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.