Oh the Places You'll Go

I graduated High School this week. When my Dad said he had a present for me I thought I was getting some cheesy graduation card. But what I received was something truly priceless. Following the ceremony he handed me a bag with a copy of "Oh the Places You'll Go," by Doctor Seuss inside. At first I just smiled and said that it meant a lot and that I loved that book. 

But then he told me "No, open it up." ...On the first page I see a short paragraph written by none other than my kindergarten teacher. I start tearing up but I'm still confused. He tells me "Every year, for the past 13 years, since the day you started kindergarten I've gotten every teacher, coach, and principal to write a little something about you inside this book." 

He managed to keep this book a secret for 13 years, and apparently everyone else in my life knew about it! Yes the intended effect occured... I burst out in tears. Sitting there reading through this book there are encouraging and sweet words from every teacher I love and remember through my years in this small town. My early teachers mention my "Pigtails and giggles," while my high school teachers mention my "Wit and sharp thinking.." But they all mention my humor and love for life. It is astounding to receive something this moving, touching, nostalgic, and thoughtful. 

I can't express how much I love my Dad for this labor of love.

 

Photo Album - Imgur

What a wonderful idea.

Peter Schiff on the Government Spending Addiction

"Take Two: The President's Proposal to Stimulate the Economy"

The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending held a hearing, which examined the results of the Administration's economic policies thus far and explored the proposals outlined by President Obama on Thursday, September 8, 2011.


Learn more at http://oversight.house.gov


9-13-11: Oversight Productions

9/13/2011 (1 of 2) Peter Schiff Testimony Before Congress On Jobs Committee

Peter Schiff Testifies Before Congress. Part 2 IS HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbQGpf3D_Q.


Full hearing is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgpq-lthpPQ

9/13/2011 (2 of 2) Peter Schiff Testimony Before Congress On Jobs Committee

Peter Schiff Testifies Before Congress. Full hearing is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgpq-lthpPQ

Mr. Schiff Returns to Washington

Does Washington have the American taxpayers' interests as their top priority? Watch as lobbyists drown out your voice and Peter fights the tide.

Peter Schiff is more educated on economics than the government workers and lobbyists who are making choices for the American people without our consent. This lack of concern for the will and needs of those who are carrying the burden through taxation is what has led to rebellions and collapses in history, including the beginning of our own nation. Why bother learning from history when it's more fun to repeat past mistakes?

Go to http://www.TinyURL.com/RealCrash to order my new book, "The Real Crash: America's Coming Bankruptcy---How to Save Yourself and Your Country"


6:06 - My Opening Statement


11:16 - "I don't know whether to go to Mr. Schiff or not, but I guess I will" - Judy Biggert (R)
I explain to Chairwoman Judy Biggert why federal involvement in home lending has created more problems than it has solved.


16:22 - "Despite all the sound and fury, there's not a lot of details..." - Robert Hurt (R)
My proposals that old regulations be repealed, rather than new ones proposed, in order for the free market to come up with solutions are repeatedly lost on Congressman Robert Hurt.


25:16 - "Mr. Schiff, I just have one question..." - Emanuel Cleaver (D)
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II unsuccessfully tries to 'nail' me. Instead, a spirited discussion ensues in which I remind the congressman of the moral hazard and economic costs of government subsidies.


30:38 - "Maybe that happens in an Ayn Rand novel..." - Dan Sherman (D)
Congressman Dan Sherman asserts that as a practical matter the federal government, in one way or another, insures all homes, and that only characters in an Ayn Rand novel would believe otherwise.


THE HEARING:


Oversight of Federal Housing Administration's Multifamily Insurance Programs


THE PANEL:


Ms. Marie Head, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Housing, Federal Housing Administration


Mr. Michael Bodaken, President, National Housing Trust


Ms. Sheila Crowley, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Low Income Housing Coalition


Ms. Mary Kenney, Executive Director, Illinois Housing Development Authority, on behalf of the National Council of State Housing Agencies


Mr. Rodrigo López, President and Chief Executive Officer, AmeriSphere, on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association


Mr. Richard L. Mostyn, Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, The Bozzuto Group, on behalf of the National Multi Housing Council


Mr. Robert F. Nielsen, Immediate Past Chairman, National Association of Home Builders


Mr. Joseph L. Pagliari, Jr., Clinical Professor of Real Estate, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business


Mr. Peter Schiff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Global Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital


SPREAD THE WORD! Let more people take an inside look at the inner workings of Washington D.C.


FULL testimony here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEx1b4uaZ8k


Watch Peter's last testimony here:
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLmD9TeUC54
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbQGpf3D_Q

Block on Economics in Environmentalism

Contrary to Pigou and Samuelson, manufac- turers, foundries, railroads, etc., could not act in a vacuum, as if the costs they imposed on others were of no moment. There was a "way to force private polluters to bear the social cost of their operations": sue them, make them pay for their past transgressions, and get a court order prohibiting them from such invasions in future.residential area, for example, would subject the firm to debilitating lawsuits.

Upholding property rights in this manner had several salutary effects. First of all, there was an incentive to use clean burning, but slightly more expensive anthracite coal rather than the cheaper but dirtier high sulfur content variety; less risk of lawsuits. Second, it paid to install scrubbers, and other techniques for reducing pollution output. Third there was an impetus to engage in research and development of new and better methods for the internalization of externalities: keeping one's pollutants to oneself. Fourth, there was a movement toward the use better chimneys and other smoke prevention devices. Fifth, an incipient forensic pollution industry was in the process of being developed.16 Sixth, the locational decisions of manufacturing firms was intimately effected. The law implied that it would be more profitable to establish a plant in an area with very few people, or none at all; setting up shop in a 

In Walter Block's "Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights," he describes methods of privatizing natural resources and what unspoiled wilderness that remains. His ideas are realistic and proven. In Africa, countries that outlaw poaching for elephant ivory still have issues with the practice, as each hunter has positive market encouragement to take a many animals as possible to compete. In African nations where it is legalized, land owners have motivation to save the species, taking older elephants, letting younger ones propagate the populations again. With that discrimination, the species can regain its numbers, and the ivory trade can remain profitable yet sustainable. Hunters that provide the ivory have an interest to maintain the species to guarantee future revenue. With an extinction, everyone loses. With regulation through privatization, the elephants can be considered winners. That win comes at a cost, yet worth it considering the tragic alternative. Those who can not find this market example as acceptable in terms of minimizing the violence against nature have not studies economics and fail to understand that nothing is ever quite black and white. 

Obama: Private Sector is Doing Fine

Well, here's a honest statement from the regime for a change:

On Friday, President Obama inexplicably said 'The private sector is doing fine.'" Since the president is completely out of touch, these middle class workers talked about their experiences to remind him of the realities of the Obama economy.

The private sector of the economy is not doing fine. What's worse than saying that it is fine is the idea that more public sector spending will improve the private sector. No true economist would ever stand behind a statement like that, especially when our own federal government is barely above water in terms of debt. Our national debt is nearly equal to revenue, so increasing the numer of government jobs will only make that disparity even further top-heavy.

Most economists not on the government payroll (or the Fed's) have been saying that increasing government spending (and now debt-spending) has zero chance of righting an economy which has been running numbers that are beyond recession level and actually into depression territory (but that won't be heard on state media outlets). Deficit spending only exacerbates the economic problems and does nothing to counter the source; government itself. As more and more rely on government for income and handouts, and as fewer and fewer are able to pay in (involuntarily, naturally), the imbalance becomes even greater and likelihood of any true recovery slips further away.

As someone who understands markets and the detriment of government intervention in economics, Peter Schiff gives about the most qualified and accurate rebuttal to those statist claims that more state scope and authority is needed when that is exactly the root cause.

Peter Schiff : the money that the government uses to pay the wages of the public sector employees comes from the taxes that he imposes on the private sector , we should get rid of the government jobs , government jobs makes us poor private sector jobs make us richer

If anyone is surprised that interventionism consistently fails to correct economic hard times, they need to look a bit more objectively at the situation and actually learn about economics from a source other than the state itself. As Mises said, "tu ne cede malis." He was right even before those doing economic damage today were even born.

The problem with government intervention into markets is that increasing the money supply by the Federal Reserve is the exact worst thing to do in the situation. It creates a chain reaction that no monetary or public policies can stop. In a nutshell, this is what happens when governments increase the money supply and increase deficit spending in a false attempt to promote economic growth:

What happens when consumers are given money without a proper price comparison? (consumer demand should drive producer supply) Prices increase because there is more currency in circulation, rather than higher levels of production. Prices rise as a response to the new level of currency supply. What happens when prices increase? Consumers spend less. What happens when consumers spend less? Producers cut production, which leads to lower supply levels and lower labor demand, which in turn leads to higher private sector unemployment. Unemployment can not be negated by increased government spending or increased government jobs, as a smaller private sector workforce leads to decreased tax revenues.

Funny how sometimes bad ideas have negative consequences, ain't it?

The resulting hyperinflation and economic collapse is not the subject of conspiracy theory, but of the history books. This is exactly what happened to the Weimar republic in 1923 (now Germany), to Russia in 1992-1993, to Zimbabwe from 1999-2008, and many other countries around the world throughout history. This is even what happened to the great empire of Rome, whose Dinarius currency inflated until the economy collapsed around 230 AD. Once the course is set, very little can be done to avoid disaster. If there were, some of these collapses would never had occurred.

Interventionism champions such as Ben Bernanke and Jamie Diamond are truly  horsemen of a financial apocalypse. Their job  made easier by such willing victims.

Anti-Piracy Patent Stops Students From Sharing Textbooks

For centuries, students have shared textbooks with each other, but a new patent aims to stop this "infringing" habit.

The patent in question was granted to Professor of Economics Joseph Henry Vogel. He believes that piracy, lending and reselling of books is a threat to the publishing industry.

"Professors are increasingly turning a blind eye when students appear in class with photocopied pages. Others facilitate piracy by placing texts in the library reserve where they can be photocopied," Vogel writes.

The result is less money for publishers, and fewer opportunities for professors like himself to get published. With Vogel's invention, however, this threat can be stopped.

Why anyone believes that publishers are being victimized through piracy is beyond me. They are hardly passing significant profits on to most authors, especially those in education. This idea would corrupt the textbook market. 

The idea is simple. As part of a course, students will have to participate in a web-based discussion board, an activity which counts towards their final grade. To gain access to the board students need a special code, which they get by buying the associated textbook.

Students who don't pay can't participate in the course and therefore get a lower grade.

The system ensures that students can't follow courses with pirated textbooks, as tens of thousands are doing today. Lending books from a library or friend, or buying books from older students, isn't allowed either. At least, not when the copyright holders don't get their share.

The problem is that the producer is wanting to get a cut of future realms of their products. Imagine if Ford wanted a percentage of the resale of a car you bought from them. 

Vogel's idea leaves the option open for students to use second-hand textbooks, but they still have to buy an access code at a reduced price. This means publishers can charge multiple times for a book that was sold only once.

Needless to say, publishers are excited about gaining more control in the classroom. Anthem Press of London has already expressed interest in the system and Pat Schroeder, president of the Association of American Publishers, also welcomes the idea.

On the surface the idea might seem well-intentioned, but to proponents of an open knowledge society it goes completely in the wrong direction. If anything, the Internet should make it easier for students to access knowledge, not harder or impossible.

While it's understandable that publishers want to stop piracy, preventing poor students from borrowing textbooks from a library or friend goes too far.

Perhaps it's a better idea to approach the problem from the opposite direction.

Thanks to the Internet, publishers are replaceable. And since many of the textbook authors are professors who get paid by universities, it is not hard to release books in a more open system.

Professor Vogel believes that sending more money to publishers helps academia, which might be a flawed line of reasoning. Isn't it much better to strive to make knowledge open and accessible, instead of restricting it even further?

Source: Anti-Piracy Patent Stops Students From Sharing Textbooks

Hong Kong Hoarding Gold

Tyler Durden sez (inflection built-in);

A month ago we were delighted to counterpoint Charlie Munger's prior remarks about the level of "civilization" of a given consumer based on their sentiment vis-a-vis gold, by demonstrating that Chinese purchases of gold from Hong Kong rose to a record. To wit: "Imports from Hong Kong were 135,529 kilograms (135.53 metric tons) between January and March, from 19,729 kilograms in the year-earlier period, according to data from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong government. Shipments in March rose 59 percent from February, yesterday's data showed." We have just gotten the April update, and, lo and behold, the country which is now the biggest buyer of gold, having surpassed India, just set a new record: "Gold imports by mainland China from Hong Kong climbed 65 percent to a record in April, advancing for a third straight month as investors sought a hedge against financial-market turmoil and an economic slowdown.Shipments totaled 103,644.5 kilograms (103.6 metric tons) in the month from 62,913 kilograms in March, according to export data from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong government today. In the first four months, imports were 239,174 kilograms from 27,114 kilograms a year earlier, according to Bloomberg calculations. China doesn't publish such figures." In other words: in the first four months of 2012 Chinese purchases have increased by an unprecedented 782%over 2011.

Since they're only buying more gold than at any time in modern history, that should give us pause. There is more demand for gold than most any other resource at this time. Think hard. What happens to that demanded good when all others become significantly discounted. I love economics. 

And this is only from Hong Kong! Said otherwise: "Is the PBOC, which officially has just 1,054 tons of the yellow metal, quietly and relentlessly stockpiling gold?" Oh yes.

Expect a formal announcement from the Chinese central bank in the months ahead, indicating the country's gold hoard has increased by at least 100%. What happens then to the price of gold is rather self-explanatory.

[...]

...as usual, Zero Hedge is wildly more accurate than state media propaganda like CNN. 

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/hoarding-continues-china-purchases-record-100-tons-gold-april-hong-kong

As media outlets decrease and conspire against the public, that public becomes less intelligent and more divided. 

Go figure. 

Political Liars - Economic Edition - Tax Subsidies

I've been on an economics kick for the last couple of years, learning all I can. One issue that gets under my skin is is subsidies to industries through theft (taxation, since I is not voluntary). Some politicians believe that subsidizing markets, services, or products will help the economy, but this is a falsehood. Here is why we should end subsidies and involuntary taxation.

By subsidizing those costs to consumers, the public believes that those costs are lower. This is false, since costs are actually higher, but only the direct costs are experienced in transactions. Indirect costs round out the overall transaction, with producers receiving the balance of their revenue from the state, which extorts through taxes that revenue which drives costs and production higher.

This theft from consumers through forced coercion (taxation is theft) affects all taxpayers, even those who do not directly consume those goods or services. By ending subsidies, producers will lower costs to equilibrium and consumers will pay directly or indirectly pay for those goods and services they choose to. In turn, taxation can decrease, since need for taxes is negated by the market.

Beyond that problem, subsidization leads directly to increase costs to consumers, since producers see it as an increased demand (which we know not to be the case). By artificially driving up demand, producers see that demand can go higher, so in turn increase costs to consumers. Subsidies actually increase the total cost, rather than decreasing them.

Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie Discuss the English Language

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePassiveVoice/~3/JmznGlPjpiY/

Obama's Education Takeover

By using billions of dollars in federal funding to strong arm states to adopt national standards of dubious quality, the Obama administration has raised federal intrusion into education to new heights, transferring control over the nation's classrooms to anonymous federal bureaucrats, special interest lobbies, and insider experts, ultimately rendering parents and taxpayers powerless.

Learn more here: http://amzn.to/A86N41

Obama's Education Takeover

They'll Call This Racist

In the Age of Obama, the racism charge, rather than abating, has become more prevalent than ever. Why? Because to tell the truth about matters like crime, racial profiling, social fallout of single parent homes, or the ways racial preferences distort the very meaning of equity and justice would mean facing up to the soul-destroying pathologies of urban black culture. Instead, black leaders and their guilty white allies blame these problems on historic oppression and lack of government aid, and demonize those who challenge such views as -- what else? -- racist.

They'll Call This Video Racist

Watching this video, I can not help but recall Walter Block's The Case for Discrimination (available for free in digital formats via the Mises Institute. The collection of essays and articles provides a better understanding of what discrimination is and why it is not entirely bad or good. Discrimination is most often the method by which we make choices every day. Trying to negate discrimination through policy only exacerbates the conflict situation further. Work like Block's should be require reading in philosophy and economics programs.

Walter Block has been writing on the economics of discrimination - and in defense of discrimination, rightly understood - for more than 30 years. This large hardcover collects nearly all of this writing to present a radical alternative to the mainstream view.

His thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos.

The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict.

The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities.

In essence, Block's book is a specialized application of the libertarian perspective on society, as applied to a particular controversy in our times. It is supremely rare in tackling this issue head on, and offering a no-compromise alternative: abolish all anti-discrimination law on grounds that it makes no economic sense and only generates conflict where none need exist.

Will this book cause controversy? Most assuredly. But that it is not its goal. Its goal is the uprooting of a flawed and failed social theory and its replacement by a realistic one that is rooted in a genuine concern for human rights and the good of all.

Read a Book

Source: Read a Book

I realized that land has become more valuable for it's agricultural application than for building homes. I think that this song is more appropriate as time goes on...

Labor and Free Market Economics

Movement of workers from region to region, or country to country, is another important source of shifts in labor supply. When immigrants come to the United States, for instance, the supply of labor in the United States increases, and the supply of labor in the immigrants' home countries falls. In fact, much of the policy debate about immigration centers on its effect on labor supply and, thereby, equilibrium wages in the labor market. 

If workers from a poor rural region migrate to a relatively richer urban one, the smaller labor pool in the former will find equilibrium in the latter if interventionist policies are cast aside. Without intervention, that equilibrium can be reached as an over abundance of labor will result in unemployment, which in turn will drive some workers to other regions in need of labor. 

This is part of the reason that I believe doing away with immigration law and even international borders is a practical more solution. Beyond the failings of interventionist policies in politics and economics, restricting individuals from free migration is an affront to liberty, one typically maligned with special interests and using the labor force as pawns in the gaming of markets for profit where none is deserved. The resulting market inefficiencies are experienced as deadweight loss among other problems not able to be resolved through state economic manipulation. 

Source: 

Mankiw, N. G. (2007). Principles of microeconomics. (5th Edition ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

The Great Tax Haven Debate, Part II

Dan Mitchell's defense of tax havens is another in a long line of articles and discussions from the Cato Institute which do a great social service to individual liberty. I'll quote a portion of his response here, but refer back to his response and the original article after the jump. In a time of statist reductionist attempts to socialize our society, it's good to see people like Mitchell who get it and are vocal about it;

Back in April, responding to an article written by Ann Hollingshead for the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development, I wrote a long post defending so-called tax havens.

I went through the trouble of a point-by-point response because her article was quite reasonable and focused on some key moral and philosophical issues (rather than the demagoguery I normally have to deal with when people on the left reflexively condemn low-tax jurisdictions).

She responded to my response, and she raised additional points that deserve to be answered.

So here we go again. Let's go through Ann's article and see where we agree and disagree.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog post criticizing the philosophies of Dan Mitchell, a libertarian scholar from the Cato Institute. I asked for a "thoughtful discussion" and I got it—both from the comments section of our blog and from Dan himself.  On his own blog, Dan replied with a thought-provoking point-by-point critique of my piece.

It has been a polite discussion, which is good because readers get to see that we don't really disagree on facts. Our differences are a matter of philosophy, as Ann also acknowledges.

The differences are more than philosophical. Mitchell recognizes that interventionist policies by the state are what lead to economic instability, along with promoting the corruption and gross theft of wealth in the process. Keynesian economics have long since been proven failure, and are the Left's parallel to Heston clinging to guns. 

Dan made several interesting points in his rebuttal. As much as I'd like to take on the whole post right now, my reply would be far too long and I don't think our readers would appreciate a blog post that approaches a novella. Rather I'll focus on a couple of his comments that I find interesting on a philosophical level (there were many) and which demand a continued conversation because, I believe, they are the basis of our differences. We'll start with a rather offhand remark in which Dan indirectly refers to financial privacy as a human right. This is an argument we've heard before. And it is worth some exploration.Unless I am very much mistaken, Dan's belief that financial privacy is a human right arises out of his fundamental value of freedom. My disagreement with Dan, therefore, does not arise from a difference in the desire to promote human rights (I believe we both do), but rather in the different relative weights we each place on the value of privacy, which Dan (I'm supposing) would call an extension of freedom.

I wouldn't argue with her outline, though I think it is incomplete. I'm a big fan of privacy as a principle of a civil and just society, but I also specifically support financial privacy as a means to an end of encouraging better tax policy. Simply stated, politicians are much more likely to reduce or eliminate double taxation if they feel such taxes can't be enforced and simply put a country in a much less competitive position.

I'd go further and say the way to promote social good is to remove taxation on markets, as they only give more scope and power to the state, which naturally leads to a curtailing I individual liberties. Fiat tariffs and taxes only reduce economic efficiencies and drive costs to consumers up anyway. Few state interventionist policies beyond preventing monopolies and oligopolies (cartels) in markets do any measurable social good. 

Okay, so on to [my] answer of the subject of this post. Privacy—and financial privacy by extension—is important. But is it a human right? That's a big phrase; one which humanity has no business throwing around, lest it go the way of "[fill in blank]-gate" or "war on [whatever]." And as Dan himself points out, governments have a way of fabricating human rights—apparently some European courts have ruled that free soccer broadcasts and owning a satellite dish are a human rights—so it's important that we get back to [philosophical] basics and define the term properly. The nearly universally accepted definition of "human rights" was established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations adopted in 1948. According to the UN, "human rights" are those "rights inherent to all human beings," regardless of "nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status." The Declaration includes 30 Articles which describe each of those rights in detail. "Financial privacy" per se is not explicitly a human right in this document, but "privacy" is, and I think it's reasonable to include financial privacy by extension. But privacy is defined as a fundamental, not an absolute, human right. Absolute rights are those that there is never any justification for violating. Fundamental freedoms, including privacy and freedom from detention, can be ethically breached by the government, as long as they authorized by law and not arbitrary in practice. The government therefore has the right to regulate fundamental freedoms when necessary.

I'm not sure how to react. There are plenty of admirable provisions in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there are also some nonsensical passages – some of which completely contradict others.

Everyone hopefully agrees with the provisions against slavery and in favor of equality under law, but Article 25 of the U.N. Declaration also includes "the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services."

That sounds like a blank check for redistributionism, similar to the statism that I experienced when I spoke at the U.N. last month, and it definitely seems inconsistent with the right of property in Article 17.

I'm not sure that what they are doing at the UN is any different that the wealth redistribution the American Left is calling for over here. Neither is morally correct, as they are both based on theft through taxation, redistributing false wealth to those wio have not worked to earn it. Hollingshead would do well to actually gain a philosophical background on these issues she argues, maybe by reading works like Rothbard's Man, Economy and State, or even better would be Mises' Human Action. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't care that the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a "right to privacy" because I don't view that document as having any legal or moral validity. I don't know whether it's as bad as the European Union's pseudo-constitution, but I do know that my support for privacy is not based on or dependent on a document from the United Nations.

As an aside, I can't help noting that Articles 13 and 15 of the U.N. Declaration guarantee the right to emigrate and the right to change nationality, somethings leftists should keep in mind when they demonize successful people who want to move to nations with better tax law.

Even the American Right would do well to grasp this idea and remove policies that prevent workers from emigrating to nations with wealth and need for workers. State borders are fiat, which I would call unnecessary and obstructionist to economic growth. Immigrants built the US, so preventing it from continuing by closing down the borders only restricts our ability to maintain a strong economy. Illegal immigration should be seen as the oxymoron that it is. 

[...]

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Intelwar/~3/rTqA9a7gXcs/