Friday, April 27, 2012

This is Why Regulations Are a Scam!

A note by Zach Foster



There are times when pure theory becomes too abstract for a student of the Austrian School, and concrete examples are needed to solidify understanding of the stupid greed or false philanthropy of policy makers who seek to "protect" the American people.  Well, see the info-graphic to the left!

Here’s a graph showing just a taste of the overlap between Goldman Sachs corporate lobbyists/officials and federal government officials.  Remember folks, these are the people writing regulations to reign in those “greedy capitalists”—i.e., their competitors.

Instead of competing to produce the best goods or services to win over consumers, they’re using the law in an unconstitutional manner to give themselves an artificial advantage and fat profits and slant the playing field for everyone else.

Under a truly free market, they would have to compete honestly.  The naturally occurring phenomenon of the free market would require them to offer goods or services of the highest quality—with a correspondingly high price—or of the lowest price—with correspondingly low quality—or find a healthy balance between quality and low price that makes goods and services universally affordable and with good utility.

One economic insight to keep in mind this election cycle is that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, both having received substantial donations from members of the Goldman Sachs executive board.  Ron Paul is not in anyone's pocket, disavows crony capitalism, and is Washington D.C.'s greatest advocate of the free market.

One of the problems in the common mindset is that people see crony capitalism and grievously mistake it for the free market.  Clearly there is a difference; the former, wedded to interventionism and eventually socialism, causes society and economy to decay, while the latter enables them to thrive.

Graphic courtesy of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman


Who would win? Duh!

This review of the new book “Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman” by Jim Miles featured in Foreign Policy Journal, makes the case that Paul wins the economic argument against Krugman with a KO:

The reader does not have to be highly knowledgeable about the world of economic theory to understand Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman. Clearly written, and with an obvious and well supported perspective, the short work highlights some of the aspects of all the political discussions about free markets, government intervention, and how certain authorities—essentially Krugman in this study—are quite willing to change their words to suit their own purposes. Krugman’s main purpose appears to be to avoid accepting any blame for the financial mess that the U.S. and thus the world is currently immersed in.

I am not a fan of economics, as the people I normally associate with economics do not appear to be the brightest intellects in the land, and often seemingly lack common sense. This discussion, by leaving out much of the economic jargon, presents a clear case that Ron Paul has it right and has been consistent, and still is consistent, with his views and advocacy for true free market action…

For Ron Paul, his arguments were consistent and have been proven correct. Interest rates, subject to the market and its hopefully balanced demands for spending and saving, for building wealth and saving for the purchases of real goods that build the wealth, should not be held artificially low. Instead they should be allowed to rise and fall as the demands of saving and spending rise and fall.

Hammond quotes both figures extensively, comparing their words from one time to another time. In Paul Krugman’s case, it is a long series of changing his story, in one part to avoid responsibility for his part in the financial downturn, and for the other part—it is hard to ascertain—in order to sound like he still knows what is best, or what he is doing is correct. The differences between what he said at one time and says at a later date are numerous and obviously contradictory, and Hammond has no trouble juxtaposing Krugman’s waffling rhetoric.

Ron Paul on the other hand is consistent with his message: we do not have free markets and we need to get to them…

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter