The Deep State, Border Adjustment taxes and Socialism

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/february/14/dennis-kucinich-push-for-new-cold-war-behind-effort-against-michael-flynn/

Dennis Kucinich is dead on.

http://www.theblaze.com/video/whats-going-to-help-our-childrens-education-needs-in-the-long-run/

Good for Ben Watson.

https://fee.org/articles/republicans-are-already-trying-to-raise-taxes/

This border adjustment/value added is perhaps the stupidest idea the republicans have ever come up with.  It really is up there with the war on drugs.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/02/15/americans-express-increasingly-warm-feelings-toward-religious-groups/

I would have guessed just about every one of these things correctly but this is absolutely fascinating.

Quote of the day:

“Hitlerism proclaims itself as both true democracy and true socialism, and the terrible truth is that there is a grain of truth for such claims-an infinitesimal grain, to be sure, but at any rate enough to serve as a basis for such fantastic distortions.  Hitlerism even goes so far as to claim the role of protector of Christianity, and the terrible truth is that even this gross misinterpretation is able to make some impression. But one fact stands out with perfect clarity in all the fog: Hitler has never claimed to represent true liberalism. Liberalism then has the distinction of being the doctrine most hated by Hitler.” – Professor Eduard Heimann, a leader of the German religious socialism.

https://mises.org/blog/goal-socialists-socialism-%E2%80%94-not-prosperity

A few of my favorite quotes:

“I have come to a few conclusions about the nature of the arguments and the reasons why socialists remain socialists even as we see the utter failure of socialist economies throughout history. Maybe the meme that appears once in a while — ‘If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists’ — might be true, but I doubt it. As I see it, the purpose of establishing socialism is to further promote socialism, not improve the lot of a society and certainly not to promote prosperity.”

“I believe that the end of all of this activity is — or should be — the improvement of life for people in a way that is not predatory and brings about voluntary cooperation among economic actors. In other words, economic activity is a means to an end, and the end is free people gaining in wealth and standards of living.  A socialist does not and will not see things this way. The end of socialism is not a higher living standard or even making life better for the poor, as much as a socialist will talk about the well-being of poor people. No, the end of socialism is socialism, or to better put it, the ideal of socialism. Once socialism is established, as it was in Venezuela or in the former USSR or Cuba, the social ideal had been met no matter what the actual outcome might be.”

Friday Links

http://www.theblaze.com/video/learn-about-black-american-heroes-youve-never-heard-of/

Harry Hoosier is the genesis of the nickname “Hoosiers” of Indiana.  He was a black evangelical preacher that was apparently the best of the day.  He didn’t like to preach where others did, so he went west – at the time meaning none other than Indiana.

Bigger story here, Malcolm X is not a black hero. Neither is Al Sharpton or any other race hustler of today.  The people named in this article were truly extraordinary folks.

http://www.fff.org/2017/02/16/bribes-catapults-corruption-trump-trumps-wall/

Jacob Hornberger makes an excellent point.  We can’t even keep drugs out of prison.  What makes Trump and others think more enforcement will successfully keep drugs out of the US more broadly.   The laws of supply and demand cannot be repealed or unfollowed.    #TeachBetterChoices #Decrease Demand

AV à  The two industries in America that have entirely too many people working in them are healthcare and finance.  Ironically I am involved in both.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/how-long-confirmations-will-take/?%3Ftid%3D=sm_pg&utm_source=nl-politics-daily-021617

This is a cool way to explain the confirmation process of cabinet picks.  Props to WaPo.  (I didn’t read it I just looked at the charts so offer no comments currently on the writing.)

https://mises.org/blog/healthcare-government-%E2%80%94-not-technology-%E2%80%94-driving-prices

Why are healthcare prices so high?  Because we subsidize insurance.

 What did we do in 2010 to help people that could no longer afford healthcare?  We subsidized more health insurance! 

Repeating the same decisions and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity!  IMO, politicians are scoundrels.

Comic Relief

http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/crony-in-chief-donald-trump-epitomizes-ayn-rands-aristocracy-of-pull/

Anyone who tries to associate DJT with Ayn Rand is a lunatic.  She would have despised him.  How about this quote from Rand:

 “A man who is tied cannot run a race against men who are free: he must either demand that his bonds be removed or that the other contestants be tied as well. If men choose the second, the economic race slows down to a walk, then to a stagger, then to a crawl — and then they all collapse at the goal posts of a Very Old Frontier: the totalitarian state. No one is the winner but the government.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-administration-isnt-very-diverse-photo-ops-make-it-glaringly-obvious/2017/02/02/a0353e28-e956-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_diversity-7a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6b22a8eee995

Diversity has almost nothing to do with anything visible in a photo.  Another stupid article from WaPo.  Maybe they should get some diversity of thought or diversity in intellect.  No I am not kidding.  The people that run WaPo are morons.

https://fee.org/articles/americans-are-more-charitable-than-socially-conscious-europeans/

This is great.  I don’t have anything to add.  This is a phenomenal article.  Well done.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion of this research article on the value of 2-point conversions at various times in a game.  Here it is:

“There is no excuse for professional coaches to make such simple mistakes. If you’re a coach, you should be doing this analysis yourself — or doing it better. If you’re still kicking extra points 14 times more often than going for 2, you’re not doing your job. If you’re in the sports media and you haven’t mastered this material, and won’t hold coaches accountable for not doing their jobs, then you’re not doing your job either.”

https://mises.org/blog/tightening-money-supply-will-inevitably-lead-bust

While a rule based Fed would be better than a crony based Fed, this paragraph highlights just how ridiculous an endeavor a rule based Fed would be:

“What various supporters of these ‘rules’ and of other forms of market intervention are trying to establish is the ‘correct’ level for the interest rate. This level, however, can only be set in a free unhampered market. Such an interest rate cannot be known without freeing the market from the Fed’s tampering.”

  

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/02/crazy-lefty-propaganda-in-audi-super.html

The Audi commercial itself is almost as funny as the commentary from Mark Dice. 

The commentary made me laugh multiple times.  Yes he is vulgar, yes he says a few controversial things.  Yes he is essentially correct on all of them.

http://www.barstoolsports.com/iowa/a-bunch-of-irish-kids-roasted-the-shit-outta-donald-trump/

I am crying laughing at this video of little kids in Ireland talking about Trump.

https://austrianaddict.com/2017/02/03/fake-headlines/

This point is well taken: 

“Why didn’t any of the stories mention that Milo was gay? Doesn’t being gay mean you are part of an identity group and can never be criticized? Or does being a conservative and not politically correct trump your status as a gay person? This is all very confusing. Will the left please write down the order of importance of the identity groups they’ve made up. I’m having a hard time knowing which group is more equal.”

Am I a Global Warming Heretic and What to think of Neil Gorsuch

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/02/the-ethics-of-fossils-fuel-use.html

This is an awesome debate on climate change.  Couple things here:
a. It's nice that a debate can actually take place instead of the idealogues that claim anyone that wants to see evidence is a heretic.
b.  There is nothing more true in this world than fossil fuels don't take a safe world and make it dangerous, they take a dangerous world and make it safe.  This is shown by the fact that as carbon emissions have increased for decades and climate related deaths have been reduced by 98%.  Yes, 98%.
c.  I take the points made by the fossil fuel hater at face value.  I really do, he seems smart, well infomred and has done his research but the issue is, I can come up with 15 reasons why Increased water intake is bad for you.  This doesn't mean drinking water is a bad thing in general.  Everything in life has costs and benefits and one needs to weigh them against each other to figure out if it is good or bad.
d.  I am happy to entertain research and initiatives re: global warming but it should not come from the government because it 1. is not how I want to spend my money that the government stole, 2. destroys incentives 3. leads to waste 4. it politicizes everything and no actual science gets done because they simply push the current government regimes' agenda.


http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-everything-you-need-to-know/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theinsider&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpjeFpUZ3lZVEE0WkRNMyIsInQiOiJXd1ZpZHBBOWFCMkdQUlpyalFraTVhS0VcL0hKbkNZRHd3d0RaaFpcL251dDBQVTcxcGdcL2lZUFF1dHl6cWozXC9EVGpQeHA5N1V1MjVnU0psYk1IZnlpaXdKK3N5b0FEWDRDc2dDNGh6UUhRZUVmYjk2XC9FWUxQek1Bc3dGbGNqQ0tcLyJ9
I really enjoyed this interview/discussion of Neil Gorsuch.

Trump's done exactly what he said he would do in his campaign - and most of it has been bad.

http://blog.independent.org/2017/01/30/how-many-americans-have-refugees-killed/

Abigail Blanco correctly observes that the left has been very hypocritical with the refugee issues currently taking place.  Where were the protests when the Obama administration turned away Cuban refugees in the final weeks of his presidency?

However, she also correctly asserts that in addition to being, in my opinion a product of racist feelings, the ban will absolutely be ineffective.  A slice:

“According to the Cato Institute, the United States admitted 3,252,493 refugees between 1975 and 2015. Twenty of them were terrorists. This represents some 0.00062 percent of all refugees. Only three attacks carried out by these refugees were successful.

In total, in a span of forty years, ‘terrorist refugees’ have killed three people in the United States.

But what about the attacks in San Bernardino, the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Boston Marathon bombings, and 9/11? Are these not “proof” that such a ban is warranted? After all, the individuals responsible for the attacks had some connection to foreign countries.

In reality, the current executive order would have stopped exactly none of these attacks.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter was born in New York and was a U.S. citizen. Of the two San Bernardino shooters, one was born in Chicago. The other, his wife, was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia—neither country is on the “banned” list. The Tsatnaev brothers, responsible for the Boston bombings, were born in Kyrgyzstan. People from Kyrgyzstan aren’t banned under the current executive order. Of the 19 people responsible for hijacking four airplanes on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Again, these countries aren’t on the ‘banned’ list.”

Then she goes further to prove the point I made yesterday regarding the probability of an attack being the basis of a cost benefit analysis.  Clearly terrorism in the US is not a severe threat.

“Heart disease (35,079 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)

Cancer (33,842 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)

Medical Error

Alcohol (4,706 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)

Poisoning from prescription drugs

Suicide

HIV

Syphilis

Starvation (187 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)

Brain-eating parasites (22 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)

Food poisoning (110 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)

Drowning in a bathtub

Being struck by lightning (four times more likely to kill you than a terrorist)

Dying in a fire

And my personal favorite—toddlers. Yes, you are more likely to be killed by a gun-wielding toddler than a terrorist.”

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/31/donald-trump-is-all-of-the-things-all-of-the-time/

David Harsanyi suggests something I have said for a while now.  Why do we have to be all for or against some political candidate or party?  This is asinine.  Both parties are correct on some issues, both parties are wrong on most issues.  I respect people like Ron Paul, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and more but I don’t agree with every last one of them.  I voted for Evan McMullin.  I still maintain he was the best candidate we had for president.  I am very critical of his relation with the CIA, national security state and his hatred for Russia.  We need to view policies, statements and views individually.  Unlike private property, ideas are not owned by the individual.  One person does not, will not ever and cannot possibly have a monopoly on good ideas.

http://cafehayek.com/2017/01/bonus-quotation-of-the-day-207.html

“From Dan Griswold’s Mad About Trade: ‘Free trade gives to each person sovereign control over that which is his own.’”

What an absolutely amazing concept.  The morons running the government, current and past, ought to read this.

Weekend Thoughts

AV –à My thoughts on the weekend:

The Trump ban on immigrants is dumb, ineffective, and done in poor taste. 

1. FREE TRADE OF GOODS, SERVICES, AND PEOPLE IS KEY

I hold an unwavering view of the freedoms of man to include international movement of people, goods, and services.  Free trade of goods, services and people (and I don’t want to hear the people that will be offended by referring to trading people - that is not the intent - the intent is the freedom of movement of people and goods) is the only path that leads to economic prosperity and peaceful relations.  Free trade makes people wealthier and more peaceful in every case.

2.   COSTS VS. BENEFITS

I understand some American citizens feel a sense of nationalism and the related need to improve the perceived safety of American’s. I also understand that many don’t agree with my unwavering commitment to free trade. The supporters of the new immigration EO are generally conservatives who identify these reasons for their support. In my opinion, they should base their appreciation (or lack thereof), not on vacillating feelings, but instead on concrete cost benefit analysis. 

Benefits: Debatedly improved safety.  This is an obvious benefit but it's not clear the ban actually provides it.

Costs: 

·         Many people are upset and express their discontent based on all kinds of factors.   While indeed a cost, I think this is probably not the biggest deal. 

·         The financial cost to employ the personnel that enforce this ban and pay for the development of technologies and processed to screen everyone will be huge.

·         Increased hatred of America and its people by countries across this world will be the biggest cost of all.  This backlash in terms of animosity towards America is not inherently of concern.  Though many liberals might cry and moan over this, it is not a cost other than to individual self-esteem etc. The true cost will be the identification of the US as “the enemy” prompting nations around the world to act on that aggression.  This is what happened when the Obama administration bombed the hell out of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, etc. These people began to see the US as the enemy, cultivating a feeling of hatred towards the US, generating increased attacks on America.  This will be the major cost - in terms of human life.  From this perspective I think the Trump administration is wrong to ban these immigrants and Trump supporters need to be more realistic and critical of their highly flawed leader.

3.         PARTISAN HYPOCRISY

I am amused to see liberals claim that this EO is unconstitutional.  Yet those same folks proudly applauded the many over-reaching EO’s of Obama over the last 8 years.  There is no such thing as unconstitutional for liberals as long as it fits their agenda.  If it doesn’t – it’s automatically unconstitutional.  At the same time, conservatives who cried foul repeatedly over the last eight years now find themselves suddenly silent and approving.  Truly, the two-party system is broken.

4.         GET OUT OF THE ECHO CHAMBER

Much of the news about the ban (and most other issues) has been “fake news” and “alternative facts”.  I highly suggest you read about the issues from a source other than the mainstream media.  I read from both main stream media and several other sources presented in this blog.  Go ahead and read the main stream media, but also expose yourself to other view points and to more factually correct sources as well.

Now back to the articles!

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/29/sex-skin-color-doesnt-mean-trumps-potential-supreme-court-picks-lack-diversity/

“In short, Democrats and progressive activists will no doubt attack the jurisprudence of whomever emerges from this contest. I welcome that debate, but charges of insufficient diversity can only come from those with insufficiently developed understandings of that term.”

Diversity has very little to do with race and gender.  They are two of many millions of factors on which people can vary.

AV à I love this #deleteuber protest.  Less demand means lower prices for the rest of us.  I assume some drivers may delete it as well but if the app is a source of income as opposed to a convenience, people will be less likely to delete the app.  Therefore we have similar supply and less demand.  Yeah for lower fares! 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/who-hasnt-trump-banned-people-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

This is just another piece of evidence that free trade creates peace.  The NY Times is trying to rip Trump because he doesn’t ban people from countries in which he has done business.  1. This is stupid in that he is most likely to ban people from unstable countries and is equally unlikely to do business in unstable countries.  This is a correlation not causation by any means.  2.  It is true that when you are able to do business (or trade as some refer to it) in countries you gain a level of respect and trust for the people of that country.  This is not surprising and should be used as a shining example for free trade and movement of people.

AV à The title of a recent article in the National Review was “Trump is wrong but his liberal critics are crazy” has to be the most accurate title I have seen on a news piece in a long time.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/january/28/pre-emptive-attack-iran-bill-active-in-us-house/

It doesn’t take much for people to freak out and give up liberties as well as give too much power to one person.

https://fee.org/articles/trumps-proposed-wall-and-tax-are-folly/

This article is completely correct.  The wall and border tax are terrible idea. 

“As for the wall itself, have we no better use for the tons of concrete and steel, the miles of roadway and electrical wire, and the years of human time and effort it would take to build, maintain, and monitor it? We would be dumping precious resources in the desert in order to deny ourselves the ultimate resource. It’s stupefying.”

https://fee.org/articles/banning-refugees-is-cowardice-not-vigilance/

“Courageous principles sometimes allow bad outcomes. Freedom of speech allows for some noxious ideas to spread. Gun rights allow for some bad people to more easily engage in violence. Requirements for warrants allow for some criminals to hide their crimes. And freedom of movement allows for some bad people to travel where they can do harm.

Such courageous principles do not create perfect worlds. They create structures in which people have the freedom to shape the world, for better or worse – with better usually winning. Depriving the vast majority of people's freedom to prevent a small minority from spreading evil impoverishes and threatens everybody.”

Hmm, brings to mind some more hypocrisy.  Those who want more gun control are typically the ones horrified by immigration bans.  

Wacko authoritarians and wackier socialists

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/01/protesters-are-chanting-eat-rich-fuck.html

Robert Wenzel is completely correct when he says "The country is split between wacko authoritarian protectionists and even wackier socialists."