Free Trade Is The Path To Prosperity

FREE TRADE IS THE PATH TO PROSPERITY

Free trade does not “destroy jobs”

Georgi Vuldzhev | Mises.org - MARCH 7, 2016

The political circus of the 2016 presidential election has revived and reinvigorated popular belief in age-old protectionist fallacies.

Currently both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are both in favor of expanding protectionist trade policy, with both of them arguing that free trade “destroys” jobs and hurts domestic workers and producers by exposing them to foreign competition. Both candidates espouse an utterly misguided zero-sum view of economics, in which one side to an exchange wins only when the other side loses. Both men are, of course, completely wrong.
Free Trade Does Not Destroy Jobs

It is true that greater competition between domestic and foreign workers can lead to a decline in wage rates and possibly unemployment in some sectors of the economy. But this is only a short-term effect. Free competition between foreign and domestic producers also naturally leads to lower prices for the goods and services which can now be freely imported from abroad. So, while nominal wage rates are pushed down in some sectors, real wage rates rise overall for everyone in the economy because of the decline in prices.


Thanks to free trade consumers spend less money on certain goods and services and this allows them to spend more money on others, which leads to rising demand and thus profits in the sectors providing the latter, and consequently leads also to more investment by entrepreneurs. This higher rate of investment naturally leads to the creation of more jobs in these sectors and thus offsets any original rise in unemployment that might have occurred.

Alternatively, the consumers may choose to save the extra disposable income that was freed up by the decline in prices. This rise in the savings rate will lead to a decline in interest rates, which makes profitable certain long-term capital-intensive projects which were not profitable beforehand. Seizing the opportunity presented by this increase in savings, entrepreneurs will start borrowing and investing in those long-term capital intensive projects, which on its own already creates more jobs, but it also leads to a rise in demand for capital goods, which raises profits in the capital goods industries and consequently leads to more investment and job openings in those sectors.
Free Trade Is Win-Win

Free trade not only doesn’t “destroy” jobs, but it also promotes specialization between nations, which improves the efficiency and productivity of workers, and leads to a rise in living standards for all. Trade is not some kind of a zero-sum game in which if one side wins, the other has to lose.

When two countries such as the United States and China, for example, trade freely with one another, their citizens are incentivized to specialize in those lines of production in which they have a comparative advantage. Due to the difference in factors of production endowments it is best for different countries to specialize in producing those types of goods and services which they can produce most efficiently in comparative terms. A higher level of specialization, through the effect of economies of scale, makes production more cost-efficient.

By specializing in a certain line of production and then exchanging the goods and services produced for those that others are specialized in producing, the people of a given country can substantially raise their living standards because the gains in productivity are naturally followed by an increasing supply of goods and services and thus rising real incomes. This way free trade allows for the flourishing of what can be called an “international” division of labor. Just like a greater degree of division of labor can lead to big gains in productivity and thus real incomes on anintra-national (i.e., internal for a given country) level it can also do so on an international level.
Protectionism Makes You Poor

When international trade is restricted, for example, by protectionist legislation which places tariffs on certain imports, this process of specialization is hindered and thus the gains in productive efficiency are diminished. By artificially raising the price of imports, tariffs allow otherwise uncompetitive and inefficient domestic businesses to remain in operation. Consumers are forced to pay higher prices for the goods the importation of which is penalized by tariffs, and this effectively constitutes a redistribution of resources from the consumers to the domestic producers.

More importantly, protectionism hinders the process of specialization described in the previous section and thus prevents living standards from rising in the long-term, or worse — it can even lead to their decline. By propping up the profits of comparatively inefficient domestic producers and keeping in business, tariffs prevent the labor shift from those inefficient sectors, to more comparatively efficient ones. Consequently, because this prevents a higher degree of specialization from taking place, or even reverses it, the benefits that specialization leads to cannot be obtained. Productivity does not increase (or at least not to the same degree as it could) and thus real incomes do not rise.

Contrary to the popular political rhetoric nowadays, free trade does not “destroy jobs.” It can only lead to a shift of resources (labor, capital, and other factors) from one comparatively inefficient sector or group of sectors in the domestic economy to another more comparatively efficient one. This process of specialization in the comparatively advantageous lines of production not only does not destroy jobs, but it also enables big gains in efficiency and productivity to take place, which leads to a rise in real incomes. This is how, far from somehow hurting the domestic workers, free trade actually does the opposite — it makes them richer. It is, in fact,protectionism which makes us all poorer, workers included, by artificially propping up inefficient businesses, leading to a misallocation of resources and a decline in standards of living for us all.

The Cashless Society List

The Global ‘War on Cash’: a Country by Country Guide

James Corbett
Corbett Report

Corbett Reporteers will be no stranger to the war on cash. I’ve made videos discussing it, conducted interviews about it, written articlesexamining it and dissected it on the radio.

The war has been waged through mainstream propaganda outlets, TV advertisements and even children’s games.

We’ve heard cash is dirtied by drug dealing, tarnished by terrorism, tainted by tax evasion(heaven forbid!) and just plain dirty. Not to mention sooooo outdated.

Just this week Norway has jumped aboard the cashless society agenda with DNB, the country’s largest bank, calling for a total end to cash. The story only sounds shocking only to people who haven’t heard the similar stories from Sweden or Denmark or India or Israel or any of the dozens of other countries whose banksters and (bankster-controlled) governments have openly lusted after a world of completely trackable, completely bank-controlled transactions.

But all of these stories, reported piecemeal here and there over the years, don’t give the full story about how this “war on cash” is being waged on every continent and in every country by the same banksters that stand to benefit from a cashless world. Let’s fix that by compiling a list of examples from around the world of how cash payments are being regulated, restricted and phased out. The list below will be updated as new stories come in.

If you have a link to relevant news from your own country or know of such news from another country, please let us know. Corbett Report members are invited to contribute to the list by logging in and leaving links to the relevant info in the comments below.

The Cashless Society List

ARGENTINA – Argentina’s currency crisis has been known for some time. In short, Argentinians don’t trust the peso and are willing to pay premium for any currency they perceive as “more stable,” especially US dollars which are traded on the black market as “blue dollars” at prices far exceeding the official exchange rate. That’s why Argentina has been tipped for some time as a country that is likely to go cashless sooner than later, with a 2014 report from the Bitcoin Market Opportunity Index ranking Argentina as the most likely jurisdiction to replace sovereign currency with bitcoin. Argentinians have reason to be wary about this New Monetary Order, however; in a move described as “an eerie glimpse of what a cashless society enables” the Argentinian government mandated that banks report every credit card purchase made in the country directly to the tax authorities and added a 15 percent tax surcharge every time a purchase is made outside the country using a credit card issued by an Argentine bank.

AUSTRALIA – Late last year the Westpac banking group issued a “Cash Free Report” touting the highly self-serving finding that “Over half (53 per cent) of payments currently made in Australia are cashless” (using Westpac online banking services like their cardless ATMs, no doubt). The report goes on to predict that Australia will be cash free by 2022. Meanwhile, the government is readying a cashless welfare system that will allow the government to control what the money is spent on. What could possibly go wrong?

BELGIUM – In 2014 the Belgian government passed new restrictions on cash payments: cash can no longer be used to pay for real estate, and there is a 3000 euro limit on cash payments for other assets (unless purchase second hand).

CANADA – In 2007 the Canadian government stopped allowing payment of taxes in cash at government service centers. In 2010 Passport Canada followed suit. In 2011 56% of Canadians polled said they were happy to live in a bankster-controlled cashless society so the country killed the penny in 2012 and the Royal Canadian Mint started pimping the “MintChip” as a new form of electronic payment that will be “better than cash.” The Mint ended the program in 2014 but the Great White North is still on track to be a cashless society in the coming years.

CHINA – The People’s Bank of China, citing the need to “reduce costs, curb crimes and money laundry, facilitate transactions and boost central bank’s control on money supply and circulation” set up a research team in 2014 “to study application scenarios for digital currency and strive for an early rollout.”

DENMARK – In the 1990s about 80% of Danish retail purchases were made with cash, but these days it’s more like 25%. But if the Danish government has its way, that number will be 0% by 2030. That’s the year the Danish government has set for the complete elimination of paper money in Denmark.

ECUADOR – Last year Ecuador became the first government to launch a digital currencycompletely administered and controlled by a central bank. Called the Dinero Electronico, the currency can be purchased with cash, stored in electronic wallets on a phone, and can be exchanged by text message.

EU – The head of the EU Anti-Fraud Office Giovanni Kessler, came out earlier this year to call for abolishing the 500 euro note because they “can make the life of fraudsters much easier.” He also noted that a more widespread adoption of electronic payment systems would be better for his office because “Traceability is paramount in fighting corruption and fraud.”

FRANCE – In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks last year, the French government stepped up its war on cash. In March of last year, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin declared it necessary to “fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy” in order to combat “low-cost terrorism.” As of September 2015 it is illegal for French citizens to make purchases exceeding 1000 euros in cash.

GERMANY – In a rather abrupt turnaround from a 2014 Bundesbank paper on “The Irreplaceability of Cash,” the German Finance Ministry (perhaps egged on by the country’s leading Keynesian economist) is looking into a 5000 euro cap on all cash payments. And although Germany is still a cash-based society, things are changing; a 2014 survey found that 34% of the population makes purchases electronically already and 20% can envision making all their purchases via smartphone payment systems in the future.

HONG KONG – When it launched in 1997, the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway’s Octopus Cardwas just the second contactless smart card system in the world (after South Korea’s UPass). Although originally used to pay for journeys on public transit, it can now be used at convenience stores, vending machines, supermarkets, photo booths and other retail outlets. In 2004 all metered parking spaces in Hong Kong were converted to cashless meters that required Octopus Cards for payment.

INDIA – India is one of the most cash-dependent economies in the world with a cash-to-GDP ratio of 12%, almost four times that of fellow BRICS nations Brazil and South Africa. But it won’t be for long if the Indian government has its way. Last June the Indian Ministry of Finance posted a draft proposal to its website for facilitating the rise of cashless payments in the country. In his 2015 budget speech the Finance Minister declared: “One way to curb the flow of black money is to discourage transactions in cash. Now that a majority of Indians has or can have, a RUPAY debit card. I therefore, proposes to introduce soon several measure that will incentivize credit or debit card transactions and disincentivize cash transaction.”

IRELAND – A 2013 paper from the Central Bank of Ireland lamented Ireland’s slow adoption of electronic payments and over-reliance on cheques, noting “Ireland could save up to €1bn per year by migrating to more efficient [i.e. electronic] payment instruments.” Later that year, the Central Bank launched a National Payments plan to help facilitate the transition and kicked off a €1m national marketing campaign to encourage the migration to electronic payments. The scale of the campaign surprised many, with the Irish Independent pointing out that “It’s a major advertising spend in the current climate, where a big-promotion budget spend is considered to be in the region of €500,000 outside of the big global blue-chips.” Late last year the Cork City Centre Forum attempted to take the lead in the cashless transition by launching the “Cork Cash Out” campaign aiming “to encourage consumers to ween off cash and opt-in for electronic-only transactions instead.”

ISRAEL – In 2014 a special committee headed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Chief of Staff Harel Locker released a report examining how to reduce the use of cash in the country. The report advocates reforms (including restrictions and limits on cash transactions) as part of a strategy whose aim is “reduced use of cash, reduced use of endorsed checks, and increased use of electronic means of payment.”

ITALY – In 2011 newly appointed Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti made cash payments over 1000 euro illegal. “What we need is a revolution in Italians’ thinking” Monti told reporters as he announced the emergency decree which was put into law before it was even formally voted on in parliament.

KENYA – Last year the Kenyan government awarded a contract to MasterCard to administer a smart card that can be used to pay for government services and receive welfare payments. Anne Waiguru of the Ministry of Devolution and Planning explained: “Uwezo Fund beneficiaries, Youth and Women Funds disbursements, National Youth Service, Social welfare government cash transfers to families, government food subsidies, hunger safety net cash transfers and cash transfers to orphaned children will be disbursed through the cards,” neglecting to add that the card also gives MasterCard access to the biometric details of 170 million potential customers.

MEXICO – In 2013 the Mexican government banned cash payments of more than 500,000 pesos for real estate and more than 200,000 pesos for cars, jewelry or lottery tickets.

NETHERLANDS – In 2013 the mayors of Almere, Rotterdam and Maastricht engaged in a publicity stunt to promote a campaign encouraging the public to abandon cash. They spent a week without spending any cash, relying solely on debit cards for purchases. The campaign is part of a long term trend away from cash and toward debit payments in many supermakets and other businesses around the country.

NORWAY – Late last week Trond Bentestuen, a senior executive at Norway’s largest bank, complained to the VG Newspaper that the Norwegian central bank “can only account for 40 percent” of the Norwegian kroner in circulation, meaning “that 60 percent of money usage is outside of any control.” There’s only one conclusion, according to Bentestuen: “There are so many dangers and disadvantages associated with cash, we have concluded that it should be phased out.” Don’t worry, though, the nation’s Finance Ministry says it has “no plans to change the law in this area”…for now.

PHILIPPINES – In the Phillippines, the government has launched an “E-Peso” project with the explicit aim of “transforming communities into cashless societies.” Touted as “a digital/virtual currency based on the Philippine Peso” its main selling point (according to the E-Peso’s own website) is that: “Since E-Peso transactions are completely digital, everything will automatically be recorded onto the customer’s account activity log.” The initiative is funded by infamous CIA front USAID, which “has awarded a US$25-million, five-year project to a company called Chemonics to support the Philippine government in the promotion and adoption of e-payments in the Philippines.”

SAUDI ARABIA – A MasterCard report on “The Cashless Journey” noted that by increasing the share of debit card transactions in the economy between 2006 and 2011, Saudi Arabia was moving at a faster than average pace toward a cashless society. Commenting on the report, Khalid Hariry of MasterCard noted: “Saudi Arabia is indeed moving at a better than average pace on its cashless journey, which has been significantly spurred along by government leadership. Regulation mandating wages assignment of employees’ to bank accounts has vastly increased access to electronic payment methods for the Saudi population over a short period of time. These changes, coming alongside initiatives to spur acceptance, and a push to migrate payments made during the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages, can be expected to shift substantial share of consumer payments away from cash in the coming years.”

SPAIN – Citing budgetary austerity and the need to clamp down on tax fraud the Spanish government banned cash payments of more than 2,500 euros in 2012.

SWEDEN – Last year Stockholm’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology released a report stating that the country is on track to completely eliminating cash transactions in the foreseeable future. Noting that there are now only 80 billion Swedish crowns in circulation in the economy (down from 106 just six years ago), the report highlights how digital person-to-person payment technology “Swish” (developed in collaboration with Danish banks) is already transforming the country’s banking sector, where there are now entire banks that do not accept cash. Meanwhile, the Swedish public is being urged to stop using cash by no less a cultural icon than ABBA’s Björn Ulveaus, who brags that the ABBA museum is now a cashless institution.

URUGUAY – Under the “Financial Inclusion Law” which took effect in May 2015 the Uruguayan government has banned all cash payments over $5,000, thus requiring all property and vehicle purchases to go through the banking system. This is part of a wave of such legislation throughout Latin America hailed as a way of “giving the people what they need” (i.e. access to banking) even when (as the very same report notes) “those on the edges of the financial system are distrustful of banks” especially in Uruguay.

UK – In 2014 cashless payments surpassed cash payments for the first time in the UK, with research (from cashless payment provider Kalixo Pro) suggesting that the average Brit only carries £17.79 in cash at any time and 1 in 4 will walk away if a business doesn’t accept card payment. London buses went cashless in 2014 and just last year the Bank of England’s chief economist made the case for negative interest rates and abolishing cash.

Turkey Keeps Shelling Kurds

TURKEY KEEPS SHELLING KURDS, BACKING TERRORIST GROUPS IN SYRIA – RUSSIA

Militants continue to freely cross the Turkish-Syrian border

RT - MARCH 5, 2016

Turkey continues to shell Kurdish forces in Syria, hampering their operations against Al-Nusra terrorists, and at the same time funneling supplies to the militant-controlled areas at the border, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported.

Ankara bears responsibility for the ongoing ceasefire violations in the Syrian provinces of Idlib and Aleppo, the head of the Russian ceasefire monitoring center Lt. Gen. Sergey Kuralenko told journalists at a briefing on March 4.

Militants continue to freely cross the Turkish-Syrian border, Kuralenko noted, presenting the latest reconnaissance video featuring a “large terrorist unit in a forested border area.”


Another video depicted Turkish artillery in a border garrison near the Yanankey settlement targeting Kurdish positions in Syria.

“Artillery shelling of Kurdish militia units, fighting against Nusra Front, continues from the territory of a Turkish border post near Yanankey,” Kuralenko said.

Lt. Gen. also noted that in footage captured by an RT crew who traveled with the Kurdish YPG force in the area, Turkish trucks crossed the Turkish-Syrian border, according to Kuralenko. He said they are carrying supplies and arms exclusively to the territories controlled by Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar ash-Sham terrorist groups.

Turkish activities in the region are undermining the ceasefire and crippling the efforts aimed at launching the inter-Syrian dialogue and bringing peace to Syria, the defense ministry spokesman reiterated.

The ceasefire regime in Syria is being monitored and promoted via special centers set up in Moscow, Washington, Amman and Latakia and Geneva to collect and review information. The Russian center has registered 27 breaches of the ceasefire regime over the last 24 hours, with most of them – eight breaches – occurring in Aleppo, the Defense Ministry reported on Friday. The province of Idlib has seen a total of 7 violations, Damascus and Homs – 4 in each, Daraa – 3, Latakia – 1.

Besides Damascus, almost 100 various armed groups operating in Syria, alongside different regional and international interested parties, have agreed to take part in ceasefire, according to UN Syria special envoy Staffan de Mistura. The groups that don’t obey the ceasefire, including but not limited to ISIS and Al-Nusra, are considered terrorists.

Five more commanders of so-called Syria’s moderate opposition groups agreed to take part in the ceasefire along with the elders of two settlements in the province of Homs just recently, according to the ministry’s statement. Leaders of four other groups may soon join the agreement.

The nationwide ceasefire was implemented on February, 27 at midnight Damascus time. Outlined by the co-chairs of the ISSG (the International Syrian Support Group) US and Russia, it was supported by the United Nations Security Council and is abiding to all parties involved in the conflict. The exceptions are Islamic State group (IS, formely ISIS/ISIL), Al-Nusra, and “other terrorist organizations” as designated by the UN Security Council.

Monsanto Exempt From Lawsuits For PCB Contamination?

IS MONSANTO SERIOUSLY EXEMPT FROM ALL LIABILITY LAWSUITS FOR PCB CONTAMINATION?

Chemical safety bill adds dirty protection

Christina Sarich | Infowars.com - MARCH 3, 2016

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton, 1887

Monsanto says it has nothing to do with the clause that our corrupt Congress just passed in a piece of legislation exempting the St. Louis-based company from ALL financial liability involved with lawsuits and financial settlements related to PCB contamination and cleanup sites. REALLY? [1]

We’re supposed to assume that a company responsible for almost 1.25 billion pounds of carcinogenic PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, sold in the US between the 1930’s and 1970’s had absolutely nothing to do with a provision giving Monsanto a free pass for polluting the waterways, fields, and air. The EPA even admits that these chemicals are carcinogenic and harmful to reproductive health, the immune system, the endocrine system, and the nervous system?

Just because Monsanto switched its focus from polluting the world with PCBs to polluting it with Round Up and Round Up ready crops, the mega-corp is absolved from taking an ounce of responsibility?


Monsanto already agreed to pay $700 million to a city in Alabama to clean up PCB contamination, but with a host of new cities suing for the same reason – did Monsanto just turn Congress onto a new level of corruption in order to protect itself from further culpability?

The provision was slipped into another bill regarding chemical safety introduced last year by an unknown representative, and though it doesn’t name Monsanto specifically, it has the company’s name written all over it. The provision would benefit the only manufacturer in the United States of now-banned PCBs, a mainstay of Monsanto business model for decades. [1]

The House and the Senate last year both passed versions of legislation to replace the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, a law that the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged had become so unworkable that as many as 1,000 hazardous chemicals still on sale todayneeded to be evaluated to see if they should be banned or restricted. But instead of protecting Americans from further chemical exposure, it just renegotiated Monsanto’s past misdeeds into a disappearing pit of corporate escapism.

Charla Lord, a spokesperson for Monsanto, said in response to the bill:


“Monsanto does not consider either version of the bill, with respect to the effect on preemption, to be a ‘gift.’”

I can assure you that cities like Berkely, California, and Seattle, Washington, with pending lawsuits against Monsanto for PCB contamination consider the bill more than just a gift – it is a fleecing of US citizen’s money, and downright negligence of both our political system and the corporate polluters which that system protects.

Hillary Indicted? Believe It When I See It!

JUDGE: FBI IS READY TO INDICT HILLARY OVER EMAILS

“This is enough to shake the American political system to its foundation.”

Steve Watson | Infowars.com - MARCH 3, 2016

The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton as part of its ongoing investigation into her use of a private email server to send classified material, according to a senior legal analyst.

Fox News’ resident Judge, Andrew Napolitano reacted to last night’s news that Bryan Pagliano, the aide who setup the server, is working with the DOJ.

“This is enough to shake the American political system to its foundation.”Napolitano urged.

Napolitano reasoned that the fact that the FBI has pushed for and been granted immunity for Pagliano indicates that the DOJ is more intimately involved than it at first appeared.

Immunity is usually granted to a witness when they have evidence that could implicate themselves if they testify.

Napolitano went on to explain that the immunity also indicates that the DOJ has probably already convened a Grand Jury, signaling that the FBI feels it has enough evidence to indict Clinton and begin a criminal trial.

“He (Pagliano) knows who led it and he knows who was in it, and he’s about to spill the beans to a grand jury,” Napolitano said.

The Judge added that Hillary “should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity.”

“Mr. Pagliano is their nightmare,” Napolitano noted.

Pagliano had previously pleaded the fifth and refused to answer any questions. It appears that has now changed.

Napolitano added that a Clinton indictment “will shake the Democratic Party and the American political establishment to the core.”

ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl also noted that the FBI is now “very likely” to indict Clinton:

“This is the cloud that just won’t go away,” Karl said on Good Morning America. “The latest reports are an indication that this remains very much an active FBI investigation, and although there’s absolutely no indication that Clinton herself is a target, it is very likely that she will be asked to testify, or at least come in and take questions from the FBI in the coming weeks.”

The Clinton campaign is desperately attempting to spin the FBI investigation into a positive, with campaign spokesman Brian Fallon announcing that the campaign was “pleased” that Pagliano is now speaking to investigators.

Meanwhile, Hillary herself was partying last night at a fundraiser concert featuring Elton John and Katy Perry.

Ventura For President!!

VENTURA SAYS HE’LL RUN FOR PRESIDENT IF HILLARY IS DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

Former Minnesota Governor ready to "save the country".

Steve Watson | Infowars.com - MARCH 2, 2016

Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura says he will consider running for President as an independent if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee over Bernie Sanders.

Ventura reasoned that the country will be fed up of establishment candidates being thrust down their throats, and that Donald Trump is too much of a pro-war hawk.

“They’re setting the groundwork for me because if Bernie loses, by the time we get to June, how sick are the people going to be of all these people,” Ventura told the reporters.


“If it’s Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, the chances are better. I don’t want the revolution to die if Bernie gets beat.” Ventura added.

Envisioning his own presidential campaign, the former Navy SEAL declared, somewhat tongue in cheek, “Jesse Ventura is a bright, shining new face who comes riding in on a white stallion to save the country.”

“See, I’m an independent and I despise the two parties,” Ventura added, clarifying that “I love what Trump’s doing to the Republicans. He’s got them in complete disarray. In fact, it looks like the WWE when you watch their debates.”

“I support the revolution of what’s happening here,” Ventura said, noting “There’s three things where I stand with Bernie on more so than Trump. Number one is campaign finance reform,” two is “the war,” and three is ending the War on Drugs.

Ventura also weighed in on the Trump/David Duke controversy which was seized on by the mainstream media in an attempt to smear the billionaire frontrunner.

“Anyone can endorse you,” Ventura said. “Why is it up to the candidate to denounce any endorsement? In our country you are free to vote for whoever you want to vote for. If David Duke wants to vote for Donald Trump, he’s welcome to do that. I think the media is out of line to think a candidate immediately has to denounce somebody.”

Apple Wins Major Victory Over FBI

APPLE WINS MAJOR VICTORY IN FIGHT WITH FBI

Judge rules allowing FBI access to iPhones “would betray our constitutional heritage"

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 29, 2016

A federal judge in New York ruled today Apple does not have to unlock an iPhone in a drug probe. The ruling will ultimately influence the outcome of a battle waged by the Justice Department against the tech company in the San Bernardino case.


The federal government has cited the All Writs Act from the 18th century to force Apple to unlock two phones linked to the alleged San Bernardino killers.

“The government has failed to establish” that the legislation permits it to compel Apple to provide access to data stored on the phones, US Magistrate Judge James Orenstein wrote.

“After reviewing the facts in the record and the parties’ arguments, I conclude that none of those factors justifies imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government’s investigation against its will.”

In addition, according to Orenstein, allowing the FBI to unlock the phones “would betray our constitutional heritage and our people’s claim to democratic governance for a judge to pretend that our Founders already had that debate, and ended it, in 1789.”

Apple has argued that Congress should decide the matter, not the courts.

Orenstein wrote:

It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking.

The Justice Department released a statement following the ruling:

We are disappointed in the Magistrate’s ruling and plan to ask the District Judge to review the matter in the coming days. As our prior court filings make clear, Apple expressly agreed to assist the government in accessing the data on this iPhone — as it had many times before in similar circumstances — and only changed course when the government’s application for assistance was made public by the court. This phone may contain evidence that will assist us in an active criminal investigation and we will continue to use the judicial system in our attempt to obtain it.

Monsanto GM Wheat In Development

MONSANTO’S GM WHEAT IN DEVELOPMENT DESPITE CONSUMER PUSH BACK

Monsanto has been working hard to create new GM wheat over the last year

Christina Sarich | Infowars.com - FEBRUARY 25, 2016

Some think that with minimal market saturation, GM wheat could become a strong seller in the US, just like genetically modified corn, soy, canola oil, cottonseed, and other GM crops. Monsanto ditched the efforts to develop this particular crop 10 years ago, but has relatively recently began working to create a new strain of the crop. Why the sudden interest again in GM wheat? [1]

Monsanto has been working hard to create new GM wheat over the last year. This, after abandoning efforts in the 1990’s. At its Chesterfield Village Research Center, scientists say they can create a wheat-strain that is resistant to a trio of herbicides. Despite consumer push-back, the company will spend more than $150 million to alter just one gene in a wheat seed.

That $150 million could go a long way to teach farmers around the world how to grow food sustainably. Why does Monsanto wish to put that money toward genetically modifying nature when we know that we are destroying our farmland at unprecedented rates by using so many pesticides and herbicides (via genetically modified crops engineered to withstand copious amounts of the chemicals)?

The agriculture giant was on the verge of seeking regulatory approval for a Roundup Ready version of hard red spring wheat, typically used for bread flour in the 1990’s, but in May 2004, Monsanto halted the program citing changing market conditions. It was clear that growers — worried about consumer backlash — weren’t ready.


“There was massive opposition,” said Bill Freese, a GMO critic and science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety.

Have farmers also come to the conclusion that Monsanto’s promises about GM and Bt toxic crops producing higher yields are empty? The cost of GM seeds keep going up, so even if another strain of GM crop was developed – wheat – could farmers even profit from growing it?

As reported by STL Today:

“It didn’t take long, however, before wheat farmers grew tired of watching neighbors switch to more profitable corn and soybeans — both having seen greater yield increases fueled by stronger breeding programs and genetic modifications. By 2006, the number of U.S. acres planted with wheat had dropped to 57 million, down from 75 million a decade earlier. Soybeans, on the other hand, surged from 64 million to 75 million during the same period, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

“We came to the conclusion that we had to do something,” said Paul Penner, president of the National Association of Wheat Growers. “It’s no fun raising wheat if you are making a loss on it.”

Consumers have demanded GM labeling, and nations across the world are banning GM crops. Where does Monsanto plan on selling a GM wheat variety with so many countries passing legislation that support a GM-free agricultural environment?

You have one guess – if it starts with a U and ends with an A, you’re likely right. The USA is one of the few markets where GM crops are still viable, but even that is changing, as evidenced by Monsanto’s latest stock losses.

One of the world’s most hated companies can spend millions on developing GM wheat, but you won’t find it in my morning cereal, and many millions of people feel the same way.

Lexington All Over Again?

THE GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING! LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS NOW FACES SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUN CONFISCATION

Proposed law would ban semi-automatic weapons with magazines carrying more than 10 rounds and impose mandatory buybacks

Mike Sweeney | Daily Caller - FEBRUARY 24, 2016

“Just as we fired the first shot to start the revolution, this might be the first shot – no pun intended – to start a movement against assault weapons that would capture the state and therefore maybe explode to reach the country.”

-Robert Rotberg author and catalyst of Lexington’s gun ban proposal.

Lexington, Massachusetts. Does the name of that quaint New England town ring a bell for anyone? It should, Lexington, MA, is where American independence was kicked into high gear. On April 19, 1775, the British “red coats” marched out of Boston, heading for Concord, intending to seize caches of arms stored by local militias. They were first met on the Lexington town green and the skirmish was on, the rest as they say is history.

Fast-forward almost 240 years to the day and some of the residents of Lexington have come full circle.

They are now advocating for the government to seize legally owned firearms from the town’s residents.

The town of Lexington utilizes an annual town meeting to set policy, bylaws and approve things like the town budget. The residents do not vote directly; instead they have approximately 200 “town meeting members” who vote in representation of their constituents.

One such town meeting member, a Harvard professor named Robert Rotberg has taken it upon himself to enact, what he hopes will be “a movement against assault weapons that would capture the state and therefore maybe explode to reach the country.”

He has seized upon the recent ban enacted in Highland Park, IL, and has modeled his own ban, almost copying the language verbatim. Filing it to the town meeting warrant as Article 34.

Among other things, Article 34 includes any firearm that is semi-automatic and can accept a magazine that will hold more than 10 rounds. It also includes any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The article also has a provision in which Lexington’s licensed gun owners who own firearms included in the ban would be forced to sell, render inoperable, or have them seized and destroyed by the police department.

Lexington officials are quick to mention that the meeting is open to all, resident or not.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will Lexington be the birthplace of the progressive, gun prohibitionist revolution? Or will it be the place where Americans gather in a huge movement, opposed to yet another unconstitutional proposal? At this time it’s anyone’s guess, but we’ll know for sure by Patriots Day, April 19th, when the Battle of Lexington Green is re-enacted at dawn.

Oh, the irony.

Feds Seek "Mental Health" Testing Of Everybody

Feds Seek “Mental Health” Testing of All Children, Adults 

Next time you visit your doctor, be careful how you respond to his questions, or you may just be branded “mentally ill” and subjected to “treatment.”

New American | Alex Newman - FEBRUARY 25, 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Next time you visit your doctor, be careful how you respond to his questions, or you may just be branded “mentally ill” and subjected to “treatment.” That is because a panel advising the Obama administration, in partnership with Big Psychiatry, wants to make doctors subject all American adults and children over age 12 to screening for alleged “mental health” disorders — particularly depression, at least to start with. Then, anyone found to harbor any alleged mental disorder, including children as young as eight, should undergo “therapy,” often including powerful psychotropic medications that experts say have dubious value but often come with well-documented and highly dangerous side effects.

Your ObamaCare plan will be forced to pay for it, whether you want it or not, thanks to the federal government's commandeering of the health-insurance industry under the so-called Affordable Care Act. And eventually, younger and younger children will be in Big Brother's crosshairs for mental and behavioral health “services,” whether parents want it or not. School teachers, social workers, and more are all already being enlisted in the federal government's search for supposed “mental and behavioral health” issues — a list that is perpetually expanding as psychiatrists invent new “illnesses.” The outcry against the federal government's obsession with your mind and the minds of America's children, though, is growing louder, as critics call the agenda “depressing” and worry whether it is another scheme to disarm more Americans.

The controversial “recommendations” include screening all Americans between the ages of 12 and 18 for depression. A separate but related recommendation seeks to have all U.S. adults checked for “mental illness,” too. And consider that the list of “illnesses” is subjective (homosexuality was a mental disorder a few decades ago) and is constantly expanding as psychiatrists vote to create new ones, literally, as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — the “Bible” of psychiatry that has been widely criticized, even by leading psychiatrists.


The latest demands come from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF. The influential outfit, appointed by the Obama administration's increasingly radical Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recommends various unconstitutional federal health policies for Big Brother to decree into pseudo-law via regulation.

Its latest recommendations for children and adolescents 12 and older were published earlier this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “The USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years,” the HHS task force said in the summary of its position. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.” Why the federal government believes it has any business coming between patients and doctors — or where it believes the constitutional authority for such meddling is found — was not immediately clear.

The outfit also left the door open for recommending such “screening” for children under 12, too. “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children aged 11 years and younger,” the Obama HHS panel wrote. The recommendations also call for using controversial medications such as Prozac to drug children between 12 and 17, while advocating powerful psychotropic substances such as Lexapro for children as young as eight.

Already, about one in 10 American school-aged boys has been labeled and drugged under the guise of “Attention Deficit Disorder” (ADD) and “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” (ADHD). However, even the late Dr. Leon Eisenberg, often described as the “father” or “inventor” of the diagnosis, said before his death in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel that the alleged disease was “a prime example of a fabricated disorder.” With the list of “disorders” expanding rapidly, and with that list labeling more and more normal behaviors as symptoms of alleged illness, critics have warned that the trend is deeply troubling.

When it comes to adults, the advisory panel, which purports to be independent, wants to cast an even broader net. “The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women,” said the outfit, which adds that its views should not be construed as the official position of the “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality” or Obama's HHS. “Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”

In its “rationale” for recommending that all U.S. adults be screened for depression, the panel claims that the “illness” is “common in patients seeking care in the primary care setting.” It also cites “adequate evidence” allegedly showing some “improvements” if its advice is followed.

Then, unsurprisingly, the outfit downplays the very serious risks documented by The New American magazine and many other sources — including government and Big Pharma itself. For instance, the panel admits that antidepressants are “associated” with harms, including an increase in suicidal behavior, an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, fetal harm, and more. But despite that, the task force “concludes with at least moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit” to screening all American adults. And by all, the task force means all: “The USPSTF recommends screening in all adults regardless of risk factors,” it said.

Big Pharma and Big Government were no doubt pleased with the conclusion. But not everyone was. Among those expressing concerns was Dr. Ron Paul, the liberty-minded former congressman from Texas and GOP presidential contender, who called the proposed mandatory screenings a “depressing thought” in his weekly column. “Basic economics, as well as the Obamacare disaster, should have shown this task force that government health insurance mandates harm Americans,” wrote Paul, a medical doctor. He warned that, among other problems, the scheme would raise insurance costs. Even more troubling is that it would likely result in new federal databases containing the results of the screenings, which would be used to deny even more Americans their right to keep and bear arms.

“Today, some mental health professionals think that those who believe in limited government, free-market economics, or traditional values suffer from mental disorders,” Paul explained, echoing growing concerns among watchdogs monitoring the psychiatric industry. “If mandatory depression screening becomes a reality, it is likely this mental health screening will be expanded to cover screening for other mental illnesses. This could result in anyone with an unpopular political belief or lifestyle choice being labeled as 'mentally ill.'”

Other commentators also directly suggested that the new demands for more “mental health” screening may be related to Obama's agenda to infringe on gun rights. “With executive actions aimed at getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, the timing of this report's release is rather curious,” wrote Trey Sanchez with Truth Revolt, a conservative-leaning outlet. “It seems reasonable to assume that mass screenings will produce more diagnoses of depression, even for those patients who showed up a little blue that day. But maybe that's the point: the more people there are that can be labeled 'mentally ill' (indeed a disservice to those suffering from actual mental illnesses), the less gun permits approved.”

It is hardly the first time in recent memory that Obama's HHS has demanded extreme and anti-constitutional intrusions under the guise of “health.” Indeed, the HHS has become increasingly bold in its demands for totalitarianism. Last year, for example, it unveiled a push to target American adults with vaccine mandates. In collaboration with Big Business and special interests, bureaucrats outlined the “National Adult Immunization Plan” (NAIP) to track Americans' vaccination records, wage a massive propaganda campaign to “encourage” more inoculations, and foist more controversial vaccines on adults against their will. Critics noted that the agenda includes eventually imposing vaccines at gunpoint.

More recently, HHS, in partnership with the increasingly radical U.S. Department of Education, unveiled a draft policy statement in which families are referred to as Big Brother's “equal partners” in child rearing. As if that was not enough, the document called for expanding “home visitation” programs. “Home visits by a nurse, social worker, or early childhood educator during pregnancy and in the first years of life can make a tremendous difference in the lives of many children and their families,” argued Obama's HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell last year in announcing more “grants” to send government workers to family homes.

The “equal partners” scheme also comes with important “mental health” implications, as the policy statement makes clear. “Ensure constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health,” the document demands. “Ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.” In the policy statement's “recommendations” for states — much of which will be imposed through federal bribes — state governments are told to “expand early childhood mental health consultation efforts.”

Of course, there is no constitutional authority for federally mandated “mental health” exams or any other meddling in healthcare or family life. Nor is there authority for a Department of “Health and Human Services” to exist. As HHS and other unconstitutional agencies continue to expand, so does the threat they pose to the liberties, well-being, and prosperity of the American people. It is time for the public to demand that Congress defund and shut down all unconstitutional agencies before the lawlessness and totalitarianism become even more extreme.

Kansas City Fed Survey Crashes To 7 Year Lows

BUSINESS IS “WORST SINCE THE 80S RECESSION” – KANSAS CITY FED SURVEY CRASHES TO 7-YEAR LOWS

Employment-related indicators are collapsing

Zero Hedge - FEBRUARY 25, 2016

The Kansas City Fed Composite Index has not been positive for 13 months and February’s below expectations print of -12 is the worst since April 2009.

The Fed unleashed QE3 the last time KC Fed dipped… and this time is dramatically worse…



Both MoM and YoY, every single component of the KC Fed survey is down, and down hard with employment-related indicators collapsing.



Source: KC Fed

Finally we let the respondents speak for themselves…


“Business is off at levels not seen since the recession of the early 1980’s.”

“We are starting off to a very slow year. Shipments are down 22% compared to last year.Margins are decreasing. We don’t know how our competitors keep lowering prices, as this is not good for the long haul.”

But still we hear day after day that there is no recession in sight?

By way of comparison to the current ‘recovery’, “number of employees” has now fallen for 14 months… it only fell 13 in 2008/9

Ron Paul Will Not Support Trump

Ron Paul: I wouldn't support Trump as GOP nominee

Matthew J. Belvedere | CNBC.com

Three-time candidate for president Ron Paul said Wednesday he does not like any of the remaining GOP candidates in the 2016 race, and would not support Donald Trump if he were to win the Republican nomination.


Trump has been able to tap into the anger and fear of a large "minority" of voters, Paul told CNBC's "Squawk Box." He said the billionaire businessman acts like he has all the answers but "zero" realistic solutions to the problems facing the nation.

"I hear the ability of politicians to capitalize on the worries," the libertarian Republican continued. "They're able to use the blame game." Paul served 12 terms as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

Read MoreHouse Speaker Ryan: Trump tapping into voter anger

Trump was the projected winner of Tuesday's Nevada caucuses by a wide-margin, his third-straight victory with the Super Tuesday contests less than a week away. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was seen edging out Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas for second place in Nevada.

Paul admitted that Trump has the momentum in the early contests, but said there's a long road of primaries and caucuses before the GOP's nominating convention in July.

The race for the White House has become "Trump-ism versus Sander-ism," said Paul, referring to Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. He said both approaches are "not a whole lot different" in their wrongheadedness.

Sanders wants to make the government bigger and Trump wants to be the government, said Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012. He also ran in a failed bid for the White House in 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

Paul's son — Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who had sought to take up his father's mantle — dropped his presidential bid earlier this month after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses, the first-in-the-nation nominating contest.


Cruz — who beat Trump in Iowa and then racked up three third-places finishes in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada — is making the case that he's the most electable anti-establishment candidate.

In the establishment lane with Rubio, who was third in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, and second in both South Carolina and Nevada, is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Kasich got a boost from grabbing the No. 2 spot in New Hampshire after getting off to a slow start in Iowa.

"We're going to do very well on Super Tuesday," said Tom Ridge, the national co-chairman of Kasich campaign. "We are going to do quite well in the weeks ahead."

Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania and ex-director of the Homeland Security Department, played down Kasich's fifth-place finishes in South Carolina, and Nevada.

"We're going to win Ohio [on March 15]," Ridge said, despite the latest poll showing Kasich slightly behind in his home state to Trump. "And [in] some of those 'purple states' we're going to see the value of having a proven leader with a consistent conservative record."


Ridge insisted that Kasich has the best chance to beat Trump and capture the GOP nomination, Ridge said. He touted the candidate's service to Ohio, currently as a second-term governor and as a longtime U.S. congressman who was chairman of the Budget Committee from 1995 to 2001.

"When people start focusing, I think they're going to pay a lot more attention to records rather than rhetoric," said Ridge, who had been a supporter of Jeb Bush before the former Florida governor dropped out of the race.

Central Banks Should Stop Paying Interest On Reserves

CENTRAL BANKS SHOULD STOP PAYING INTEREST ON RESERVES

What is to be done to escape the curse?

Brendan Brown | Mises.org - FEBRUARY 23, 2016

In 2008, the Federal Reserve began paying interest on reserve balances held on deposit at the Fed.

It took more than seven decades from the US leaving the gold standard — in 1933 — for the fiat regime to do this and thus revoke a cardinal element of the old gold-based monetary system: the non-payment of any interest on base money.

The academic catalyst to this change came from Milton Friedman’s essay“The Optimum Quantity of Money” where he argued that the opportunity cost of paper money (any foregoing of interest compared to on alternative money-like instruments such as savings deposits) should be equal to its virtually-zero marginal cost of production. Opportunity cost could indeed be brought down to zero if base money (bank reserves, currency) in large part paid interest at the market rate. Under the gold standard, the opportunity cost of holding base money largely in metallic form (gold coin) was indeed typically significant. All forms of base money paid no interest. And the stream of interest income foregone in terms of present value was equal in principle to the marginal cost of gold production (this was equal to the gold price).

Interest on Reserves are Important to Controlling Markets and Imposing Negative Rates

Friedman, however, did not identify the catch-22 of his proposal. If the officials of the fiat money regime indeed take steps to close the gap between the marginal production cost and opportunity cost of base money, with both at zero, then there can be no market mechanism free of official intervention and manipulation for determining interest rates.

That is what we are now finding out in the few years since central banks in the US, Europe, and Japan started paying interest on reserves. (The ECB was authorized to do this since its launch in 1999, while the Fed and BoJ began following the 2008 financial crisis.) Central banks can now bind the invisible hand operating in the interest rate market to an extent almost unprecedented in peacetime. In some cases, central banks have even deployed a negative interest rate “tool” which would have been impossible under the prior status quo where base money paid no interest.

How We Got Here

The signing into law of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act in 2006 authorized the Federal Reserve to begin paying interest on reserves held by depository institutions beginning October 1, 2011. On the insistence of then Fed Chief Bernanke, that date was brought forward to October 1, 2008 by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. He was in the process of dispensing huge loans to troubled financial institutions but wanted nonetheless to keep interest rates at a positive level (one purpose here was to protect the money market fund industry).

Accordingly, the Federal Reserve Board amended its regulation D so that the interest rate paid on required reserves and on excess reserves would be at levels tied (according to distinct formulas at the start) to market rates. An official communiqué explained that the new procedure would eliminate the opportunity cost of holding required reserves (and thereby “deregulate”) and help to establish a lower limit for the Federal Funds rate, becoming thereby a useful tool of monetary policy.

This was useful indeed from the viewpoint of rate manipulators: by setting the rate on excess reserves the Fed could now determine the path of short-term interest rates and strongly influence longer term rates regardless of how the supply of monetary base was growing relative to trend demand. By contrast, under the gold standard and the subsequent first seven decades of the fiat money regime, interest rates in the money market were determined by forces which brought demand for base money into balance with the path of supply as set by gold mining conditions or by central bank policy decision respectively. A rise in rates meant that the public and the banks would economize on their direct or indirect holdings of base money and conversely.

Back Before the Fed Paid Interest on Reserves

Yes, under the fiat money system the central bank could effectively peg a short-term rate and supply whatever amount of base money was needed to underwrite that — but the consequential growth of supply in base money was a variable which got wide attention and remained an ostensible policy concern. Right up until the Greenspan era, the FOMC implemented policy decisions by directing the New York Fed money desk to increase or reduce the pace of reserve growth and changes in the Fed funds rate occurred ostensibly to accomplish that purpose. This old method of determining money market interest rates under a fiat regime — in which banks’ need for reserves was minute given deposit insurance, a generous lender of last resort, and too-big-to-fail — depended on the banking industry enduring what was essentially a tax on its deposit business, which was then magnified by fairly high legal reserve requirements. Thus, it is not surprising that the original impetus to paying interest on reserves, whether in the US or Europe, came from the banking lobby. There was no such burden under the gold standard even though the yellow metal earned no interest. Banks in honoring their pledge to deposit clients that their funds were convertible into gold had to visibly hold large amounts of the metal in their vaults or at hand in a reserve center. Actual and potential demand for monetary base by the public is more limited under a fiat money regime than under the gold standard as bank notes are hardly such a distinct asset as gold coin from other financial instruments.

More Problems with Friedmanite “Solutions”

Friedman, when he advocated eliminating the opportunity cost of base money under a fiat regime, hypothesized that this could occur under a long-run declining trend of prices rather than by the payment of interest. The real rate of return on base money could then be in line with the equilibrium real interest rate. This proposal for perpetually declining prices would also have been problematic, though. The interest rate would fluctuate, and in boom times be well above the rate of price decline. In any case, the rate of price decline would surely vary (sometimes into positive territory) in a well-functioning economy even when the long-run trend was constant (downward). The equilibrium real interest rate would be below the rate of price decline sometimes (for example, during business downturns), meaning that market rates even at zero would be too high. That situation did not occur often under the gold standard where prices were expected to be on a flat trend from a very long-run perspective and move pro-cyclically (falling to a low-point in the recession from which they were expected to rise in the subsequent business expansion, meaning that real interest rates would then be negative).

What Can Be Done?

So what is to be done to escape the curse? A starting point in the US would be for Congress to ban the payment of interest on bank reserves. And the US should use its financial power with respect to the IMF to argue that Japan and Europe act similarly within a spirit of G-7 coordination such as to combat monetary instability. We have seen in recent years how rate manipulation and negative rates are made possible by the payment of interest on reserves, and are potent weapons of currency warfare. Yes, the ban in the immediate would force the Federal Reserve to slim down its balance sheet so that supply and demand for base money would balance at a low positive level of interest rates. The Fed might have to swap its holdings of long-maturity debt for T-bills at the Treasury window so as to avoid any dislocation of the long-term interest rate market in consequence. That, not the Yellen-Fischer “rate lift off day and beyond,” is the road back to monetary normalcy.

The Economics Of "Free Stuff"

THE ECONOMICS OF “FREE STUFF”

Proponents of free stuff should look to capitalism, not redistributionism

Jonathan Newman | Mises.org - FEBRUARY 22, 2016


The perennial promises of free stuff from political candidates are front and center again now that we are ensnared in another US election cycle.

The knee-jerk response from some economists and libertarians is “TANSTAAFL!” And of course it’s true that There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, because somebody must bear the costs of the supposedly “free” stuff. Nothing is free because every action has an opportunity cost.

Especially when the government is involved in doling out the gifts, all it means is that it was bought with money taken from others. Or, sometimes, the money is taken from the person receiving the gift, who thinkshe’s gotten something for nothing. (This is a sleight-of-hand political trick that has fooled many for centuries.)


But what if we interpret “free” in a more colloquial sense? Is it still preferable for the government to give away free stuff? Do unhampered markets provide for free stuff?

Two Definitions of “Free”

Today’s promises include free college, free healthcare, free paid time off of work, and all sorts of goodies. Although the above conclusion (no such thing as “free”) applies to all of these, I want to consider a different, more liberal definition of “free”: gifted.

For example, if Bernie gives Jonathan an apple that Bernie either grew in his orchard or bought at the store and Bernie expects nothing in return, the apple is a free gift from Bernie to Jonathan. The production, purchase, and loss of the apple is costly, but Jonathan bears none of these costs. Jonathan would technically have to expend some time and effort to hold and consume the apple, and he would lose an apple’s worth of carrying capacity on his person, but ignoring these and other technicalities, we cancasually say that the apple is a free gift from Jonathan’s perspective.
a

So now consider this definition for the above examples: freely giftedcollege, freely gifted healthcare, freely giftedtime off, etc. We realize that these already exist, and would exist absent government provision.

There are innumerable scholarships offered by individuals, organizations, and colleges who want certain students to attend college. Organizations like St. Jude’s, Doctors Without Borders, and Operation Smile offer freely given medical services to patients. And many businesses already allow their employees vacation days, medical leave, and family leave without them skipping paychecks, although there is an important caveat here that this would be priced into their regular salary or wage unless the employing entrepreneurs want to give from their own means.

This is all not to mention the freebies, BOGO coupons, “freemium” apps, and other marketing strategies retail stores employ.

Why Do People Give Gifts?

First, we must have more than we want to keep for ourselves.

Widespread abundance like this is only possible with relatively unhampered markets and roundabout production in place, where entrepreneurs are correctly guessing consumer demands and a large capital structure made possible by saving yields plenty of consumer goods. We have to create wealth before we can exchange it, consume it, or give it away.

But once we have such an abundance of means, the reasons for giving are countless and outside the scope of economics. An altruist might give out of generosity, but even a greedy businessman could give because of increased storage costs for all of their inventory, or as a plan to attract customers.

It should be noted that self-interest motivates both the altruist and the greedy businessman. The altruist’s actions are self-interested because she is satisfying one of her own ends by relinquishing ownership of the donated means to somebody else.

Voluntary vs. Involuntary Giving

When the giver gives voluntarily and the receiver accepts the gift, we can say it represents a mutually beneficial arrangement. The same cannot be said for forced redistribution.

When Bernie gives Jonathan the apple, Bernie is satisfying the highest ranked end he has for that apple. If, however, Bernie stole the apple from somebody else before giving it to Jonathan, then we can say with certainty that the exchange of the apple is not mutually beneficial.

The same goes for college scholarships and medical care. If the government takes the means to give somebody free college, then it does not represent a mutually beneficial arrangement, or else the individual would have voluntarily donated the money for the student to go to school.

Unlike private charities and scholarship funds, the government has no reason to dispense the gifts prudently or to minimize their own cut to maintain a donor base that is confident their donations are used efficiently and for the intended cause.

Forced redistribution also tends to spur bitterness and conflict, as opposed to gratitude and goodwill.

Proponents of Free Stuff Should Look to Capitalism, not Redistributionism

The conclusion we can draw here is that we get just the right amount of “free” stuff through the voluntary interactions of individuals in unhampered markets. And, not only that, but as capitalistic economies inevitably grow and the people become increasingly wealthy, charitable giving can increase as well. As the supply of goods that satisfy our ends gets larger, those marginal goods are more likely to be valued in terms of giving them away rather than keeping them ourselves.

Therefore, those that desire more free stuff should try to encourage morevoluntary giving (maybe even leading by example), not forced redistribution. They should also be the loudest proponents of unhampered markets as any voluntary giving must come from wealth that has already been created and in such abundance as to allow for greater giving.

Putin Threatens Turkey With Tactical Nukes

REPORT: PUTIN THREATENS TURKEY WITH TACTICAL NUKES

Moscow warns Ankara that it will fiercely resist an invasion of Syria

Paul Joseph Watson - FEBRUARY 22, 2016

Award-winning Iran-Contra journalist Robert Parry has been told by a source close to Vladimir Putin that Russia has threatened Turkey with the use of tactical nuclear weapons if it launches a joint invasion of Syria with Saudi Arabia.

Writing for Consortium News, Parry warns that the risk of the United States and its allies escalating the conflict in Syria to rescue rebels who are now on the verge of defeat could spark “World War III”.


“If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria,” writes Parry.

“A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.”

Parry’s background suggests the information should be treated seriously. He covered the Iran-Contra scandal for the Associated Press and Newsweek and was later given a George Polk award for his work on intelligence matters.

According to Parry, although President Obama has “sought to calm Erdogan down and made clear that the U.S. military would not join the invasion,” he has been “unwilling to flatly prohibit such an intervention”.

Moscow’s alleged threat to repel a Turkish invasion of Syria with nuclear weapons follows comments by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in which he warned of a new world war if the United States and its allies send ground troops into Syria.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have both signaled they are considering a ground invasion of Syria in order to aid refugees and so-called “moderate rebels” fighting against the Assad regime.

Last week, Turkish officials called for a “safe zone” to be established within Syria to allow refugees to flee Russia’s advance, although the United States argued that such a corridor could not be set up without a no fly zone.

Saudi Arabia is currently conducting the biggest wargames the region has seen for a quarter of a century. Northern Thunder involves 150,000 troops from 20 countries and is viewed by some as a precursor to a possible invasion of Syria.

Earlier this month, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told CNN that President Bashar al-Assad will have to be removed “by force” if the political process fails.

Despite official denials that the kingdom possesses nuclear weapons, Saudi political analyst told RT’s Arabic network last week that the Saudis have indeed obtained the bomb and that tests will be conducted soon.