognize such a gaping hole in theory and then on top of that make the defense of these "undefendables" look easy at a practical level. This is great thinking that makes an important contribution to society.
I believe that Friedrich Hayek meant every word when he wrote to Dr. Block about the book:
Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economic frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority.
Walter, who has toiled without end to advance the ideas of liberty, has been banished by Rand from public discussion. Anyone being introduced to libertarianism through Rand, who happens upon the major profile of Rand in The New Yorker, will now have the impression that Walter is a racist. In fact, the impression left will be that Walter is so evil that his name can not even be mentioned by Rand. That Walter does not even deserve a decent footnote in history, that he is an inconsequential person that need only be referred to as "some guy."
Although, I am not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal here of Walter's defense of Rand, in the wake of the Silver Platter delivery, I do want to comment on Walter's closing point in his defense of Rand Paul, he writes:
Wenzel’s position reminds of Ayn Rand’s view in 1972. She supported Gerald Ford, God help us, so to speak. Who was also running in that year? Why, John Hospers, on the ticket of the libertarian party. Why didn’t Rand, for goodness sake, support Hospers? It is my understanding this was because of some minor differences she had with him over technical matters of aesthetics. The distance between Hospers and Rand was miniscule, compared to the divergence between her and Gerald Ford, of all people. Similarly, the disagreements between Rand Paul and Robert Wenzel are as nothing, nothing I tells you, as those between Wenzel and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, for goodness sakes? Is nothing sacred? The political acumen of a man who would make such a gross error is not to be trusted.This is a distortion of Ayn Rand's position. She broke with Hospers long before he was the Libertarian presidential candidate (SEE: The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker).
According to Walker, it was a typical Rand break:
Inevitably, Rand fell out with Hospers, as she fell out with nearly all her close intellectual relationships, typically never again speaking to the erstwhile friend or that friend's associates. The break with Hospers came after he had arranged for Rand to deliver a paper at a philosophy colloquium. The paper was 'Art and Sense of Life', which Hospers thought interesting and provocative. Unfortunately he was obliged by academic custom to voice at least some minor criticisms following her address. Rand exploded.It had nothing to do with a point of libertarian principle. Hospers was a minor player in the 1972 presidential campaign as will be the 2016 Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson again?). But further, Walter has his facts wrong beyond the Rand-Hospers break(though he does end with an odd question mark).
There was never a choice between Hospers and Gerald Ford.
Ford did not run in 1972. Richard Nixon was re-elected that year. Rand supported Ford against Ronald Reagan in 1976 and 1980. She knew that Reagan would be trouble and that's why she favored Ford.
From The Ayn Rand Letters, Volume IV, Number 2, November-December 1975:
Now I want to give you a brief indication of the kinds of issues that are coming up, on which you might want to know my views.
1. The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose—see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.From Rand’s final public speech, “Sanction of the Victims,” delivered November 21, 1981:
In conclusion, let me touch briefly on another question often asked me: What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him—and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling—apparently with his approval—to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.Boy was Ayn Rand right to oppose him. See Murray Rothbard’s "The Reagan Phenomenon," "Ronald Reagan, Warmonger," and "Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy."
The war promoter, statist, tax raiser Reagan has been hailed by the establishment as a hero that should be emulated. Meanwhile, Ford, during his stint as president is remembered as a bumbler.
That's who every anti-statist should want in power, a person who will bring disgrace and/or bumbling to the office, or at least be easily hated, not some smoothy who will distort the lines between liberty and interventionism, who will imply that Walter Block is a racist.
I stand by my original opinion, you just don't know when, where or how Rand Paul will abandon libertarian principle and muddy the water for those who are attempting to understand libertarianism.
Any other major presidential candidate Democrat or Republican will be much easier to hate, and it is very unclear in my mind that Rand Paul would be much different in the house of power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than the others. As the crazed warmonger John McCain put it:
“I’ve seen him [Rand] grow and I’ve seen him mature and I’ve seen him become more centrist," McCain told The New Yorker's Ryan Liaa.
"I know that if he were president or a nominee I could influence him, particularly some of his views and positions on national security. He trusts me particularly on the military side of things, so I could easily work with him. It wouldn’t be a problem.”With any other candidate in power, people may search out for alternatives and stumble on libertarianism, with the distortion man Rand in power, they will think that Rand is the libertarian option and that Walter Block is inconsequential to libertarianism. The perfect evil establishment set up.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
Friday, September 26, 2014
Assessing the Terrorist Risk to America (And What Americans Really Need to Fear)
By Robert Wenzel
Mainstream news broadcasts and YouTube, of late, have been filled with warnings of Middle East terrorists planning attacks in the United States. The U.S. government has responded to these threats by doing what it does best, expand its power (SEE: BREAKING New York-New Jersey Announce Massive Increase in Joint Surveillance), specifically by expanding its power of surveillance and monitoring of the average American, who would likely have trouble finding most of the terrorist hot spots on a map
How real is the threat? It is difficult to know.
It is important to recognize that most of these terrorist groups are relatively small in size and their capabilities to carry out major terrorist attacks in the U.S. are limited.
It should be remembered that the two times that the U.S, launched attacks against Iraq, when Saddam Hussein was in power, Hussein would get on television and broadcast worldwide to his "terrorist cells" to begin their attacks in the U.S. Of course, no such attacks occurred. It was all bluster. Perhaps Hussein thought it would encourage some lone wolves to heed his call. But he didn't have the capability to launch a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
That said, most terrorists groups would like to stage an attack on the U.S. mainland, to give the impression that they are much bigger and more powerful than they actually are. It would be a great recruiting tool. So the possibility that they will attempt something can not be completely ruled out, especially since this latest batch of terrorists seems to be familiar with Western ways.
Further, there is the threat of lone wolves (The head of security at a major Las Vegas hotel told me a couple of years back that the lone wolf, who gets juiced up by what he sees in television reports, is what he fears most.) And the possibility of a false flag event can not be ruled out.
In the late 1980s, I was briefed on a study conducted by the government that reported results of a government group that tried to think out all the possible ways terrorists could attack the U.S. I won't go into details here, but it appears to me that many of those scenarios could still be turned into operational plans today. Thousands could be killed.
To the degree a terrorist attack in its early stages looks like everyday life and is launched in a manner that blends in with the everyday life of thousands, if not millions of others, it is going to be pretty difficult to stop, no matter how many photo ops occur between Cuomo and Christie. The world is just too big to place a cop at every spot where two or more people gather.
Thus, the new surveillance efforts. such as those announced by Cuomo and Christie, will prove ineffective against a determined, clever thinking terrorist group. It is putting a band aid on a person who might have cancer.
The only thing the surveillance will do is expand the turnkey operation that could be turned against regular American's at some point in the future. Thus, the surveillance in the long run is a much more dangerous threat to the average Joe, than a terrorist attack, not because a terrorist attack can't occur on U.S. soil and do damage. It can, However, any such attack will be limited, as opposed to the broad-based evil that general surveillance by government can turn into.
History is riddled with examples of murders by the millions (SEE: Death By Government) by governments. No terrorist group has come close to killing in such horrific numbers. In fact, groups resort to terror precisely because they do not have the weaponry and manpower to launch a frontal type attack.
The only thing that the U.S, government can do to lower the risk of a terrorist attack is to stop meddling and choosing sides in conflicts that are none of our damn business. This will certainly, at a minimum, lower to some degree the desire to attack America.
But, as far as expanding the surveillance state, the expansion will not prevent a terrorist attack by a clever and determined terrorist group. The expansion of the surveillance state is the terror I fear. No freedom loving people should ever welcome the growth of an apparatus that can easily be turned against them, in the manner that other governments have turned surveillance states against the people.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
Mainstream news broadcasts and YouTube, of late, have been filled with warnings of Middle East terrorists planning attacks in the United States. The U.S. government has responded to these threats by doing what it does best, expand its power (SEE: BREAKING New York-New Jersey Announce Massive Increase in Joint Surveillance), specifically by expanding its power of surveillance and monitoring of the average American, who would likely have trouble finding most of the terrorist hot spots on a map
How real is the threat? It is difficult to know.
It is important to recognize that most of these terrorist groups are relatively small in size and their capabilities to carry out major terrorist attacks in the U.S. are limited.
It should be remembered that the two times that the U.S, launched attacks against Iraq, when Saddam Hussein was in power, Hussein would get on television and broadcast worldwide to his "terrorist cells" to begin their attacks in the U.S. Of course, no such attacks occurred. It was all bluster. Perhaps Hussein thought it would encourage some lone wolves to heed his call. But he didn't have the capability to launch a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
That said, most terrorists groups would like to stage an attack on the U.S. mainland, to give the impression that they are much bigger and more powerful than they actually are. It would be a great recruiting tool. So the possibility that they will attempt something can not be completely ruled out, especially since this latest batch of terrorists seems to be familiar with Western ways.
Further, there is the threat of lone wolves (The head of security at a major Las Vegas hotel told me a couple of years back that the lone wolf, who gets juiced up by what he sees in television reports, is what he fears most.) And the possibility of a false flag event can not be ruled out.
In the late 1980s, I was briefed on a study conducted by the government that reported results of a government group that tried to think out all the possible ways terrorists could attack the U.S. I won't go into details here, but it appears to me that many of those scenarios could still be turned into operational plans today. Thousands could be killed.
To the degree a terrorist attack in its early stages looks like everyday life and is launched in a manner that blends in with the everyday life of thousands, if not millions of others, it is going to be pretty difficult to stop, no matter how many photo ops occur between Cuomo and Christie. The world is just too big to place a cop at every spot where two or more people gather.
Thus, the new surveillance efforts. such as those announced by Cuomo and Christie, will prove ineffective against a determined, clever thinking terrorist group. It is putting a band aid on a person who might have cancer.
The only thing the surveillance will do is expand the turnkey operation that could be turned against regular American's at some point in the future. Thus, the surveillance in the long run is a much more dangerous threat to the average Joe, than a terrorist attack, not because a terrorist attack can't occur on U.S. soil and do damage. It can, However, any such attack will be limited, as opposed to the broad-based evil that general surveillance by government can turn into.
History is riddled with examples of murders by the millions (SEE: Death By Government) by governments. No terrorist group has come close to killing in such horrific numbers. In fact, groups resort to terror precisely because they do not have the weaponry and manpower to launch a frontal type attack.
The only thing that the U.S, government can do to lower the risk of a terrorist attack is to stop meddling and choosing sides in conflicts that are none of our damn business. This will certainly, at a minimum, lower to some degree the desire to attack America.
But, as far as expanding the surveillance state, the expansion will not prevent a terrorist attack by a clever and determined terrorist group. The expansion of the surveillance state is the terror I fear. No freedom loving people should ever welcome the growth of an apparatus that can easily be turned against them, in the manner that other governments have turned surveillance states against the people.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
Thursday, September 25, 2014
The Problem with Rand Paul
By Robert Wenzel
The great economist and libertarian, Murray Rothbard, in July 1977 wrote an important essay, Do You Hate the State?
In the essay, he said:
And I urge anyone, who is not convinced that government can become the ultimate in evil, to read R.J. Rummel's Death By Government. I consider this book to be the most important book ever written, for the person who wants to understand historical examples of how evil governments can become.There is quite simply no force on earth as evil as government can be. Rummel's book drives home this point in a manner that will never, ever leave you. The book will change you.
That the United States has not, yet, become a source of widespread domestic killing may be nothing but historical accident. As the state grows in power, and it is growing rapidly in the United States, the trip wire, that could trigger great domestic evil, is moved ever closer. And before we get to that dangerous trip wire, other freedoms are slowly being taken away from us, one by one--now almost on a daily basis.
And that is why it is important to shrink the power and capabilities of government, always and in every manner.
It is because government, by definition, always suffocates freedom and creativity, and may ultimately turn into a great killer. This is why government is so dangerous.
As Rothbard put it:
In a Time op-ed, he wrote:
In 2013, he told BusinessWeek:
And therein lies the problem. Rand takes focus away from the hate of the state. Those who do not understand the nature of the state may see Rand as some sort of savior. He will not be. The only way the state dwindles is by more and more people, on at least a gut level, not trusting the state, and more and more people losing hope in the state. Rand, like Ronald Reagan did, drives an opposite point home. He brings false hope that somehow he will be the great state tamer, a kind of snake tamer that will tame the evil ones behind the curtains while allowing the state apparatus to be used and remain in tact. What he really does, in fact, is tame the radical revolutionary fires of individuals and redirect them toward falling in line with state procedures and policies: Warrants for drones, instead of absolute outrage over government drones. Congressional approval for overseas wars, instead of outrage over US military meddling, of any kind, overseas. Hocus pocus revenue neutral tax plans, instead of dramatic tax cuts.
Call me radical, but I don't bow before Aqua Buddha or the state. My focus will remain where Rothbard suggested it should be, on hating the state, and not on cheering on some politician who wants to douse that hate the state flame in me.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
The great economist and libertarian, Murray Rothbard, in July 1977 wrote an important essay, Do You Hate the State?
In the essay, he said:
There runs through [my book] For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind.The Noble laureate economist Friedrich Hayek, before Rothbard's essay, warned us about the state in his book, The Road to Serfdom, especially Chapter 10, which he appropriately titled, "Why the Worst Get on Top."
And I urge anyone, who is not convinced that government can become the ultimate in evil, to read R.J. Rummel's Death By Government. I consider this book to be the most important book ever written, for the person who wants to understand historical examples of how evil governments can become.There is quite simply no force on earth as evil as government can be. Rummel's book drives home this point in a manner that will never, ever leave you. The book will change you.
That the United States has not, yet, become a source of widespread domestic killing may be nothing but historical accident. As the state grows in power, and it is growing rapidly in the United States, the trip wire, that could trigger great domestic evil, is moved ever closer. And before we get to that dangerous trip wire, other freedoms are slowly being taken away from us, one by one--now almost on a daily basis.
And that is why it is important to shrink the power and capabilities of government, always and in every manner.
It is because government, by definition, always suffocates freedom and creativity, and may ultimately turn into a great killer. This is why government is so dangerous.
As Rothbard put it:
To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it's to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.But Rothbard also warned:
[T]he radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we'll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we'll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can.And it is now that we turn to Rand Paul and his place in the libertarian movement. Rand is not against the state as much as he is a glorifier of the state apparatus. For example, he is not against US government adventures in the Middle East, but rather wants to see such interventions blessed by the governmental arm known as Congress.
In a Time op-ed, he wrote:
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.And, he is not really against the use of drones by government, but rather wants more government oversight of drone use. He has written:
Surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.During a 2012 interview with CNN's Erin Burnett, Rand said he wants only "revenue neutral" tax changes by eliminating most tax deductions, This, of course, means only shuffling the type of taxes paid-not shrinking tax revenue.
In 2013, he told BusinessWeek:
My budget is similar to the Penny Plan, which cuts 1 percent a year for five or six years.This is not a man who hates the state. He is not, as Rothbard describes the true enemy of the state, a
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul... the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State.Indeed, I am not even convinced, that if pressed in the framework of political expediency, that there is any libertarian principle that Rand wouldn't sell out on. Rand is not his father, speaking truth to power. Rand is about seeking power. He can not gain power without forming very dangerous alliances with the very evil power brokers. There will not be any "Ha Ha moment,"if Rand gets elected to the presidency, where he will be able to say to the evil power elements behind the curtain, "Ha ha, I fooled you. I hate the state and I am going to strip you of your power." It is absurd to think so.
And therein lies the problem. Rand takes focus away from the hate of the state. Those who do not understand the nature of the state may see Rand as some sort of savior. He will not be. The only way the state dwindles is by more and more people, on at least a gut level, not trusting the state, and more and more people losing hope in the state. Rand, like Ronald Reagan did, drives an opposite point home. He brings false hope that somehow he will be the great state tamer, a kind of snake tamer that will tame the evil ones behind the curtains while allowing the state apparatus to be used and remain in tact. What he really does, in fact, is tame the radical revolutionary fires of individuals and redirect them toward falling in line with state procedures and policies: Warrants for drones, instead of absolute outrage over government drones. Congressional approval for overseas wars, instead of outrage over US military meddling, of any kind, overseas. Hocus pocus revenue neutral tax plans, instead of dramatic tax cuts.
Call me radical, but I don't bow before Aqua Buddha or the state. My focus will remain where Rothbard suggested it should be, on hating the state, and not on cheering on some politician who wants to douse that hate the state flame in me.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Governments and Killing
By Robert Wenzel
R.J. Rummel in his powerful book, Death By Government, makes the important point that
Power will achieve its murderous potential. It simply waits for an excuse, an event of some sort, an assassination, a massacre in a neighboring country, an attempted coup, a famine, or a natural disaster, to justify the beginning of murder en masse.This is but one reason, though an important reason, why we should be very concerned about the escalation of US participation in the civil wars in Iraq and Syria.The US government hasn't turned on its people yet to a significant degree, but the continuing intervention of the Empire in foreign lands, with its beating of the propaganda drums, provides cover for the government to escalate monitoring and restriction of own its citizens. This is a very dangerous path.
Wikipedia lists over 30 current ongoing armed conflicts in the world. The US can not be the world's policemen, as barbaric as the ISIS beheadings have been, this is not something new to the world. It has gone on for as long as man has been on the planet.
Rummel tells us:
After the capture of Bram in 1210, the Albigensian Crusaders, Christians all, took 100 captured soldiers and gouged out their eyes, cut off their noses and upper lips, and had them led by a one-eyed man to Cabaret, yet to be attacked. This was done to terrorize Cabaret into immediate surrender.And
Even the great emperor who unified China and gave it his name, Qin (pronounced Chin) Shihuang, buried alive 346 scholars in order to discourage opposition. Burying people alive seems to have been a favorite weapon of Chinese rulers and emperors. For example, when the ruler of Wei kingdom (Zaozao) conquered Xuzhou he buried alive several dozen thousand civilians.Rummel also quotes Robert Payne:
[Chinese Emperor Chang Hsein-chung] set about all the merchants[in Chebgtu], then all the women and all the officials. Finally he ordered his own soldiers to kill each other. He ordered the feet of the officers' wives to be cut off and made a mound of them, and at the top of the mound he placed the feet of his favorite concubines.And, of course, the U.S. government has not been exempt from barbaric acts. President Harry Truman is one example that comes to mind and his approval to drop an atomic bomb on the people of Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and one on Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945.
Ralph Raico notes:
The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:
the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.Raico has also commented on Winston Churchill's orders for the royal Air Force to bomb Dresden:
[A] civilized European man like Joseph Schumpeter, at Harvard, was driven to telling "anyone who would listen" that Churchill and Roosevelt were destroying more than Genghis Khan.
The most infamous act was the destruction of Dresden, in February, 1945. According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: "The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden, which was the capital of the old kingdom of Saxony, was an indispensable stop on the Grand Tour, the baroque gem of Europe. The war was practically over, the city filled with masses of helpless refugees escaping the advancing Red Army. Still, for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, Dresden was pounded with bombs. At least 30,000 people were killed, perhaps as many as 135,000 or more.Governments are very dangerous beasts. We should never encourage any of them to expand their military might, and we should never encourage them to slip into fighting mode. Given the right twist in circumstances the beast will come home to feast on us.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Putting ISIS in Perspective
By Robert Wenzel
At best ISIS has 50,000 fighters in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq.
But this high number count comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. This is what NYT tells us about SOHR:
The single most important factor in ISIS' recent resurgence is the conflict between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS fighters themselves are Sunnis, and the tension between the two groups is a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS, explains VOX.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shia Muslim, has built a Shia sectarian state and refused to take steps to accommodate Sunnis. Police have killed peaceful Sunni protestors and used anti-terrorism laws to mass-arrest Sunni civilians. ISIS cannily exploited that brutality to recruit new fighters, VOX goes on to report.
That's the only way the Iraq fighting number could get as high as 30,000 in Iraq.
Dexter Filkins at the New Yorker puts things into perspective:
Further, according to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies' Michael Knights, the US and Iraqi governments released a huge number of al-Qaeda prisoners from jail, which he thinks caused "an unprecedented infusion of skilled, networked terrorist manpower - an infusion at a scale the world has never seen."
In other words, this is all blowback from the original U.S. invasion of Iraq. Thank you, the Bush family.
That said, ISIS has not even been able to quickly topple the incompetent Iraqi government and its incompetent army.
As a military force, ISIS is about as much of a threat to the U.S. as Costa Rica, which disbanded its military ages ago.
As for potential terrorist attacks in the U.S., that would appear to be motivated by further U.S. intervention in the Iraqi civil war, which, again, is the result in the first place of the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein. Bottom line: The U.S.empire can not patrol the world and muscle every sectarian group in the world. It is a delusional idea that will do nothing but goad the undermanned and under armed targets of U.S.muscle to start considering the U.S. as a terror target that makes sense.
The U.S. should pull out of the region and basically tell the warring factions, "Good luck, and may Allah sort this all out for you."
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
At best ISIS has 50,000 fighters in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq.
But this high number count comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. This is what NYT tells us about SOHR:
Military analysts in Washington follow its body counts of Syrian and rebel soldiers to gauge the course of the war. The United Nations and human rights organizations scour its descriptions of civilian killings for evidence in possible war crimes trials. Major news organizations, including this one, cite its casualty figures.As far as ISIS fighters in Iraq, it should come as no surprise that a civil war is taking place in the country. It was expected, by all but the dull, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, who through his brutal ways maintained calm, for most, in the country, and after the more exponentially brutal US forces left.
Yet, despite its central role in the savage civil war, the grandly named Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is virtually a one-man band. Its founder, Rami Abdul Rahman, 42, who fled Syria 13 years ago, operates out of a semidetached red-brick house on an ordinary residential street in this drab industrial city...
He has been called a tool of the Qatari government, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Central Intelligence Agency and Rifaat al-Assad, the exiled uncle of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, among others. The Syrian government and even some rebels have accused him of treachery.
The single most important factor in ISIS' recent resurgence is the conflict between Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Sunnis. ISIS fighters themselves are Sunnis, and the tension between the two groups is a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS, explains VOX.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shia Muslim, has built a Shia sectarian state and refused to take steps to accommodate Sunnis. Police have killed peaceful Sunni protestors and used anti-terrorism laws to mass-arrest Sunni civilians. ISIS cannily exploited that brutality to recruit new fighters, VOX goes on to report.
That's the only way the Iraq fighting number could get as high as 30,000 in Iraq.
Dexter Filkins at the New Yorker puts things into perspective:
When the last American soldiers left Iraq, at the end of 2011, the bloody civil war between the country’s Sunni and Shiite sects had been stifled but not resolved. Now the sectarian violence had returned, with terrifying intensity. For more than a year, thousands of Iraqis, nearly all of them members of the Sunni Arab minority, had been gathering to rail against Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government. Although the protests were mostly peaceful, security forces responded harshly, detaining thousands of Sunni men without charges and, in one encampment, touching off a spasm of violence that left hundreds of civilians dead. Across the Sunni heartland, north and west of Baghdad, the town squares filled with angry crowds, and the rhetoric grew more extreme. In Ramadi, protesters raised black jihadi flags, representing the extremist Al Qaeda offshoot that had dominated the city during the American occupation. “We are a group called Al Qaeda!” a man shouted from a stage in the protesters’ camp. “We will cut off heads and bring justice!” The crowd cheered.
Speaking into the television cameras on Christmas, Maliki ordered the protesters to disband. Largely ignoring his own men’s excesses, he claimed that the protests were dominated by extremists. “This site has become a base for Al Qaeda,” he said, filled with “killers and criminals.” Maliki ended his speech with what for him was a flourish of emotion, lifting a hand from the lectern. “There will be no negotiations while the square is still standing.”
In the protests at Ramadi, a Sunni member of parliament named Ahmed al-Alwani had inflamed the crowds, accusing Maliki of being in league with the Iranian regime, the region’s great Shiite power. “My message is for the snake Iran!” Alwani shouted into a microphone, jabbing his finger into the air. Referring to Maliki and those around him as “Safavids” and “Zoroastrians,” terms that denote Iranian invaders, he said, “Let them listen up and know that those gathered here will return Iraq to its people!”
Three days after Maliki’s speech, security forces surrounded Alwani’s compound. Officials claimed that they had gone not to arrest him—as a member of parliament, he had immunity—but to capture his brother, who was wanted on vague charges of “terrorism.” Gunfire broke out. The troops killed six people and took Alwani away. A photograph apparently smuggled from jail showed him in an orange jumpsuit with bruises on his face. His brother had fared far worse: he was shot to death in the fighting.
Soon afterward, troops cleared the Ramadi camp, on a day when it was sparsely occupied. Anbar Province erupted, along with the rest of Sunni Iraq, and the violence has not ceased. A wave of car bombers and suicide bombers struck Baghdad; in January, more than a thousand Iraqi civilians died, the overwhelming majority of them Shiites, making it one of the bloodiest months since the height of the American war. In the effort to put down the upheaval, Maliki ringed the province’s two largest cities, Falluja and Ramadi, with artillery and began shelling. Forty-four Sunni members of parliament resigned. In Falluja and Ramadi, Sunni police abandoned their posts.
Maliki, apparently realizing that he had miscalculated, ordered the Army to leave both cities. Within hours, dozens of armed men, their trucks flying black flags, swept into the downtowns, declaring that they were from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an Al Qaeda splinter group. Locals said that it was made up of men who had fought the Americans. “
Further, according to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies' Michael Knights, the US and Iraqi governments released a huge number of al-Qaeda prisoners from jail, which he thinks caused "an unprecedented infusion of skilled, networked terrorist manpower - an infusion at a scale the world has never seen."
In other words, this is all blowback from the original U.S. invasion of Iraq. Thank you, the Bush family.
That said, ISIS has not even been able to quickly topple the incompetent Iraqi government and its incompetent army.
As a military force, ISIS is about as much of a threat to the U.S. as Costa Rica, which disbanded its military ages ago.
As for potential terrorist attacks in the U.S., that would appear to be motivated by further U.S. intervention in the Iraqi civil war, which, again, is the result in the first place of the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein. Bottom line: The U.S.empire can not patrol the world and muscle every sectarian group in the world. It is a delusional idea that will do nothing but goad the undermanned and under armed targets of U.S.muscle to start considering the U.S. as a terror target that makes sense.
The U.S. should pull out of the region and basically tell the warring factions, "Good luck, and may Allah sort this all out for you."
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
Monday, August 25, 2014
How Important is Money to Charles Koch?
By Robert Wenzel
There is something going around called the "ALS Ice Bucket Challenge."
Here are the details and the rules:
These indications by Koch of a high value ranking for the marginal buck do not surprise me. I think in both of the cases above, if I was a multi-billionaire, I would have taken out my checkbook and written a check. It's probably one of the reasons I am not a muti-billionaire.
I have in the past, on a couple of occasions, I have advised people with wealth in the multi-hundred million dollar range. In two specific cases, they had serious problems that could have been handled by writing checks in the $100,000 range. I would have written the checks in their situation and told them so at the time. The problems would have gone away. But they ended up going through complicated battles to save those marginal dollars.
The same kind of valuation ranking has been displayed by Donald Sterling and George Soros.
There is in my view nothing wrong with this high ranking of money, anymore than there is a man ranking pink see through socks high on his valuation scale. But both rankings are way out there on the bell curve.
In other words, I think we should not consider such people as "cheap," but rather as having a very uncommon valuation for the marginal buck. This is not bad for the rest of us, if they use legitimate free market means to acquire more dollars. It means they have to provide more goods and services to the rest of us to get more dollars, but if they become crony capitalists to feed their abnormal desire for the marginal buck and rank that buck above honoring the non-aggression principle, then that is far worse than being cheap.
And that is the scorecard I use to rank these deep in the money long tail characters. In my ranking, Donald Sterling comes out on top. I am not aware of anything close to a crony deal that he has been associated with (Though I have no problem with being corrected if someone can point me to a crony deal he has done.).
There is something going around called the "ALS Ice Bucket Challenge."
Here are the details and the rules:
The challenge involves people getting doused with buckets of ice water on video, posting that video to social media, then nominating others to do the same, all in an effort to raise ALS awareness. People can either accept the challenge or make a donation to an ALS Charity of their choice, or do both.The multi-billionaire Charles Koch was challenged, he chose getting doused rather than making a donation (He clearly indicates this is the video below.) It is not the first time that he has indicated a high ranking for marginal money. When Koch wanted Friedrich Hayek to come to the U.S., but Hayek was concerned about making the trip because of potential medical expenses related to a then-recent gall bladder operation that he had, the muti-billionaire, instead of telling Hayek that he would foot any medical bills, sent him a pamphlet and told him to apply for Social Security. (SEE: Oh Geez, Charles Koch Advised Friedrich Hayek to Sign Up for Social Security).
These indications by Koch of a high value ranking for the marginal buck do not surprise me. I think in both of the cases above, if I was a multi-billionaire, I would have taken out my checkbook and written a check. It's probably one of the reasons I am not a muti-billionaire.
I have in the past, on a couple of occasions, I have advised people with wealth in the multi-hundred million dollar range. In two specific cases, they had serious problems that could have been handled by writing checks in the $100,000 range. I would have written the checks in their situation and told them so at the time. The problems would have gone away. But they ended up going through complicated battles to save those marginal dollars.
The same kind of valuation ranking has been displayed by Donald Sterling and George Soros.
There is in my view nothing wrong with this high ranking of money, anymore than there is a man ranking pink see through socks high on his valuation scale. But both rankings are way out there on the bell curve.
In other words, I think we should not consider such people as "cheap," but rather as having a very uncommon valuation for the marginal buck. This is not bad for the rest of us, if they use legitimate free market means to acquire more dollars. It means they have to provide more goods and services to the rest of us to get more dollars, but if they become crony capitalists to feed their abnormal desire for the marginal buck and rank that buck above honoring the non-aggression principle, then that is far worse than being cheap.
And that is the scorecard I use to rank these deep in the money long tail characters. In my ranking, Donald Sterling comes out on top. I am not aware of anything close to a crony deal that he has been associated with (Though I have no problem with being corrected if someone can point me to a crony deal he has done.).
Post by Koch Industries, Inc.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Are Evil Operators Pushing the President Toward More War?
By Robert Wenzel
Earlier this week, the Financial Times reported on the rescue attempt here.
What I found most curious in the report is that it appears that ISIS was tipped off about the US raid just hours before it occurred. From the FT report:
Although it is unclear about who tipped off ISIS, unless we chalk up the well timed movement of the prisoners a coincident, there appears to be evil operators who know too much about what the US is up to.
I also find curious the military equipment that the US left behind in Iraq that is now in the hands of ISIS. As David Hodges notes:
With the public focused after the beheading, we now see many warnings of ISIS terrorists possibly planning terrorist plots in the US.
Yesterday, ABC News reported:
And, also following the beheading, we had this report from CBS News:
You see, the key neocon media magnate, Rupert Murdoch, sent out a warning about ISIS entering the US and Europe, two days before the beheading video emerged.
At the time, and again, keep in mind this was two days before the beheading video emerged, I commented on Murdoch's tweet:
If there are bad actors, the question that must be asked is, "What is there agenda?" Is it just to push Obama toward air strikes in Syria, a direction following the beheading that Obama now appears to be headed in.
CNN reports:
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
I pretty much disagree on all policies of the current U.S. administration. On the domestic front, it is clear that President Obama is nothing but a crony socialist. On the foreign policy front, the President has been an interventionist across a broad front. On his watch, most recently, US operatives played a behind the scenes role in the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine. He is using drones to kill individuals in various foreign countries and he has ordered air strikes in Iraq.
It has been the state first, the state second, the state always under the Obama watch.. And, yet, the President appears to stop at committing US ground forces to help support adventures of the Empire. Whether he shows this restraint because of personal convictions, or because he fears that such a move will be too unpopular at home, is unclear. This one restraint, though, may end sooner rather than later because of the curious terrorist group, ISIS.
I say curious, because if you ever wanted a group that could act in a manner that would orchestrate the US masses into a fevered pitch demanding more aggressive military action in foreign lands, ISIS is your group. And they sure seem at present to be doing everything they can to incite the US masses.
I reference, of course, in particular the recent beheading of American photo journalist James Foley. And while I assume that the beheading actually did occur, I do note the caution of veteran war correspondent Eric Margolis in accepting the beheading at face value. He writes:
The alleged beheading of freelance journalist James Foley by the shadowy ISIS (or Islamic State) has sparked outrage and horror around the globe.
I say “alleged” because we are not sure if the decapitation was real or faked.
After three decades of covering wars in the Mideast, Africa, Latin America, and Afghanistan, my reaction as a journalist was also outrage – but cautious outrage.Aside from the caution that Margolis displays about the beheading itself, let us examine a number of events surrounding ISIS. First, I find it quite significant that the President secretly ordered, in July, an elite task force to rescue Foley and other Americans held in the Middle East.
Earlier this week, the Financial Times reported on the rescue attempt here.
What I found most curious in the report is that it appears that ISIS was tipped off about the US raid just hours before it occurred. From the FT report:
If the activists’ accounts are accurate, the raid may have missed its target by a matter of hours.
“The same evening those forces landed, Isis had sent out two big convoys,” the second activist said at the time. “We believe it contained important emirs, even perhaps Mr Baghdadi himself . . . but maybe something else was happening.”Does the apparently well funded ISIS have a mole high up within US command? Is there a foreign operator who has the capability to monitor high level US communications and who tipped off ISIS about the raid?
Although it is unclear about who tipped off ISIS, unless we chalk up the well timed movement of the prisoners a coincident, there appears to be evil operators who know too much about what the US is up to.
I also find curious the military equipment that the US left behind in Iraq that is now in the hands of ISIS. As David Hodges notes:
[W[here did all these (ISIS) terrorist groups get their vast weaponry? As reported in the MSM, they got their weapons from leftover weapons supplies in Iraq which were left by our troops when we pulled out of the country. Shouldn’t the U.S. have destroyed their weapons stockpiles? That would have been standard operating procedure, unless someone in our government was interested in arming terrorists with American military grade weaponry and subsequently pointed them in the direction of Syria,knowing full well that this would become the gateway for military intervention into Syria.Thus, we have ISIS armed with US weaponry and a beheading that has focused the masses on the evil ISIS.
With the public focused after the beheading, we now see many warnings of ISIS terrorists possibly planning terrorist plots in the US.
Yesterday, ABC News reported:
Federal authorities today urged law enforcement across the country to be alert for possible attacks inside the United States in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic group ISIS, the brutal terrorist group that beheaded American journalist James Foley and has seized vast swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria.And immediately following the beheading, we had this warning from Senator Jim Inhofe:
In a joint bulletin issued to local, state and federal law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and FBI said that while they are “unaware of any specific, credible threats against the Homeland” and find most threats to the U.S. homeland by supporters of ISIS “not credible,” they cannot rule out attacks in the United States from sympathizers radicalized by the group’s online propaganda...In the joint bulletin, DHS and FBI mentioned the propaganda video released this week showing Foley’s beheading, and it cited a photo posted online showing the ISIS (ISIL) flag in front of the White House.
A U.S. senator warned on Thursday that ISIS, the militant terror group sweeping across Iraq, aims to destroy an American population center and is working on a plan to do it.
'They're crazy out there and they're rapidly developing a method of blowing up a major U.S. city and people just can't believe that's happening,' Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe told the Fox-25 television in Oklahoma City.
Inhofe, the ranking GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that leaders of ISIS 'are really bad terrorists. They're so bad even al-Qaeda is afraid of them.'
And, also following the beheading, we had this report from CBS News:
At a Pentagon briefing, [Defense Secretary Chuck] Hagel called ISIS' extremist ideology "barbaric," but warned that the group poses a dire threat that must be taken seriously.So the US government has used the horrific event to stir up the masses. But the question must be asked, "Is the government just being opportunistic here or was this a planned propaganda event?"
"[ISIS] is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded," he said.
"This is beyond anything that we've seen. So we must prepare for everything," Hagel said.
You see, the key neocon media magnate, Rupert Murdoch, sent out a warning about ISIS entering the US and Europe, two days before the beheading video emerged.
Barbaric ISIS has few hundred US Brit & Oz recruits, all planning to return. Secret services' no idea of identities. Huge dangers ahead.
— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) August 17, 2014
Did the 83-year old Murdcoh jump the gun on a planned propaganda operation? I found the above tweet from Murdoch so unusual that I reported on it in a post here at EPJ, Terror Warning From Rupert Murdoch, on the day Murdoch sent out the tweet.At the time, and again, keep in mind this was two days before the beheading video emerged, I commented on Murdoch's tweet:
Who really knows if this is true? I certainly don't and I doubt Murdoch does either.
He probably got this "information" from a government official and government officials have agendas that don't always match up well with peace, prosperity and liberty.So either the Murdoch tweet was just a coincidence, like the ISIS apparent movement of prisoners before a US raid might have been a coincidence, or there are some real bad actors that are playing a high level game designed to stir up the masses and push the hand of a possibly reluctant Obama to escalate military activities of the Empire.
If there are bad actors, the question that must be asked is, "What is there agenda?" Is it just to push Obama toward air strikes in Syria, a direction following the beheading that Obama now appears to be headed in.
CNN reports:
After three years of avoiding it, President Barack Obama finds himself being pushed toward military action in Syria.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey both made clear that defeating Islamic State jihadists' rampage through northern Iraq would require going after them in neighboring Syria.
"That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border," Dempsey told reporters Thursday.
On Friday, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said the administration was looking beyond the current airstrikes within Iraq's borders.
ISIS wanted trade for 'Lady al Qaeda' Pentagon's chilling ISIS warning Pentagon: ISIS poses a major threat.
"If we see plotting against Americans, see a threat to the United States emanating from anywhere, we stand ready to take action against that threat," Rhodes told reporters.Or, do these mad men have a more aggressive agenda? Is all this talk about ISIS terrorists in the US phase 1 of a planned false flag operation in the US to stir up the emotions of the masses so that Obama's hand is forced and the way is cleared for him to send ground troops into Syria and back into Iraq?
The United States is already gathering intelligence on the locations of ISIS leadership and troops in Syria, two U.S. officials said.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Edelstein and Block versus Wenzel, on IP
Michael Edelstein and Walter Block disagree with me on Intellectual Property and Rand Paul (and perhaps other things).
Recently ,the three of us, at Michael's urging, agreed to have a series of telephone conversations on these topics. At the last minute, Michael proposed that he record the conversations. Walter and I both agreed. Below is the first conversation in the series. Because the decision to record was made at the last minute, the quality of the recording is poor at times.
For the next conversation, I will record from my end, hopefully resulting in a little better quality.
Here's Round 1:
Recently ,the three of us, at Michael's urging, agreed to have a series of telephone conversations on these topics. At the last minute, Michael proposed that he record the conversations. Walter and I both agreed. Below is the first conversation in the series. Because the decision to record was made at the last minute, the quality of the recording is poor at times.
For the next conversation, I will record from my end, hopefully resulting in a little better quality.
Here's Round 1:
Urban Primitivism and The Violent Oppressive State: Lessons from the Ferguson, MO Unrest
By Robert Wenzel
It's not surprising that confrontation between the state and the people of Ferguson, MO, following the shooting of the unarmed 19 year old teenager, Michael Brown, pits the most raw evidence of the true nature of the state, government force, versus that segment of the United States that has, arguably, been most damaged by government policies, that is, the black community. The black community has been ground down in many cases to a type of urban primitive existence, thanks to government laws and regulations such as minimum wage laws and drug laws, and a required public "education."
Put any kid into a situation where the public education resembles a zoo as seen, as HL Mencken might have said, from the inside of the cages, coupled with the barring of such a kid from all entry level job positions outside of illegally selling dope, and you are bound to get a very frustrated kid. Create a community of such kids and you get to see the eruption of blind fury from time to time. Unfortunately, these frustrated government created urban primitives don't understand the nature of the oppression they face.
There will be no good result from this eruption in Ferguson. Outside of perhaps more anger and distrust of the police, nationwide by urban primitives, they will remain outgunned and outmanned by the state. From them will perhaps come even more misdirected hate of everything beyond their own ghetto communities. "Community leaders," meaning tools that work knowingly, or unknowingly, for the state, will ultimately prevail in quelling, at the surface level, the outrage. These "leaders" will call for cosmetic changes that will put more lipstick on the government PIGS, as though cutting deals with the violent oppressor state will reduce the violence and oppression, while the union encouraged minimum wage laws, the useless compulsory public education system and drug laws, continue to grind the urban primitives down and down.
Sadly, the urban primitives, thanks to the state, have never read or even heard of Lysander Spooner, Franz Oppenheimer or Murray Rothbard. Thus, they have no guiding lights to point them to the true nature of the oppression they are facing. They lash and destroy whatever is in front of them, including private operations which have nothing to do with the oppressive state. It is a tragedy that we can witness in its most raw form in Ferguson. To paraphrase what Chris Rock once said in another context, "I don't condone what they are doing, but I understand it."
Most people reading EPJ don't come from the Urban Primitive community, so we can watch the unrest in Ferguson with detached curiosity. But I tell you what should directly concern even the readers of EPJ, it is how quickly armored military-type vehicles showed up at the scene of the unrest. Where did they come from so quickly? And who were all those police in military-type fatigues?
The battle now is, as I say, between the state and government created urban primitives, but the state is growing in its power and its oppression against all of us. For now, we have more money and skills and know-how to generally work around the system in a better fashion than the urban primitives, but the noose is getting tighter. From money laundering laws to coerced government-styled healthcare to politically correct BS regulations, the state is also grinding the rest of us. At some point, some among us, tragically, may feel the need to erupt against the state. I am against direct confrontation with the government, but this may not be the case with all. Ferguson teaches us how the state will respond to those who erupt. The state is heavily armed and is adding to its stockpiles of ammo. And as witnessed by Ferguson, the state knows how to rapidly respond against eruption from the oppressed.
The lesson here is clear. The growth of the state must be stopped now. The shrinkage of the government must be demanded now. If there is no successful effort to stop government growth and, indeed, reverse the size of government. There will eventually be more eruptions from more sectors of society. A direct battle against the state is always difficult. And indeed, even successful revolutions may not accomplish much. Ludwig von Mises taught us about "the futility of victory" that is not based on sound principles. First, it is clear he understood the nature of the problem. He wrote :
There is no reason to idolize police power and ascribe to it omnipotence and omniscience.But, he later went on to write:
To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.And, I would argue not only full out war, but government violence and oppression of any kind, including the police power that Mises warned about, can only be stopped in an environment where the importance of a society based on the principles of liberty is understood.
The effort to reverse the growing state oppression must be made now with words and education, the urban primitives aren't going to be able to help us. In fact, any chance they have of moving out of their urban primitivism will be based more on the rest of us getting the state off of all our backs. And the only way that can occur in a substantive manner is if a significant percentage of the people somehow begin to understand, at least on a gut level, the nature of government and its role always and everywhere as a violent oppressor.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Krugman: "When it comes to substance, libertarians are living in a fantasy world."
By Robert Wenzel
Paul Krugman went off on a bizarre rant, yesterday. He blogged against "libertarianism." But it was a distorted view of libertarianism that has nothing to do with pure libertarianism.
His first point of attack was Paul Ryan:
From there, Krugman comments on the supposed current:
In other words, Krugman is attacking a distortion mirror, charging that it isn't reality. Paulie, it really appears you have no idea how far from reality your discussion is. You are really fighting a battle from inside the distortion, fantasy land yourself.
Let's see you, Paulie, take on a real libertarian, say Murray Rothbard.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Paul Krugman went off on a bizarre rant, yesterday. He blogged against "libertarianism." But it was a distorted view of libertarianism that has nothing to do with pure libertarianism.
His first point of attack was Paul Ryan:
Paul Ryan thinks that we’re living in an Ayn Rand novel. More to the point, however, the libertarian vision of the society we actually have bears little resemblance to reality.Who the hell thinks Ryan is a libertarian? Here are just a few of the posts in which I have written about Ryan, which shows he is nowhere near being a libertarian:
- Did Paul Ryan Game the CBO Scoring System?
- Krugman Konfusion (Paul Ryan Edition)
- Paul Ryan as Military Keynesian
- Ugh, The Clueless Gold Hater Joe Weisenthal
- Now Paul Ryan is a Hayekian
- More Absurd Promotion of Paul Ryan as a "Radical Free Market" Advocate
- Tim Carney Bazookas Paul Ryan
- The Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan's Brother Money Connection
- Paul Ryan: The Koch Brothers Get Their Man
- Paul Ryan on Attack
- Paul Ryan: 'Biggest 'Brown Noser'
- Ben Swann Smacks Paul Ryan Hard
- Now Boehner Defends Paul Ryan's TARP Vote
- Grover Norquist Takes On Paul Ryan and the War Party
- Romney Budget Plan + Ryan Budget Plan = Total B.S.
- Obama Campaign: Ryan Kisses the Ring of Adelson
- FOX News: Ryan Budget Plan Doesn't Actually Slash the Budget
- Reagan’s Former Budget Chief, David Stockman, Rips Paul Ryan
- Paul Ryan Insider Trading Thief
- Senior Cato VP Goes GaGa Over Paul Ryan
- VIDEO: Ron Paul on Paul Ryan
- Paul Ryan as a Team Player
- Ezra Klein: Ryan Isn't a Deficit Hawk
- Ron Paul on Paul Ryan
- Bought and Paid for Paul Ryan
- The Marketing of Paul Ryan - by, Justin Raimondo
- Cato Propaganda about Republicans and Paul Ryan
- Did Paul Ryan Misunderstand Ayn Rand?
- Slick Paul Ryan on TARP
- What the Wisconsin Republican Liberty Caucus Doesn't Want You to Know About Paul Ryan
- Paul Ryan's Slick Healthcare Plan
- Paul Ryan's Ballsy Attempt to Create A Huge Tax Reduction for His Crony Bow Hunters
- How Much of a Micro-Tax Nut Job is Paul Ryan?
- Don't Confuse Paul Ryan with Ron Paul
From there, Krugman comments on the supposed current:
trendy idea among libertarians that we can make things much better by replacing the welfare state with a basic guaranteed income.This may be a position held by the Koch-funded crowd and libwaps (who would like to be funded by the Koch brothers), but it has ZERO to do with pure libertarians. Laurence Vance explained:
Then Krugman goes on:It is the wackiest “libertarian” non-libertarian proposal I have ever seen. Or perhaps it is the wackiest non-libertarian “libertarian” proposal I have ever seen. I’m not sure yet. Either way, it is nothing short of libertarian statism.For many years now, some libertarians have promoted educational vouchers in the name of “school choice.” But as I have pointed out many times (see here, here, here, here, andhere), since the state has no business funding any child’s education, government-issued vouchers for education are just another income redistribution scheme like food stamps, WIC, TANF, and refundable tax credits.But support for vouchers is a mild aberration compared to the latest wacky “libertarian” scheme.Writing in “The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income,” Matt Zwolinski argues not only that “guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare,” but that “it can be justified by libertarian principles.”...In a recent article of mine—“Shall We Abandon the Non-Aggression Principle?”—I pointed out that once you reject the libertarian non-aggression principle (see Zwolinski’s rejectionhere and Michael Rozeff’s reply here), you open the door to justifying state aggression. The state taking money from some and giving it to others is an act of naked aggression.The federal government’s welfare programs don’t need to be reformed, simplified, better managed, made more efficient, block granted to the states, used as a form of reparations, or made less bureaucratic, they simply need to be abolished.
For sure there are wasteful and unnecessary government regulations — but not nearly as many as libertarians want to believe.Here, Krugman again misses the point that Vance makes, the state is about aggression and pure libertarians object to all government aggression. Thus, Krugman may be arguing against a distorted carnival mirror version of libertarianism, but he isn't coming close to touching the arguments and positions of pure libertarians. His attack is really against supporters of government who are pretending to be libertarians.
In other words, Krugman is attacking a distortion mirror, charging that it isn't reality. Paulie, it really appears you have no idea how far from reality your discussion is. You are really fighting a battle from inside the distortion, fantasy land yourself.
Let's see you, Paulie, take on a real libertarian, say Murray Rothbard.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)