Monthly Archives: September 2012

Why Non-Smokers Should Defend Tobacco Rights

September 30, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Just had a talk with someone who thinks tobacco is deadly so it should be banned. He’s not alone. The anti-smoking movement has, of course, become a mostly political campaign set to tax or even ban tobacco altogether. The arguments for bans and taxes are that it’s unhealthy and kills people. The pro-ban camp seems to believe they somehow justify an outright ban if they can prove it’s a poor choice. But the anti-smokers miss the most basic concept of freedom itself.

You don’t have the right to smoke tobacco because it’s healthy. You have the right to smoke tobacco because you have the right to make every health decision for yourself. It’s your body, your life, and your liberty.

It’s about the freedom to live your life on your terms — not about the government making sure you make the right choices. It’s about your rights, not about living up to a politician’s standards. The debate isn’t over whether it’s healthy or whether it kills people. We know it does. So does an unhealthy diet and not exercising. That doesn’t mean government diets are a good idea. That doesn’t mean the government should regulate meals I can buy. That doesn’t mean the government should have mandated exercise.

The Logic Leads To Government Diets 

Those are personal issues that I should take care of personally. It’s about personal responsibility, and yes, we should have the choice to do bad things.

This is not just about tobacco. The principle leads to far more. There’s a movement to ban soft drinks that are “too big”. There are taxes on alcohol. Scariest of all? A sitting Supreme Court justice has hinted that she thinks it’s constittuionally justified to create diets for everyone to use.

Remember this? This is about a sitting member of the Supreme Court suggesting the government can regulate the contents of every meal you ever eat:

“ Elena Kagan, in her hearing on Tuesday, seemed to accept the federal government’s power to force you to eat three servings of fruits and vegetables every day.  She opined that it would be a “dumb law” but refused to say it was unconstitutional.”

It’s not a theoretical risk. We’re heading toward a complete nanny state that regulates every aspect of what we consume.

Screw that. I’m a free man and will live with my own choices. I’m not a child in need of incompetent fools in DC to regulate my life for my own good. And even if I was incompetent, it’s my life — not theirs.

Tobacco Taxes Hurt The Poor The Most

Those who are anti-tobacco and support regulating food for the “good” of the person consuming the food are generally those who presumably are “for” the poor. And yet these taxes are the most regressive on earth, because a couple of extra bucks a day for someone who can barely pay rent is insanity.

Even then, many claim that tobacco products are addictive, so it’s not fair to sell them. But if that’s true, then how is it fair to make them more expensive through tobacco taxes? I thought the people couldn’t help themselves? That’s pointlessly cruel. Of course, it was never about helping the poor or the unhealthy — it was just about controlling them. Down with the nanny fascists.

Those who claim it’s justified to use violence to stop you will not end with tobacco. They’ll go the Bloomberg and Michelle Obama route and try to regulate diets in general.

And anyone who can’t decide what he has to eat when he can afford it isn’t a free man. He’s just a slave begging for healthy scraps from his master’s table.

Down with the nanny state on every level.

This isn’t about tobacco being healthy. This is about liberty itself. If you smoke or don’t, you should be passionate about smoker’s rights.

Read More

The War On The Poor And Why It Matters

September 29, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

It’s time we end the story that the media paints about the radical leftists who are trying to bring socialism to the world. Their party platforms claim to be “for” the poor, and the mainstream media bends over backwards to help defend this idea. But it’s a lie.

The only way they’re “for” the poor is in the sense that their policies create more poverty. Their welfare program creates poverty, their business regulations push people from the middle class into poverty, their inflationary economics keep people poor, their subsidies stop the poor from easily learning, and yet the media defends them every election on almost every issue.

Rampant poverty shouldn’t exist in America, but it does because of the violations of capitalism. And the worst perpetrators of all have been those leftists and socialists who bribe the impoverished for the sake of political gain.

The welfare system literally pays people to stay poor, and I know people who respond to that incentive. A walk through almost any ghetto will see this. Anyone who disagrees is ignoring reality.

The business regulations that exist slow the creation of new wealth, and the people impacted the most in terms of lifestyle are those without the capital to spare. The rich will still eat duck, and that’s fine. It’s the poor and middle class who lose their homes and cars.

Taxes take from the economically productive and blows up half overseas, burns a quarter in interest, and spends the rest on programs that end up hurting the poor. Cut taxes, cut spending, and watch the poor shoot to the middle class.

The inflation of paper money, big government, and the Federal Reserve makes it almost impossible for the very poor to save money to buy a house or car without debt. It kicks them while they’re down.

The left attacks the poor through economic warfare. They tax them into poverty, enslave them with regulations, rob them through inflation, and control them with lies in public schools.  The greatest enemy of the poor in all of history have been those lying tyrants who seek to control them with socialist policies. 

At the same time, no social system has done more for the poor than capitalism.  Capitalism enriches the poor, quenches the thirsty, and feeds the hungry. It lifts people out of the streets, helps them cheaply feed their families, and climb to any economic peak they want if they just have the guts to try.

Down with the narrative that we hate the poor. We’re the only one’s bloody fighting for their right to make it in this world, we’re the only ones ignoring emotion to focus on economic reality, and we’re the only ones willing to say what’s politically incorrect because it’s true.

If we want to help the poor, we need to fight for capitalism, and consequently make food cheaper, housing cheaper, education cheaper, jobs common, pay greater, and income mobility hit an all time high so that anyone can achieve the American dream.

Here’s to the poor and to ending their poverty through capitalism.

Read More

Peak Oil Theory: When Will We Run Out Of Oil?

September 27, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

There’s only so much oil. This means we can’t keep producing and consuming more of it every year forever — there has to be a point where we produce less of it than the year before.

Some people take this to mean that eventually the world economy will go off a “peak oil” cliff, and then there will be economic hell to pay. These people are popular. I just finished reading an energy economics textbook that had sections which sounded like they were ripped off a cheesy, low-budget film about the end of the world.

Other people, like myself, think we’ll see some bumps in the road, higher oil prices, but then we’ll transition to better long-term energy sources like natural gas and electric vehicles. Let’s talk about why this is the most likely scenario in this article.

Peak Oil: Different Definitions And Different Views.

There are two basic things people mean when they use the expression “peak oil”. Some people exploit the confusing two definitions to turn an obvious fact (we can’t just infinitely consume more oil than the year before) with a loopy economic theory (the transition from oil to alternatives will cause economic chaos and everyone suffers).

So for the purpose of this article, we’ll be focusing on just one concept of peak oil: the idea that production will necessarily fall because we just “can’t” produce as much as the year before. In other words, people will stop traveling and consuming as much energy as the year before — not stop consuming oil because they switched to natural gas or electric vehicles or something.

Will We Ever Completely Run Out Of Oil?

Economically speaking, we’ll never run out of oil. Eventually, the price of drilling for oil will make the oil too expensive to drill, meaning we’ll completely replace our consumption before we consume the last barrel. We’ll replace oil drilling with biofuels, electric cars, natural gas consumption, liquid coal fuels, or something else.

The question, however, is what that replacement will look like. Will we replace to a lower energy fuel, and experience our economy grind to a halt? Will people have to stop driving vehicles and go to bikes or walk to work? I think not, as I’ll explain immediately below.

Innovation Changes Economically Recoverable Oil Supply

Every year, innovation makes more oil reserves “appear”, because we can afford to drill to get the oil. Using 1920 technology, we’d already be at the end of our rope — but technology gets better every year.

We’re talking about the energy sources of human civilization. Untold billions are going toward research, development, and technological innovation. This buys us time, though this alone can’t “save” us from eventual peak oil. It’s the next two problems with peak oil that does that.

Higher Prices Change Economically Recoverable Oil Supply

This is very similar to the above. When the price goes up, say, 25%, this makes tons of oil that wasn’t economically recoverable suddenly available for drilling. It doesn’t happen instantly, but the price definitely frees up more and more oil.

Mixing this with the innovation discussed above and it should be obvious what’s been keeping our production of oil for the last fifty years, even as the quality of our crude oil has dropped.

Higher Prices Automatically Cut Demand For Oil Products

This is important, because this will be where our oil consumption will eventually drop. Every time oil goes up a few dollars, the alternatives to oil look better. Here are examples of alternatives:

a) Electric vehicles. Electric cars are starting to hit the scene just like “regular” petro cars. Tesla Motors is making headway in this industry. If prices continue to increase for oil, this will be one answer.

b) Biofuels. There’s research in turning algae into biodiesel. This saves an incredible amount of money and resources if honed. The same goes for energy from sugar and other agricultural products. Some are better than others, but overall this will likely just be a supplimental fuel source.

c) Natural gas. Natural gas production facilities in the United States and around the world. There is still plenty of natural gas in the world, and it’s a natural fuel source already for trucks, buses, and even tractors.

d) Coal fuel. Liquefied coal fuel sources are being tested as a fuel source with success. If suddenly we needed to switch to another fuel source, this one would certainly work to some extent. Remember, this is still a “baby” technology. Going into the future 10-30 years, it’ll be much better developed and will be more energy efficient.

This is all just the start. There are many different fuel sources that could be used, ranging from electricity to other carbon fuel sources. Those claiming that “the end is near” because we’re “running out” of oil are simply off base. There might be higher prices going forward, but it’ll just help us transition to other fuel sources at worst.

What The Transition Will Look Like

As oil becomes more and more expensive, oil and car companies, along with other corporations, will continue dumping untold billions into new energy sources for the future. No “one” energy source needs to win. Cars can be electric, trucks can run on natural gas, and some people will stick with petroleum for a while. Gas stations will become more all-purpose fuel stations.

A good portion of the money spent overseas will build new technology and factories closer to home. Overall, the impact to the environment will likely even be better. The transition won’t be painless — oil prices will keep increasing for a while before the transition really begins. But in the end, the alarmists will be proven wrong and the market will guide us yet again.

Are we running out of oil? Technically, yes, but the market will simply transition us eventually to other fuel sources. A crisis averted with basic economics, once again.

Read More

Who Does Capitalism Institute Endorse For President?

September 26, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

About 3 or 4 people per day contact me via our Facebook wall, statuses, or messages, all with similar questions: who do you support for president? The answer is that we will not be endorsing anyone for president in 2012.

The purpose of Capitalism Institute is not to become part of anyone’s campaign. The purpose is to create an independent campaign for property, liberty, economic literacy, historical education, and to rekindle the fire of hatred of all tyrants.

This doesn’t mean the staffers won’t vote. I will be voting and am passionate about “my” candidate. My personal Facebook page is filled with angry rants attacking other candidates and with rants supporting the one I plan on voting for. But that doesn’t mean Capitalism Institute should endorse a candidate.

This is incredibly confusing to many people. How on earth can we be passionate about liberty and not just support a candidate and make our organization about that candidate? Here’s our reasoning:

  • Education not politics. Helping people become informed about ideas is more important than isolating half of them by taking a side. Our impact will be more positive if we don’t officially endorse a candidate. Losing a lot of influence because of one election isn’t worth it for our organization. We want people to know about liberty. What they do with that knowledge is their business.
  • Ideas not party. It’s absolutely vital that the philosophy of liberty not be associated with any one party. Liberty transcends party lines. This goes for the Libertarian Party as well as the Republican Party.
  • Common ground. We’re looking for common ground among people of different political persuasions. We believe in the philosophy of liberty completely, but isolating others destroys our purpose of getting people to fight for liberty regardless.  For example, if we can help push the GOP toward liberty over time while also helping foster discussion and debate with Johnson supporters, then everyone wins.
  • Endorsements blind people. People who would otherwise be open to basic economics would write off what we say to an extent if they thought it was from the “other” camp. This is a tragedy of politics, but it’s true. This goes for everyone — regardless of party. Party-based group-think seems to be ubiquitous to politics in general, even for individualists.

Again, I personally am passionate about the election. I argue with both conservatives and libertarians about the topic, and likely always will. But that doesn’t mean that it makes sense to do the same through the framework of Capitalism Institute — and we won’t.

In the end, this is why we won’t use Capitalism Institute as a platform for endorsing a presidential candidate. It’s possible that there could be a “dream candidate” going forward that unites everyone we’re trying to reach, but it’s unlikely in the near future. Either way, here’s what we will endorse:

Tax cuts, regulation cuts, personal liberty, spending cuts, and a return to the gold standard and currency competition. We’ll never compromise on our basic message — regardless of whether we endorse a politician or not. If you’d like to learn more about what capitalism is, check out our basic definition page to get started.

Read More

The Confessions of a Successful Small Business Owner

September 25, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job.

What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for – it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc.

Please vote for who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story.

This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You saw my big home at last year’s Christmas party. I’m sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don’t see is the back story.

I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70′s.

My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business — with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9 am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5 pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to me like a 1 day old baby.

You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden — the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations… You never realize the back story and the sacrifices I’ve made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail out all the people who didn’t.

The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?

Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don’t understand .. to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine.

Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire.

You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don’t forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn’t? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you “It’s the economy Stupid” I’m telling you it isn’t.

If you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the Constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in the South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, Your boss,

Michael A. Crowley, PE
Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc.
Professional Engineers
1906 South Main Street, Suite 122
Wake Forest , NC 27587

Read More

The Media’s Wrong: Romney Really Paid 50% In Taxes

September 21, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Today has been incredibly disturbing for anyone who understands on a basic level how taxes work. The NY Post, Marketwatch, The NY Times, and even the Wall-Street Journal have posted news stories about how Romney the evil robber baron has only paid “14%” in taxes. This is leading to outrage in the middle class, as people realize that’s a “lower number” than what they pay.

It’s also misleading. Romney’s overall tax rate is over 50%. The lower-sounding number is being used because it makes a great story — even if it only tells part of it. It’s surreal.

Fine. If no one else will respond to this media manipulation, I will. This is not an endorsement of Romney — Capitalism Institute will not endorse any candidate this year. But this absolutely is a defense of the notion that Romney is paying very high and overbearing taxes, just like everyone else. We hate all taxes, and support abolishing all income taxes.

The Truth About Romney’s 14% Rate

How on earth is he only paying 14%? Because the media is ignoring two things:

  • Double Taxation Ignored. He paid shareholder taxes. His money is in companies, and he’s paying taxes as a shareholder – up to 39%. This is not counted. And it should be counted.
  • Charity Deductions Ignored. He gave a third of his income to charity, and they’re ignoring this. In other words, if you make a million dollars and give all of it to charity, they would be complaining that your tax rate was “nothing”. Uhm. It’s “lower”, because you bloody gave your bloody money away. That’s a good thing. You don’t “get” a dime of the money you made. Apparently, this is still evil to the crazy leftists who spend all day whining about the rich not giving enough in charity. They’re just being dishonest.

How Romney Really Paid 50%+.

Romney’s adjusted gross income was $9,676,179 in 2011. In other words, this is how much money he made over what he gave in charity. This is ignoring deductions he received that other Americans qualify for, like medical costs and such. So how much did he pay in personal income taxes alone, not yet counting shareholder taxes?

20% of that: $1,935,708. Only a socialist would think being forced to pay millions of dollars is “not fair” in America.

And no, we’re not done — that’s just when you account for his charity alone. And yes, charity is a good thing… unless the leftists and socialists want to admit they hate charity too?

The reason we’re not done is because his income was, for the most part, from investments. He owns parts of companies as a shareholder and investor. And as an investor, he has to pay an extra layer of taxes. I’ve explained this before. Corporations don’t exist independent of human beings. It’s an association of people. When you tax a corporation, you’re really just taxing the shareholders — the investors who own the company. That means Romney-like people, as well as middle-class people saving for retirement.

So Romney paid double taxation, and the media’s reporting only half of it. That’s like me shooting you in the left leg, then me shooting you in the right leg, and then trying to inform you I only shot you in the right leg once. Sure, but you’ve been shot twice — and counting only one is weird and is dishonest. Count both layers of taxation.

So what’s the corporate tax rate he’s paying as a shareholder? It’s 39.5%, roughly. This doesn’t account for state corporate income tax or fees or accounting costs or even lost opportunity costs.

This means that, roughly speaking, Romney is paying about 50 cents on every dollar he earns and keeps, and that’s being extremely conservative about it. The real cost is likely much higher, meaning Romney is only receiving a fraction of the income he generates in this culture of theft. There’s no way to account for double taxation completely, because it gets really hairy figuring out the numbers. That’s great news for leftists who want to manipulate data to make giving to charity mean you’re evil and greedy.

If you only read headlines from the mainstream media, you’d never know it… you’d think his taxes were lower than what most Americans pay. This is, of course, ludicrous. Most rich people are paying incredible amounts in taxes, and the media is trying to repaint this by messing with the numbers — and that’s truly a shame. It’s dishonest.

In the end, Romney paid over half of his real income in taxes. He’s overtaxed like most Americans… but because he’s a successful man, people hate his income. Pathetic. There are real problems with Romney, but him paying “too little” in taxes isn’t the problem. The financial journalists of the world should be ashamed right now.

Read More

Secret Tape: Mitt Romney Talks About The Federal Reserve

September 21, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Mitt Romney’s “secret tape” that was published this week had a missing two minutes. Romney didn’t know it was being recorded, so he had a lot of political embarrassment. Mother Jones, a liberal website, published the part of the tape to hurt him. Only two minutes were apparently “missing”. But it wasn’t really “missing” it was simply deleted.

Except now the full-version tape has been released, and it includes the deleted section.

The speech was absurdly candid, and obviously wasn’t meant for the public. He was discussing why he wasn’t going after half of the country, and was mostly focusing on tax-payers who weren’t getting more in entitlements than they were paying in taxes — boogie-man class stuff that liberals love to freak out over.

But the part they deleted is actually a great example of how crazy the world is getting, and how the libertarian and conservative positions are essentially being economically forced to merge when it comes to the Federal Reserve:

“Yeah, it’s interesting…the former head of Goldman Sachs, John Whitehead, was also the former head of the New York Federal Reserve. And I met with him, and he said as soon as the Fed stops buying all the debt that we’re issuing—which they’ve been doing, the Fed’s buying like three-quarters of the debt that America issues. He said, once that’s over, he said we’re going to have a failed Treasury auction, interest rates are going to have to go up. We’re living in this borrowed fantasy world, where the government keeps on borrowing money. You know, we borrow this extra trillion a year, we wonder who’s loaning us the trillion? The Chinese aren’t loaning us anymore. The Russians aren’t loaning it to us anymore. So who’s giving us the trillion? And the answer is we’re just making it up. The Federal Reserve is just taking it and saying, “Here, we’re giving it.’ It’s just made up money, and this does not augur well for our economic future.”

Mitt Romney, the GOP machine’s candidate, is now plainly talking about what should be the most pressing economic concern in America — the creation of debt and what happens when interest rates start to explode.


And, for the record, what happens when interest rates explode is that it’s not just the rates that explode. The economy goes with it. We’ll begin seeing deleveraging on a scale that is unfathomable. People in debt will instantly become paupers. The greatest wealth transfer in history will occur — whether through hyperdeflation or hyperinflation, depending on how the government responds to the failed auctions.

I’m not remotely endorsing a candidate. Earlier today, I posted a meme that was anti-Romney and ruffled some feathers. I’m sure posting this positive agreement will still ruffle feathers. But forget the hurt feelings: the concepts at war here are important for us to understand if for no other reason than to be prepared for the future ourselves.

We’re living in a bubble. Bubbles burst. We can either try to slowly inflate it through a transition to a free market with gold and balanced budgets… or we can watch the American empire go out like the Hindenberg.

When even Mitt Romney is discussing this, you know this isn’t just the paranoid ravings of a political fringe group. This is real. This is happening. And our time is running out.

Read More

Is World War III Next?

September 19, 2012   Jason Hughey   No comments

Disclaimer: Absolutely nothing in this article is a prediction of things to come.  However, I am absolutely shocked by how eerily history is repeating itself in our time.  We are living through one of the most fascinating periods of civilization, and not only that, we have a blueprint from the past that has so far, been quite closely emulated in the current epoch.  Time will either prove the following words to be mere chatter…or something more.  What that “something more” may be, I cannot yet tell.

They say that those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.  One of the most tragic facts about the past four years is that we have repeated many of the mistakes that Hoover and FDR made in response to the Great Depression.  Instead of allowing the market to naturally recover and reallocate resources efficiently, Presidents Obama and Bush raced in with grandiose visions of a rescued economy.  Now, we stand poised to race off into another chaotic war in the Middle East.  As angry Muslims riot in front of our embassies all over the globe, and the U.S. joins an armada of 25 nations in support of an Israeli strike on Iran, we have to ask the question: is history repeating itself?  Will the 2010s be a repeat of the 1930s and 1940s?

Does the glory of a third World War against a mad fascist dictator rise out of the ashes of failed stimulus and a historic crash?

The 1930s and 1940s: Crash, stagnation, and World War

The United States economy danced upon the edge of a precipice in 1929.  Without realizing it, the stock market collapsed into oblivion that October, tumbling to record lows and propelling America into a Great Depression.  In response, then President Hoover decided that he had to do something to save the economy.  He signed numerous laws attempting to stimulate economic growth, set price controls, institute tariffs, and raise wages.  When any attempts at recovery were stifled by his oppressive interventions, the people turned to a new and charismatic Democrat who would restore the American economy to greatness.  Upon his election, he instituted massive government programs under the oversight of bloated bureaucracies in an effort to “put America back to work.”

Across the ocean, a fascist tyrant preached of the glory of National Socialism and the greatness of the Nazi party.  He rose to power after abusive interventionist policies by Western governments doomed his country after World War II.  Hitler was quickly become the great boogeyman of the West.

Meanwhile, back in America, the effects of the Depression lingered on for an entire decade.  To the average American, FDR’s grand promises were worthless.  Some people received benefits from his welfare programs, but they came at a great overall cost to the rest of the economy, hindering recovery at every turn.  Tariffs were thrown up against foreign nations to stimulate domestic production.  None of it worked.

And then the greatest distraction in history came.  The U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese and the nation was swept up in a patriotic fervor.  FDR became a war president who was able to nationalize production and thrive on the patriotic fervor of the era.  It was also his pleasure to round up all Japanese Americans into internment camps while the rest of America stood idly by.  Wartime production overshadowed depression, leading some economic historians to falsely claim that World War II ended the Great Depression.  In reality, the U.S. was merely breaking windows, both at home and abroad, and supporting a vast welfare/warfare state with unlimited fervor…all in the name of taking down the madman, Hitler and the Imperial Japanese.

When the dust settled, America had helped win a global conflict and there was no more depression.  But the “guns and butter” blueprint for governance was firmly implanted into the soul of American culture.  The rest of the 20th century was marked by a rising welfare state, a correlating decline in moral virtue, and a propensity toward new military adventures in foreign states.

The 2000s and 2010s: Crash, stagnation…and World War?

After a prolonged growth period of fun and games in the housing market, 2008 proved to be the year of reckoning.  The United States economy suffered a severe crash that prompted hasty legislative action by Congress.  It didn’t take long for President Bush to sign into law a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry that was designed to keep money flowing throughout the economy.  What it really did was deter the market from restoring itself to fundamentals after having been artificially propped up by cheap credit and easy money policy by the Federal Reserve.

Then, out went the Republicans and in came the charismatic champion of the people, defender of the welfare state, President Barack Obama.  Using the same economic philosophies as President Roosevelt, President Obama set up czars, partially nationalized the auto industry, signed into law a $1 trillion stimulus package, and instituted a massive federal takeover of healthcare that was jammed through Congress before anyone had a chance to read it.  Since then, the economy has experienced no real recovery, remaining stagnant and insecure.  Real unemployment remains at around 15% while over 50% of college graduates cannot find a job.  Many people have literally stopped looking for a job and left the labor force completely.

Furthermore, President Obama has continued the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush, by eroding civil liberties and increasing the federal government’s power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.  National security documents have identified individuals who buy gold, hold to religious fundamentalism, and have strongly negative views about government as possible terrorists.  The police state has grown to the point where it can literally peer at our naked bodies and grope our private parts in the name of “keeping us safe.”

In the midst of all of this, a foreign enemy has allegedly reared its head on the horizon.  After numerous Western interventions in Middle East affairs (and particularly Iranian regimes), Iran’s Islamo-fascist dictator, Ahmadinejad, has become the West’s big boogeyman.  Harsh economic sanctions have been erected and the rhetoric has grown ever more bellicose as the world prepares for conflict.  The United States, along with 24 other nations, is building up an armada in the Persian Gulf to support an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran.  This occurs while the United States presses charges against China, threatening trade relations and aggravating a powerhouse in Asia.  To the north of Iran, there’s no telling what Russia thinks or how it would react to a pre-emptive strike on its oil-rich southern neighbor.

Oh yeah, and the whole Muslim world is protesting at embassies all over the globe:

 

 

 

 

 

In the meantime, the U.S. economy limps on with no real recovery in sight, propped up by artificial stimulus, cheap money, and government programs.

What Will Happen Next?

At this point, the pattern becomes incomplete because we cannot predict the future.  War has not yet begun and hopefully it will never come.  Perhaps the economy may return to its fundamentals and achieve real recovery in the coming years, either through a change of heart by Washington politicians or something else.

Also, there are many technical differences between now and the late 1930s.  It’s quite possible to demonstrate how certain things are more different now than they were back then.

But, the underlying questions–and the general pattern of historical repetition–remain.  Will we go to war and will the rest of the world join in?  Will another major war refocus our citizens on a global conflict and allow for wartime mobilization, nationalization, and mass detainment of certain groups of citizens?  Will we break enough windows to spur massive GDP growth in order to create the illusion of economic recovery under a centralized economy?   And in the end, will we be even further entrenched in the doomed policies of overburdened welfare and constant warfare?

Time will tell if history repeats itself.  Thus far, we have been condemned to repeat it.

Read More

Welfare Rant: “I Am Not Your Sugar Daddy”

September 19, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

food stamp card Roughly 1 in 7 people are on food stamps. If you count all forms of welfare, a growing portion of Americans are getting checks from the government. Soon, more than half of the country will simply be living off the other half — not through charity, but through the forced enslavement of taxation.

Some think this is a wonderful trend. In college, several girls openly discussed why they believed they deserved the checks and welfare from the government because they had several kids — on purpose.

They were also getting a free education while I was working insane hours and eventually had to drop out because I couldn’t do both. This makes me bristle just to think about.

You know what? They’re wrong. Dead wrong. No one deserves the right to force a perfect stranger to pay for their baby.

If you decide to have a child when you can’t afford one, that sounds like a crappy life choice. Don’t treat me like your baby’s daddy — I’m not. And yes, it’s fine for me to say it’s a “bad” choice.

Libertarianism doesn’t mean all choices are equal — some really, really bad choices have really, really bad consequences. That’s the point — it serves to discourage people from making them.

I have a job and an income after years of working to make it without vacations, weekends, or basic luxuries that most poor people have. That does NOT make me the sugar daddy of the world.

Until our society can understand this in simple terms, there is absolutely no hope on any level for a long-term recovery.

Charity is one thing, but forcing millions of people to pay is disgusting and makes it easier for people to intentionally have families before they’re married and/or can’t afford them.

This should be uncontroversial, but in a foodstamp, welfare world, it’s not. And that’s why welfare shouldn’t exist. It doesn’t “help” people — it destroys society’s values, destroys wealth, and rewards bad choices.

One of the greatest systems of malinvestment in the world is our welfare system.

The fact that this is offensive even to many libertarians is a great sign of how far off we’ve gone into the philosophy of Marxism in America — many people, even libertarians, really do believe that theft is alright so long as you need it. Down with that socialist lie.

Here’s to unadulterated, pure capitalism. To learn more about capitalism, make sure to become a fan by joining us below.

Read More

Obama Administration Tries To Censor Anti-Islam Video

September 14, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Few administrations in the history of the United States have shown such an outright defiance to the constitution than the Obama administration. They seemingly despise the Second Amendment gun rights, free speech, freedom of association, the right to a trial, constitutional war powers — and the list goes on.

But how the Obama administration has responded to the attacks on US embassies is such a violation of the basic principle of free speech, it has shocked even me. And it’s hard to shock me, because my standards for the president are low — he’ll do anything to acquire more power.

We’ve seen this pattern for the last three years. Unconstitutional bailouts, killings, privacy violations, detainments, policy changes — there’s no end in sight. So what did they do this time?

Obama’s staff tried to get YouTube to yank the video behind the terrorist attacks to appease the terrorists.

According to the LA Times:

“In a sign of the tensions the movie has sparked, Los Angeles County officials said the U.S. State Department had asked them not to release copies of the film permits containing information about who organized the shoot. Obama administration officials also flagged the trailer to YouTube and asked the company to review whether it violated the website’s terms of service.”

In other words, they want the terror attacks to win. They want us to back down from freedom of speech because they want the radical Islamic protests to have worked.

They want to silence Americans. Not out of choice of those speaking, but out of manipulation and censorship and strong-arming. This is anti-American, anti-constitution, and anti-liberty. It is simply shameful that an American president would even stoop as low as this.

Why This Matters

If a woman “sassed” her husband in a way that angered him, and he responded like a coward and beat her, should the police tell her to quiet down? Or should they focus exclusively on the beating? The beating, of course. If she chooses to quiet down, that’s her choice. And any cop who would even remotely imply that it’s her fault should resign — that is disgraceful.

It’s called “victim blaming” and it’s nothing new. Cowardly people often do it to rape victims — especially in countries dominated by fundamentalist Islam. It is not fitting for a country that embraces liberty, nor is it fitting in a country that claims to support open speech. No, the government didn’t outright ban the video, though there has been discussion of the video “inciting” the murders. More victim blaming.

Obama’s pattern of “giving up” to murderers isn’t new. His ambassador, after seeing the Egyptian embassy overrun by terrorists, actually said:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims… We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others”.

With victim-blaming friends like these, who needs enemies? They should be telling the terrorists that the Muslims should respect freedom of speech — not apologize for the freedom in the US. That I have to write this out is pathetic. It shows how far we’ve fallen from the days of Washington and Jefferson.

The embassy later deleted the page on their site. But there’s a record, and you can’t delete actions you don’t like. Simply shocking.

Join Our Fan Page

I’ll be writing more about these events in the next day or so, because very little of the commentary so far has been able to wrap up exactly how the Obama administration has completely failed on every level for the last 3 years when it comes to foreign policy.

If you’re new to Capitalism Institute, make sure to check out our fan page, where we’ll keep up to date with news stories about the Islamic attacks on US embassies.

Read More
« Older posts

  • Get The Newsletter:

    The media is trying to hide the truth, but now you can bypass them. Get our newsletter now:



Copyright Capitalism Institute, 2011-present.