Congress votes (again) 390-5 to wholeheartedly condemn Hamas and support Israeli military aggression. “This is not in the interest of the United States; it’s not in the interests of Israel either.” – Ron Paul
by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution Originally published Sunday, January 11, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5782.html
WASHINGTON, DC – The House voted on Friday January 9th to pass House Resolution 34 which can be summed up with this short excerpt: The United States “calls on all nations to lay blame both for the breaking of the calm’ and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas.”
Um, I don’t think this will find much support from the peoples of “all nations.” Now, the firing of Hamas’ highly inaccurate rockets into civilian areas is to be condemned. However, let us put things into some perspective here:
The Human Rights Watch reports that for 3 years from 2004-2007, ten (10) Israelis civilians were killed and zero (0) soldiers. Hamas rockets also killed two (2) Palestinian civilians as well. This latest attack was set off by the deaths of three (3) Israeli civilians and one (1) IDF soldier per the AP. So for 4 years, we have roughly (probably a few more) fourteen (14) Israelis dead and a couple Palestinians (most likely by mistake) by Hamas.
In Lew Rockwell’s latest article he tells us why we are experiencing this financial crisis. He also asserts that given the state of our economy and political culture there are reasons to be hopeful.
Will this go on for ten years like the last time? Will it end in World War III, as if following some historical script? Is it possible that we will go the way of Germany in the 1920s, straight into the abyss of hyperinflation and into the hands of a ghastly dictator? It is unwise to rule it out.
And yet, I’m not that pessimistic. It is extremely crucial to realize that there is a difference this time. In the 1930s, technological limits put severe restrictions on information delivery. Government propaganda easily dominated the culture. All of that has changed. Despite everything, people simply do not trust the government as they once did. Obama will enjoy a short honeymoon but it will be over by summer.
The price of gold rises for the 8th year in a row, although it is more accurate to say the purchasing power of the fiat dollar is eroding.
by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution Originally published on Sunday, January 4, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5747.html
Although certainly it was not my intent to share investment ideas when this column was first started, some readers who took my advice this year are cackling with glee.
You see, James Turk of goldmoney.com in his latest newsletter noted that despite the losses in the commodity and equity markets, the price of gold managed to rise for the eighth year in a row in nominal dollar turns. The gains in 2008 were +5.8% as compared to +16.3% average since 2001. Silver had its first down year since 2002 with a loss of 24%, although its average since 2001 is a very healthy +13.7%.
The interesting take-away from Turk’s report is that over the long run, other fiat national currencies are losing roughly 13% annually to the yellow metal, while dollar and British pound are noticeably worse at 16-17%. Why? Perhaps I am wrong, but history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. The shotgun marriage of the FED and Bank of England led the world into the Great Depression following the Great Inflation of the 1920s as I wrote about in this 2-part series, possibly in our contemporary time something similar is occurring.
As government typically does, they use crises, the threat of crises, or the illusion of crises in order to grab more power and seize and/or redistribute wealth. The current so-called “credit crunch” is no exception. Robert Higgs writes an interesting article on this subject:
Remember the credit crunch? Of course you do. We’d never seen anything like it, or so the highest financial authorities and their lapdogs in the news media told us — not in a cool, calm, and collected way, either, but in a breathless delivery that suggested imminent economic doom unless the government immediately undertook to “do something.” Which it did, of course, on a scale never before witnessed in US history.
So, looking back, as people are prone to do at this time of year, we can clearly see the telltale signs of the financial disaster that struck the financial markets last autumn: the terrible credit crunch, the “frozen” credit that portended a complete economic “meltdown” unless the government took drastic measures to head it off. (The government’s spokespersons and the media’s talking heads never got straight whether the thing was very cold or very hot, as they reached for horrifying metaphors in all directions at once.)
But, wait, something is terribly wrong in the statistical record! The devastating credit crunch, the greatest threat to this country since the Russians exploded an H-bomb, the most menacing economic event since the stock-market crash of 1929, the … (sputter) … (sputter) … (words fail me in the face of such terrors as it evoked in the minds of government ministers and financial titans of all stripes). Well, I am rather embarrassed, on behalf of all these giants of the ruling elite, to inform you that in retrospect the Monster from Lack-of-Liquidity Lagoon doesn’t really show up as such in the most relevant statistical series.
Ron Paul and fellow representative Harry Mitchell have again introduced legislation to block Congressional pay raises this year. How nice it must be to have to make a law to NOT get a pay raise. This is yet another great example of how the Founders beliefs are on the opposite side of the world from our current government culture.
U.S. Reps. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) and Ron Paul (R-TX) announced yesterday they will continue their bipartisan efforts to block an automatic pay raise for Congress, and have introduced legislation to block the nearly $4,700 raise scheduled to take effect next year.
Paul, whose congressional district includes parts of Fort Bend County and much of Cinco Ranch, said turning down the raise would demonstrate a commitment to fiscal responsibility.
“Turning down our automatic pay increase this year is the least Congress could do to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and solidarity with our constituents in these tough economic times,” Paul said. “Much more needs to be done to reduce the size and expense of government, but passing this legislation would be a start.”
Mitchell, whose district includes the eastern and northeastern suburbs of Phoenix, called the idea of Congress accepting the raise “unconscionable.”
Ron Paul appeared with Dick Armey today on FOX News with Neil Cavuto. They discussed Obama’s stimulus plan. Not surprisingly neither of them thought much of it.
Some thoughts on how labels are used in conversation by human beings and in propaganda by governments, the media and other groups or individuals. If I may be so crass as to quote Shakespeare in Hamlet, “Words, words, words.”
by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published January 5, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5754.html
Black. White. Chinese. Arab. Christian. Muslim. Jew. Atheist. Man. Woman. Straight. Gay. Israeli. Palestinian. American. Liberal. Conservative. Socialist. All of the above are labels. They describe race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, or a political viewpoint. These labels bring different images or thoughts to mind to different people, and as I was writing this series something has become woefully obvious to me, besides the fact that writing about Israel or religion is like trying to walk on eggshells without breaking any. No matter what I write, the reader can never fully comprehend my exact thought pattern. Let me explain.
Quote of the Day: “The permanent income hypothesis (PIH) is a theory of consumption that was developed by the American economist Milton Friedman. In its simplest form, PIH states that the choices made by consumers regarding their consumption patterns are determined not by current income but by their longer-term income expectations.” — from Wikipedia
Subject: How to stimulate the economy
The President-elect wants the proposed stimulus bill to be 40% tax cuts. That’s good. But he wants those cuts to be one-time reductions. That’s bad.
The politicians want to prop up businesses by stimulating consumer spending. One-time tax cuts will not accomplish this.
Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize for showing that consumers don’t spend based on short terms gains, but only on expectations of what their long-term income will be. This fact was validated yet again by the fate of the recent “stimulus” checks the government mailed to everyone. Most people did not spend this money, they saved it or used it to pay down debt.
If the politicians really want to stimulate spending they should pass permanent tax reductions.
I don’t think future historians will have much trouble researching who among the politicians of the 2000′s will have the authority to say “I told you so!” Another great Ron Paul interview from CNN American Morning is below.
Ron Paul once again talks like a beautiful broken record repeating the ills of the Federal Reserve and fiat currency. Maybe if he keeps on repeating it someone will listen.
One interesting point he made is that many like the interviewer John Roberts keep talking about how much these deficits will add up and become our children’s responsibility. Paul counters with his own worry that we may not be able to push it off to future generations. We may have to answer to the lunacy of printing more and more money during our own generation.
Liberty Maven
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=17ddf8f0-7133-437c-a5b0-94f1c1270ca8)
As government typically does, they use crises, the threat of crises, or the illusion of crises in order to grab more power and seize and/or redistribute wealth. The current so-called “credit crunch” is no exception. Robert Higgs writes an interesting article on this subject:![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d08119c1-a5b7-4776-b624-52108fd8adfc)
Black. White. Chinese. Arab. Christian. Muslim. Jew. Atheist. Man. Woman. Straight. Gay. Israeli. Palestinian. American. Liberal. Conservative. Socialist. All of the above are labels. They describe race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, or a political viewpoint. These labels bring different images or thoughts to mind to different people, and as I was writing this series something has become woefully obvious to me, besides the fact that writing about Israel or religion is like trying to walk on eggshells without breaking any. No matter what I write, the reader can never fully comprehend my exact thought pattern. Let me explain.
Loading ...
