[I]t stands to reason that if workers in developing countries are underpaid and exploited, a profit-seeking businessperson would be able to reap immediate profits by hiring the workers away from their current occupations and re-employing them elsewhere.
If people pass on the opportunity, Caplan argues, then they implicitly accept the tragic-but-nonetheless-real fact that workers in very poor countries simply are not very productive. Low wages, then, are not the product of exploitative multinational corporations but of extremely low productivity...
[T]he textile sweatshops derided by rich westerners offer higher wages and better working conditions than the alternatives in very poor countries. People in developing countries need more sweatshops rather than fewer.
Regulation also will not change the productivity of very poor workers...
Can companies "afford to pay more?" Again, the answer is no. Firms might be able to pay above-market wages in the short run... In the short run, we can improve standards of living for some people. In the long run, this illusory prosperity comes at the cost of increasing future poverty...
The idea that expanding and integrating the global marketplace exploits the poor is a myth that causes avoidable misery. Protesting and trying to slow the advance of international capitalism is not the solution. Encouraging the development of institutions in which the world's poor can increase their productivity is.
Walter E. Williams provides a good send-up of the desire to have government make health care affordable through activist measures.
"Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us the 'affordable' housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now deliver us affordable health care?"
The Rockefeller - Ford/Carnegie Foundation controlled Rand Corp. suggests that a war with a major world power will revitalize the economy helping the current banking elite to maintain their control over America...
This is likely the “generated crisis” Joe Biden discussed two weeks ago at an Obama fund raiser in Seattle. Madeline Albright and Colin Powell quickly confirmed Biden’s warnings, advising TV audiences of an international crisis that will be announced to the public soon after Obama’s inauguration.
Voting is nothing more than a periodic public affirmation in the faith of systematic violence as a social system...
I suspect that many people have become implicitly aware – even as they refuse to openly admit it to themselves – that the society in which they live doesn’t work well anymore. They are not yet prepared to consider that the social structures they have been conditioned to think of as timeless and immutable are collapsing; and that new systems of social organization – grounded in peace and liberty – must be found. Faith in the dying regime must be reaffirmed, and voting becomes the most visible, collective expression of political piety...
Few are any longer convinced that the state can produce golden ages or great societies or workers’ paradises, but they dare not renounce their faith in an open fashion, and so content themselves with participation in the voting ritual...
While the political establishment will be satisfied with either [presidential candidate] in office, it will be even more pleased with a large voter turnout that would create the impression of a reinvigorated support for statism. But the establishment wants the expression of choices confined to its two entries in this race: third-party candidates (or what should more accurately be referred to as second party offerings) are to be discouraged – by the media, televised debates, and ballot access – because the establishment does not control these parties. The concerted effort to keep alternative political parties out of the process confirms the observation that, if voting could change the system it wouldn’t be legal.
It's simple, I think. In a world where consumers have so much power, we now have two responsibilities:
* If you don't like what an organization stands for, work actively to spread the word and force them to change
and
* If you will miss a product, a service, a book, a site or a professional when they close up shop, stand up, speak up and bring them masses of new business.
We get what we promote.
How did a man who seemed to pose no danger to anyone besides himself end up being killed by the police in his own bathroom?
... there's also evidence -- enough to spark a rigorous MPD Internal Affairs investigation -- that the responding officers didn't make an adequate effort to engage Kerstetter before resorting to lethal force...
If police officers find themselves face to face with a potentially dangerous and mentally unstable citizen, are inhumane methods for restraint preferable to lethal force?
In your view, why precisely does the market financially reward students for taking lots of classes that at best seem distantly related to job performance?
If you mentally review your years as a student, can you honestly say that your typical class raised your marginal productivity?
It is unambiguously clear that the Fed has failed in its charge to maintain a stable price level...
If those members of Congress who voted for the creation of the Fed in 1913 had been able to know what the results of their handiwork would be for the next 94 years, given the empirical data, it is unlikely the closely contested bill would have passed...
Gerald O'Driscoll, a former senior Fed official and very able economist, recently said it best: "The central bank is like an arsonist watching a fire he set, expressing amazement at how such an event could have happened. The Fed created a moral hazard by first, implicitly, then explicitly promising to bail investors out of risky commitments..."
Before the Fed and big government, previous bank panics usually ended quickly without "bailouts" or "economic stimulus" programs.
If all intelligent discussion of war is about weighing risks, then what about the risks not only of policing the world but of preemptively attacking anyone who looks cross-eyed at us, or at Israel? We have troops in over 100 countries, from Bosnia to Afghanistan to Japan and Uzebekistan, but Washington, D.C., is a city besieged by fear, a terror so pervasive that Congress hardly dares stay in session long enough to conduct its business before scuttling out of town a.s.a.p...
"It is our true policy," George Washington averred, "to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
Why, why, why are we foregoing the advantages of our peculiar situation as we stand at the apex of our superpowerdom? 9/11 changed "everything", says the War Party. But did it? Are we not, still, the most powerful military power on earth? Why intervene in every conflict, globalizing its bloody consequences, when we can steer clear of all that by following the advice of the Founder?
...
How far we have come from the wisdom of the Founders, one of whom warned that "nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
...
What the alleged "libertarians" who talk of "liberating" the world using the U.S. military as their instrument don't seem to understand is that all of this costs money, and lots of it. And who is going to get the bill? You are, my friend, and it is going to knock your socks off...
They harken back to the stern republican virtues of the Founders, and then turn around and hail America as the New Rome. But it is one or the other: we cannot be a republic and an empire, simultaneously. It is either Jefferson, or Caesar...
Will America keep her old republic, or will the War Party take us all the way down the road to empire?
The core reason that our American ancestors enshrined the right to keep and bear arms within the Second Amendment... is this: so that the American people could protect themselves through violent action from the tyranny of their very own federal government.
Now, that notion is shocking to some modern-day Americans...
Why in the world would Americans need to have weapons to protect themselves from their chief provider, protector, and benefactor?
The answer is simple: The federal government is the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people. That’s correct — it’s not the terrorists, the communists, the Muslims, the drug dealers, the illegal aliens, or any foreign dictator that constitutes the biggest threat to the American people. The biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people is the federal government itself.
In fact, the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights is an explicit acknowledgement of that fact. That’s why those documents place express constraints on the powers of federal officials.
Could things ever get so bad that Americans would have to take up arms against their own government? Of course they could. That’s the whole idea behind the Second Amendment — to provide people with the means of violent resistance should such ever become necessary...
When would-be tyrants know that people have the means to resist tyranny with violence, the would-be tyrants are more cautious about implementing their tyrannical plans.
What is the first thing U.S. officials do when they invade some Third World country? They ensure that the citizenry remain disarmed. Why do they do that? To ensure that people readily obey whatever orders are issued to them. U.S. officials know what foreign dictators know: that a disarmed citizenry is an obedient citizenry.
Thus, the right to keep and bear arms not only serves as a sort of doomsday insurance policy in the event the worst were to happen, it also, at the same time, serves as an enormous deterrent to tyranny. The Second Amendment keeps Americans safe not only from burglars, thieves, and robbers but also from would-be tyrants.
Of course, none of us were raised perfectly. Our imperfect parents, many of them first-generation Christians, often had to work out biblical marriage and parenting and family from the ground up. Homeschooling was an intimidating experiment for most. And yes, our parents made mistakes. However, once we consider ourselves adults we need to take responsibility for our own shortcomings.
There comes a point where every person must rise above his circumstances, for no circumstances are perfect. Each of us stands alone before God, individually responsible for his own deeds, misdeeds and lack of deeds, and God (we know from Scripture) does not accept blame-shifting.
Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.
Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
It is appropriate to remember the Pilgrims as Americans celebrate Thanksgiving. Though we have incomparably more than they did, we can learn much from their "way of thanksgiving."
But we should also remember that our material blessings are the fruits of America's system of private property rights, whose power for peaceful and productive cooperation the Pilgrims began to prove by experiment almost four centuries ago, because those rights, and the freedoms and prosperity they entail, are under constant assault today.
We must remember that governments do not produce anything. Their only resources come from producers in the economy through such means as inflation and taxation. The government has an obligation to be good stewards of these resources. In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive members of the economy and giving it to failing ones. By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market, is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned. But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed – the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones...
It won’t work. It can’t work. We need to cut our losses and get back on course. There is too much at stake for too many people to continue down this road. The bailouts thus far to AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, and TARP funds amount to around $1.5 trillion... That amounts to an extra $5,000 that every person in the country needs to somehow produce just to keep up. It is obvious to most Americans that we need to reject corporate cronyism, and allow the natural regulations and incentives of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of bureaucrats and politicians.
Ludwig von Mises and subsequent Austrians developed the theory that the business cycle is an unintended consequence of government intervention in the monetary and banking system. Specifically, the central bank (the Federal Reserve in the United States) pushes the interest rate down below its "natural" level by injecting new money into the banking system. This artificial stimulus sets in motion an unsustainable boom period of illusory prosperity.
During the subsequent (and inevitable) recession, resources are reallocated in light of the "malinvestments" made during the boom. Far from being "bad," the recession is part of the process of recovery, where entrepreneurs make the best of the untenable situation created during the boom. It is in this sense that Austrians say that recessions are a good thing. They are the recognition of the previous mistakes that entrepreneurs have made investing scarce resources, when they were misled by the distorted price signals reverberating from the Fed's interventions.
You reap what you sow. The consumer is the ultimate king. Consumers vote their hard-earned dollars in favor of producers and service providers, just as they cast preference votes for candidates to political office.
Thus, rather than petitioning Washington to be a tax agent for Detroit's account, it behooves auto execs to make their strongest case for lower corporate income taxes, less onerous corporate average fuel economy and environmental regulations, and an all-out effort to bring U.S. oil, natural gas and nuclear power to the market. Promoting these economic policies would enhance the U.S. economy at large as well as Detroit's prospects. Let's examine each one...
The economic world is a much more positive reality. Workers and firms who are eternally vigilant for the shifting demands of the marketplace are rewarded with expanded income, benefits and job opportunities. More dollars are voted their way. In other words, when sound economic principles are followed, the economy flourishes and we're all winners.
Thanks for asking for feedback on the plan to save or create 2.5 million American jobs by 2011.
My feeling on the idea of creating jobs in the government sector is well-stated by the Virginia Rebel blog.
I encourage you to reconsider creating these jobs in the public sector and instead put policies in place that will encourage job creation in the private sector.
The Virginian Rebel: Emperor-elect Obama to Save Us From Unemployment, The Business Cycle
Government can only consume, it does not "invest." What they do not want to tell you is that this money has to come from somewhere. Instead of letting the masses of people decide what to do with their own money (i.e. what types of goods to produce), politicians in Washington have determined that what you really want is roads and bridges. This is not job creation, but a reallocation of money from the private sector to overpaid employees in the public sector. It will actually reduce employment. Whereas the private sector will pay employees close to their marginal productivity, the government pays well in excess of the productivity of the individual. Thus, given the same pool of capital to pay employees, the private sector will hire more and produce more goods.
Mon, 24 Nov 2008, 7:30 am EST
Every government function, no matter how mundane or apparently harmless, carries with it the implied (and often overt) use of lethal force against those who do not submit. Stefan Molyneux perceptively describes this as the principle of the “Gun in the room”: Whenever anybody refers to the supposed virtue of a given government undertaking, Molyneux sagely observes, the central question is not whether the end is desirable, but rather “whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.”
Government can only consume, it does not "invest." What they do not want to tell you is that this money has to come from somewhere. Instead of letting the masses of people decide what to do with their own money (i.e. what types of goods to produce), politicians in Washington have determined that what you really want is roads and bridges. This is not job creation, but a reallocation of money from the private sector to overpaid employees in the public sector. It will actually reduce employment. Whereas the private sector will pay employes close to their marginal productivity, the government pays well in excess of the productivity of the individual. Thus, given the same pool of capital to pay employees, the private sector will hire more and produce more goods.
Code enforcement activity has been on the rise nationwide with the failing economy reducing local governments’ revenues and local bureaucrats desperately trying to take money from anywhere they can get it, using any excuse...
When the laws are unjust, as the vast majority of today’s laws are, then a court of law will dispense injustice. Freeman’s protest of the injustice done to him has not gone unnoticed. Many liberty activists have said the court’s action has motivated them to get even more involved.
“The tyranny was stifling,” Everett said. “It’s the kind of experience that makes you rethink everything. And just to be clear, I don’t mean rethinking everything in terms of backing off. Quite the opposite.”
You might say that, in the end, Bush's secret plan for never withdrawing from Iraq was but an extension of his shop-till-you-drop response to 9/11. The idea was to put so much stuff in the country that we'd have to stay...
when Barack Obama sits down in the Oval Office with his top commanders, he's going to hear about all that "stuff." For those who want to drag their feet on leaving Iraq, this is the argument of last resort...
When it comes to withdrawal, the most militarily profligate administration in memory has seemingly ensured that the highest military priority in 2009 will be frugality -- that is, saving all American "stuff" in Iraq...
I’ll stand arm in arm with the gay rights crowd when it comes to demanding equality under the law. But forcing a private dating service to spend money to reconfigure its website and retool its matchmaking formula to accommodate homosexuals isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s petulant and silly.
Ultimately, it’ll also be counterproductive... Because if feeds into the... claim that the gay rights crowd is forcing its lifestyle onto others...
Freedom of association means that when private parties choose to associate with one another, some people will under some circumstances be excluded. Deal with it.
It’s too bad eHarmony caved.
So if the GOP wants to ever see the majority again, they need to move to a more libertarian stance. Social Conservatives will dwindle as my generation moves up in years. But the GOP has no guts, and are afraid to take a stance on principles. They won’t fight for more freedom and less government, because one isn’t popular with the base (the Christian Right/donor base/talking heads), and the other part isn’t popular with the media. So they don’t want to lose power, and will continue to make mistakes, move left, and be made to look like fools. Principled libertarians like myself will figure it out, get frustrated, and leave in disgust. That is why I believe the Libertarian Party will be competitive with the GOP eventually. The GOP will soon be considered the whigs.
For years GM and Ford have produced a product that consumers do not value as much as the product provided by their competitors. Rather than changing their products or business model, they instead spent small fortunes on lobbyists. If the government does bail out GM, rest assured that this will not be the last time. But even if the government gives GM a check every week, there will come a time when no amount of government money will be enough to save them.
What is the best solution? In a word, bankruptcy. By filing for bankruptcy protection, GM can escape the death grip the UAW has on the business. Bankruptcy would allow for restructuring on an unprecedented scale. There is a good chance that a highly competitive company could rise from the ashes of what we today call GM. Even if GM itself was unable to survive bankruptcy, the resources freed from its grasp could be hugely beneficial to other automotive companies that make products that American consumers value more. As taxpayers, we have a right to object to this misuse of our money.
