Aggregatore di feed

According to wfpusa.org- Is There Really a Global Food Crisis?

Yes. Right now, there is a global food crisis – the largest one in modern history. Since the United Nations World Food Program’s (WFP) creation in 1963, never has hunger reached such devastating highs. From the eruption of new conflicts and the escalating impacts of the climate crisis to soaring food and fuel costs, millions of people are being driven closer to starvation each day.

Nearly 350 million people around the world are experiencing the most extreme forms of hunger right now. Of those, nearly 49 million people are on the brink of famine. Behind these massive statistics are individual children, women and men suffering from the dire effects of such severe hunger. Malnourished mothers give birth to malnourished babies, passing hunger from one generation to the next. Children’s physical and cognitive growth is stunted. Farmers are unable to grow enough food to provide for their families and communities. Entire towns are forced to leave their homes in search of food.

The food crisis will be the biggest crisis of the 21st century. It will push up food prices and spread hunger and poverty. Surging food prices will create inflation and create more crisis in the world. This will not only affect developing countries but also developed countries. According to United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), more than 73 million people in 78 countries who depend on food handouts are facing reduced rations this year.

High prices have caused food protests around the world like Mexico, India, Senegal, London, Mauritania and other parts of Africa. India, Mexico, Haiti, Philippines, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Yemen have seen food riots this year protesting the food crisis. Hardest hit of this crisis will likely be African countries, where many of the world’s poorest nations are here. A lack of food as the primary needs of humans will cause riots, suicide and millions of people could die from it.

Nearly every region of the world is experiencing drastic inflation caused by food this year. Retail prices are up 18% in China, 17% in Sri Lanka and 10% or more throughout Latin America and Russia.

In 3 May 2008, a cyclone devastated Myanmar’s low-lying Irrawaddy delta region leaving more than 1 million people homeless, according to the UN. An estimated 80,000 people died in the delta’s Labutta district alone. Myanmar had been expected to export 600,000 tons of rice this year, including to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. The cyclone flooded 5,000 square kilometers (1,930 square miles) of farmland. Cyclone Nargis struck the country’s main rice-growing area, worsening a food crisis that’s triggered unrest from Haiti to Egypt.

Why does it happen

Rocketing oil prices, global warming, biofuels, and the world population explosion are the cause of this food crisis. The primary driver is the soaring cost of oil, which reached $123 a barrel for the first time. Oil cost will make transportation more expensive, thus making food more expensive too. The price of oil has sent the cost of food imports skyrocketing this year.

The World Bank predicts global demand for food will double by 2030. This is partly because the world’s population is expected to grow by three billion by 2050. Food demand will also grow due to new prosperity in India and China.

Global warming will disrupt food production in many countries. It can cause climate instability which is bad for crop.

Food price are affected by accelerating demand for biofuels. Biofuels, made from food crops such as corn, sugar cane, and palm oil, are seen as easing the world’s dependence on gasoline. But when crude oil is expensive, these alternative energy sources can also be sold at higher price. Last year a quarter of the US maize crop was turned into ethanol to fuel vehicles. US supplies more than 60% of the world’s maize exports. According to the World Bank, this is putting pressure on countries’ food supplies.

The worldwide food reserves are at their lowest in 35 years. Demand is growing much more than supply.

Read the Whole Article

The post Global Food Crisis- Will Be the Biggest Crisis of the 21st Century! appeared first on LewRockwell.

This is the fourth in a dredging operation. I am not asking you to take this on board as gospel. I just want you to consider it, and over the next weeks and months, see what comes to you as evidence or corroboration. I’m working towards a meta-theory, rather than presenting you with something I can prove in court. However, this is hardly speculative, I have a lot of validating evidence, but I am rigorous. I need things locked down before I assert them as fact. Out there in the wildlands of the internet, millions of people, educated and not, ‘believe’ what I am presenting and they are in full opposition. Any politician looking for a way forward would be wise to look at this theory because he would immediately gain an active base. Which is why I think it’s worth considering.

Finally, if we know what has happened to us, we can change it. Ignoring reality because it is too dark or frightening, plays right into their hands. They want us weak, scared, and submissive. Who are they? The Bilderbergers, the Committee of 300, the European Black Nobility, the Olympians, the Illuminati, Skull and Bone, the Freemason hierarchy, the Venerable Order of the Knights of St John, Cultus Diabolicus, Force X, Club of Rome or for brevity: the World Economic Forum. HG Wells was commissioned to write their plans for us: The Open Conspiracy — Plans for a World Revolution.

We are looking at the stuff of conspiracy, the ancient association of the powerful who have been ruining the world since, well, as long as history has been recorded. They are our secret government. When Hillary Clinton was bent on leaving Bill in ’90, they sent one of their people, Pamela Harriman, to talk her into staying, promising her First Lady and then her own presidency. When Bush Sr was quavering over the first Iraq War, Thatcher summoned him to Aspen and gave him their orders.

Risibly, they trace their bloodlines back to the Nephilim, that race of Giants produced by “gods” uniting with human women in Sumer and Egypt. They operate in secret, because their goals mean us no good, and are richer by orders of magnitude than our prancing billionaires. The British Royal Family alone is worth $2 trillion and Prince Charles is the world’s largest landowner.

I have been principally focused on mind control. I’d already read the founding texts, and followed the building of the mind control system, so it was easier for me to track than their financial operations, though mind control is undertaken in order to make them richer and hide their black deeds (hence the Black Nobility). Their founding documents are available freely, and they built their institutions in full public view. They are among the most respected on the planet. A list is attached below. Most of them were birthed out of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations which itself came out of the Wellington Club, which in 1914 angled to get Britain, then America into the 1st World War.

The British War Office through the RIIA, commissioned Lords Northcliffe and Rothmere (the Daily Mail) and Arnold Toynbee, head of RIIA, and an MI6 operative, to do a study on manipulating war information. The project was managed out of Wellington House. Americans Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman were roped in and they held brainstorming sessions to mobilize the working class, who were expected to die in record numbers. Using the Daily Mail, they tested and tested techniques and decided that 13% of us were capable of critical thinking. The rest they could play like meat puppets. Records of the time show that by 1917, 94% of the working class did not have the faintest idea what they were dying for other than the Germans were horrible and bent on destroying King and country and had to be wiped out. (John Coleman from War Office Records). Then they did it to Americans. They were dying to increase the wealth of these people.

It was so effective, mind control was born.

At present, mind control is being used to take land and resources from us in the Americas, as they have in the developing world since the 17th C., and use us as another resource, on admittedly better living standards than cobalt miners. We will have lost all self-determination, as our lands and property will have been alienated. Agenda 2030 and Agenda 2050 are a mapping of the world’s resources and a subsequent setting aside of 30%, then 50% and then 75%. 90%, of land, water, minerals, wood, farm and rangelands. All of that will be owned through a series of international treaties negotiated through the UN, with national and regional governments, to be exploited by these people without adherence to national laws.Biodiversitymapping.org is the propaganda, this map below is the reality. Turquoise zones are where humans will be permitted to live.

Consider the possibility that almost everything you think has been devised and given you to think, through the media which they own. Unless, of course, you are deeply religious. The worthy tropes of every dinner party are rooted in the clinics and labs and seminar rooms of the behavioural institutions we fund. Tolerance of flat-out evil like people dying on the streets in front of us? Programmed. All the ‘you go girl’, ‘take care of you’, ‘girl power’, ‘girl boss’, self-cherishing, lack of gravitas in middle class women is invented in those rooms. Overpopulation? Programmed. Catastrophic man-made climate change? Programmed. Crystals and tarot and wicca? Programmed. ‘We’re running out of resources’? Programmed and utter nonsense. Buddhism? Programmed passivity. Even the slang we use was devised for us. Our felt powerlessness is programmed. Our despair, the black-pilled, “I’mouttahere” disengaged? You are exactly where they want you to be. Our disinclination to confront and debate? Programmed. The passivity of medical staff in the face of unreason and cruelty during covid? It took decades, but that was deliberate.

Read the Whole Article

The post They Are The Dark; We Are the Light appeared first on LewRockwell.

 

 

di Brendan Brown

Ragionare a “mente calda” è una scorciatoia che corrompe i processi mentali e che il defunto Daniel Kahneman identificò attraverso esperimenti nel processo decisionale finanziario. La rapidità di pensiero affligge la risposta alla nuova minaccia dell’inflazione dei prezzi. Tale minaccia era emersa ancor prima che l’inflazione dei prezzi post-crisi sanitaria, scoppiata alla fine del 2022, si raffreddasse rispetto ai livelli di picco. L’impennata più recente dei prezzi si è materializzata anche se i suoi sintomi nei mercati dei beni sono stati attenuati dall’inversione delle precedenti dislocazioni sul lato dell’offerta.

Un tema spesso citato, e che illustra l’attuale angoscia inflazionistica, suggerisce che la FED inizierà a tagliare il suo tasso di riferimento entro l’estate di quest'anno. Secondo alcuni di coloro che temono l’inflazione dei prezzi, questa politica dei tassi striderebbe con un’economia americana che è straordinariamente forte – almeno secondo l’esercito di osservatori di dati le cui dimensioni sono aumentate in risposta al mantra ufficiale secondo cui le decisioni monetarie della FED sono diventate strettamente “dipendenti dai dati”.

L’ex-segretario al Tesoro (sotto Clinton) e consigliere economico capo di Obama, il professor Larry Summers – ora uno dei principali collaboratori di Bloomberg TV – dichiara categoricamente che il tasso d'interesse di equilibrio è salito ben al di sopra del livello degli anni 2000 e 2010, pertanto i piani della FED per “normalizzare i tassi ufficiali” aggraveranno il fenomeno inflazione.

In che modo questo è un esempio di ragionamento a “mente calda” difettoso? Nel rispondere dovremmo ricordare le osservazioni di Kahneman secondo cui la mente, nel prendere scorciatoie per facilitare una risposta rapida (in questo caso al pericolo percepito dell'inflazione dei prezzi), ignora i limiti della razionalità. Esempi di tali difetti includono l’eccessivo affidamento su campioni di piccole dimensioni e su ipotesi controverse, sebbene attualmente plausibili.

La piccola dimensione del campione è evidente in qualsiasi controversia sui tassi d'interesse di equilibrio. Esistono pochi periodi lunghi non sovrapposti e rilevanti ai fini della stima e il concetto di tasso di equilibrio è esso stesso un costrutto teorico a dir poco discutibile.

Il controverso “tasso d'interesse di equilibrio”

Il tasso d'interesse di equilibrio, per quanto ne sappiamo, avrebbe potuto essere anormalmente elevato per gran parte del quarto di secolo precedente la pandemia; le banche centrali hanno pilotato i tassi ufficiali molto al di sotto di tal livello.

Un’influenza chiave dietro l’elevato livello dei tassi d'interesse di equilibrio nel 1995-2020, come qui ipotizzato, è stata il boom (alcuni direbbero una bolla) nella costituzione delle catene di approvvigionamento industriali a livello mondiale. La rivoluzione della digitalizzazione aveva consentito il controllo micromanageriale su vaste aree geografiche e organizzative. Tutto ciò avvenne nel contesto dell'ingresso della Cina nell'OMC (come raccomandato al Congresso dal presidente Clinton nel 2000) e dell'accelerazione dell'integrazione economica regionale (compresa l'espansione del NAFTA e dell'UE dopo la caduta del muro di Berlino).

In un libero mercato i prezzi sarebbero scesi per 20 anni

In un sistema monetario sano/onesto, i prezzi al consumo sarebbero crollati nel corso di questi due decenni di costituzione delle catene di approvvigionamento internazionali, ma nulla di tutto ciò si è verificato con l’attuale standard dell'inflazione al 2%.

Le banche centrali hanno pilotato i tassi ufficiali per “contrastare la minaccia della deflazione”. La virulenta inflazione dei prezzi degli asset è diventata un ulteriore elemento motore della spesa aziendale, inclusa in questo caso non solo la costituzione delle catene di approvvigionamento internazionali ma anche più in generale la digitalizzazione per inseguire potenziali rendite di monopolio rese possibili dalla nuova tecnologia.

Uno degli esempi più estremi di tale distorsione monetaria si è verificato durante il periodo Bernanke/Yellen del 2013-2017. La bolla mondiale dei prezzi delle materie prime era scoppiata ed era stata originariamente alimentata dalle politiche monetarie e fiscali estreme della Cina nel 2009-2012, possibili solo nel contesto dell'inflazione monetaria alimentata dalla FED. Il crollo dei prezzi delle materie prime avrebbe dovuto significare un periodo di calo dei prezzi al consumo su un ampio arco temporale.

Invece abbiamo avuto un’inflazione dei prezzi degli asset

Invece Yellen/Bernanke hanno alimentato un’enorme inflazione dei prezzi degli asset, vantandosi di un tasso d'inflazione appena superiore allo zero. A sua volta il nuovo slancio dell’inflazione monetaria statunitense ha alimentato il boom della spesa per investimenti. Ora la rotta è stata invertita, pertanto non è chiaro il motivo per cui Summers dovrebbe avere ragione riguardo la sua ipotesi secondo cui il “tasso d'interesse di equilibrio” dovrebbe spostarsi a un livello più alto.

Infatti potremmo trovarci in un lungo periodo di tempo in cui questo tasso di equilibrio potrebbe scendere rispetto al periodo 1995-2020 e i debiti/deficit fiscali degli Stati Uniti non contraddicono questa conclusione. L’elevato debito pubblico statunitense, finanziato da diverse forme di tassazione schiacciante – tra cui la riscossione periodica della tassa sull’inflazione e altre forme di tassazione monetaria – difficilmente è una ricetta per il dinamismo economico. Al contrario, queste sono le caratteristiche di imperi un tempo prosperi e adesso in declino.

Le normative statali soffocano la crescita economica

Uno scenario decisamente non dinamico si profila all'orizzonte per gli Stati Uniti e per gran parte dell’economia mondiale sulla scia della Grande Inflazione Monetaria 1995-2024. Gli investimenti sbagliati in tutte le loro dimensioni vengono al pettine. Sì, l’intelligenza artificiale potrebbe essere uno stimolo alla crescita se davvero le forze dell’innovazione finissero nelle mani di coloro che trovano e sviluppano nuovi percorsi verso la fortuna economica. Tutto ciò, però, è tutt’altro che certo.

L’ormai lunga esperienza sulla rivoluzione tecnologica digitale con le sue caratteristiche speciali – chi vince prende tutto, soppressione del libero ingresso, corrosione dei diritti di proprietà (compresi i dati) – impone cautela. Non s'è rivelata un grande elemento motore per il tenore di vita nelle economie avanzate, in contrasto con gli indubbi vantaggi per le economie in via di sviluppo derivanti soprattutto dalla rivoluzione nelle catene di approvvigionamento mondiali.

E poi abbiamo le squallide prospettive per la seconda economia mondiale: la Cina. Sotto uno statalismo e una pesante repressione finanziaria, dove i timori di una futura povertà – soprattutto in età avanzata – spingono i risparmi a livelli record, il surplus netto di questa economia nel commercio di beni e servizi con il resto del mondo diventa gigantesco. Il corollario sono i massicci flussi di esportazioni di capitali dalla Cina, che influiscono negativamente sul livello di equilibrio mondiale dei tassi d'interesse.

Un paesaggio pericoloso davanti a sé

È ora di chiamare le cose col loro nome: quando ragioniamo a mente fredda piuttosto che a mente calda alla minaccia dell’inflazione, ci rendiamo conto che il concetto di “tasso d'interesse di equilibrio” è di scarso aiuto, se non nullo, alla nostra comprensione economica – a prescindere dalla persistente popolarità che ha goduto nei sistemi monetari fiat. È vero, nell'odierno sistema monetario le banche centrali formulano giudizi chiave sulla relazione tra il tasso ufficiale e il cosiddetto tasso neutrale, ma molto, se non tutto, questo è falso – sintomatico dell'attuale epoca oscura.

Tuttavia non vi è alcuna prospettiva che i sistemi monetari si allontanino dall’attuale diktat dei tassi di riferimento. Una tendenza al ribasso del tasso ufficiale, nonostante le proteste del professor Summers su Bloomberg TV, ci direbbe che l’attuale celebrazione del dinamismo economico statunitense sta ignorando le profonde controforze all’opera.

Ciò significherebbe un futuro meno inflazionistico di quanto molti temono oggi? No, ma è probabile che l’elevata inflazione futura arrivi a scatti: i prezzi generalmente virano verso l’alto e in gran parte in risposta a shock dell’offerta che non incontrano resistenza da parte del sistema monetario. E quando gli shock sull’offerta subiscono un’inversione, le banche centrali approfittano della situazione per potenziare l’inflazione monetaria piuttosto che consentire ai prezzi di ricadere verso il livello precedente allo shock.

Esempi di tali potenziali shock di offerta includono sconvolgimenti geopolitici, pandemie, carestie e altre disgrazie provocate da Madre Natura, caos sociale e politico interno ed espansione fiscale. Infatti dovremmo aspettarci che lo stato, incluso il sistema bancario centrale, sfrutti appieno questi episodi per avere l’opportunità di imporre periodi di dolorose tasse derivanti dall’inflazione e quindi frenare, almeno temporaneamente, una crescita inesorabile dell’ammontare reale del suo debito.

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una “mancia” in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

April 22 was Earth Day.. Brain-dead “President” Biden issued a proclamation about it. This said:

“More than 50 years ago today, some 20 million Americans came together across the country to demand that we prioritize our planet’s well-being.  They came from every walk of life and political background, and were united around a common vision:  to protect the Earth and our natural treasures for future generations. Their actions that day ignited an environmental movement and proved that nothing is beyond our capacity if we do it together.  Today, we carry on their legacy by building a greener, more sustainable planet and, with it, a healthier, more prosperous Nation.” See here.

I’m confident readers of LRC won’t be fooled by this. Protecting the environment sounds good, if you don’t know what the anti-humans behind Earth Day mean by it. What they have in mind combines a pagan religion, communism—it’s no coincidence April 22 is Lenin’s birthday—and the “climate change” hoax, which aims to wipe out humanity.

Let’s look at these points in more detail. Pagans want to replace Christianity, which teaches that man has dominion over the earth with a religion of earth-worship. Marcus Walker Van Every gives a good account of this:

“Tucked nicely into the overarching theme of Earth Day, are core pagan beliefs such as the veneration of Mother Earth, the reduction of human population, the introduction of animistic and pantheistic beliefs, and even the criminalization for man’s contribution to climate change.

Although Earth Day [established 1970] is not officially recognized as one of the sacred, pagan holidays, it has deep pagan roots and was born out of deeper religious conviction. Earth Day’s genesis can be traced back to a 1967 essay written by Lynn White, Jr., titled — The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis.

In his essay, White laid a “heavy burden” on Biblical Christianity for promoting man’s dominance over nature, all the while suggesting that in order to save our world, progressive thinkers must change the way they view the relationship between mankind and Mother Earth. His suggestion, of course, was to embrace our pagan roots and replace archaic, destructive Christian beliefs with a newfound veneration of nature and nature’s “spirits.”

“Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient paganism and Asia’s religions (except, perhaps Zoroastrianism), not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends … The spirits in natural objects, which formerly had protected nature from man, evaporated. Man’s effective monopoly on spirit in this world was confirmed, and the old inhibitions to the exploitation of nature crumbled.”

[Lynn White, Jr. — The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis — 1969]

In other words, the patriarch of the Earth Day movement believed with full conviction that until society returned to the pagan worship of nature and Mother Earth, mankind would inevitably destroy its own sacred environment. And make no mistake about it, pagan ideology considers the destruction of the planet as a more grievous offense that the destruction of human beings themselves. The neopagans of our day see mankind as the cancerous growth that has infected the earth with its waste and overpopulation.

And now, nearly 50 years later, our children have been indoctrinated with pagan ideology — passionately wanting to save a planet without even realizing why.

If you don’t believe Earth Day purely is a religious movement, here is another quote from White’s essay, which was premiered in the very first Earth Day manifesto in 1970.

“Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny.” See here.

Now, let’s look at Communism, Can it be an accident that, of all the dates in the calendar to pick for this phony holiday, Lenin’s birthday was chosen?  As Mises Institute President Tom DiLorenzo notes:

“Today is “earth day,” first established by the watermelon movement (green on the outside, red on the inside) on Lenin’s 100th birthday.  This pinpoints what has always been the main purpose of “environmentalism”:  to destroy capitalism and economic freedom and replace it with another totalitarian communist hell under the guise of “saving the planet” (but the hell with human beings).

Is there any doubt that if Lenin were alive today he would be giving full-throated support for the “Green New Deal”?  He would also probably be pulling down Bill Clinton-caliber speaking fees at “prestigious” American universities and perhaps even awarded the Al Gore, Jr. Endowed Professorship in Environmentalism at Vanderbilt University.” See here.

But what precisely is the tie-in between communism and Earth Day? Now we get to the heart of the matter. The communists want to destroy us, and one way they can do so in by ruining the American economy through measures designed to cope with the phony emergency of climate change. We can see that this is at the heart of Earth day if we have another look at brain dead “President” Biden’s proclamation:

“This work has never been more urgent.  Climate change is the existential crisis of our time; no one can deny its impacts and staggering costs anymore.  We have seen historic floods from Vermont to Kentucky to California.  Droughts and hurricanes are growing more frequent and intense.  Wildfires are destroying entire communities and spreading harmful smoky haze for thousands of miles while temperatures keep reaching record highs.  Season after season, I have met with families who have lost everything to major storms, wildfires, and other climate disasters, and I have stood with the brave first responders and firefighters who sacrifice so much to protect their neighbors.  Deforestation, nature loss, toxic chemicals, and plastic pollution also continue to threaten our air, lands, and waters, endangering our health, other species, and ecosystems.    Our actions matter, and together we can protect our planet and our futures.

Today, I am on track to conserve more lands and waters than any President in history — getting us closer to my Administration’s historic goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our Nation’s lands and waters by 2030.  It is a part of our “America the Beautiful” Initiative that supports locally led conservation, protection, and restoration through partnerships with Tribal Nations, local communities, and private landowners.  So far, I have protected over 41 million acres of our Nation’s lands and waters — from establishing national monuments like Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni on the outskirts of the Grand Canyon and Camp Hale high in the Colorado Rockies, to strengthening protections for treasures like the Tongass National Forest and Bristol Bay in Alaska.  These majestic places unite and inspire us and should be preserved for the ages.  To restore and protect the health of our ocean, my Administration is advancing America’s first-ever Ocean Climate Action Plan, accelerating offshore wind energy development, and working to designate new national marine sanctuaries in California and the Pacific Remote Islands.

Climate change is a global issue.  Certainly no one nation can tackle the climate crisis alone; we have to work together.  On my first day in office, I immediately rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, reclaiming American leadership in this critical work.  We have rallied the international community to tackle vital climate challenges, including collaborating with over 150 nations to commit to slashing methane emissions and over 140 nations to commit to halting and reversing forest loss by 2030 as we find new ways to boost resilience, strengthen our economies, and sustain our planet.  Last year, the United States galvanized other countries to agree for the first time to transition away from the fossil fuels that jeopardize the health of our people and planet.  Through our Women in the Sustainable Economy Initiative, we are working to ensure that women around the world have access to good-paying jobs in sectors such as clean energy, fisheries, recycling, forest management, and environmental conservation, that are critical to our future.  By pledging a historic $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund to help reduce emissions and boost climate resilience in developing countries, we are catalyzing further global action.

Last fall, we released the Fifth National Climate Assessment, our Government’s preeminent report on the impacts, risks, and responses to climate change nationwide and a go-to resource on emerging climate solutions.  Together — climate activists and business leaders; farmers, manufacturers, union workers, and Indigenous communities; courageous young people; and anyone concerned about the future we leave for our kids — we can make the changes needed to protect our planet.” See here.

Of course, “climate change” is a gigantic hoax. The key point of the people who preach this false gospel is that we need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide isn’t a danger. It’s essential to life. Alan Coruba has some trenchant remarks about this:

“[Earth Day] It is the global platform for the Big Lie that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the Earth to warm and the basis of the environmental movement’s ceaseless efforts to reduce the use of energy for any reason.

Carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has been increasing, but the Earth has been cooling due to reduced solar radiation. CO2 has virtually no relationship to the climate except to show up well after a significant change has occurred.

According to Wikipedia: “Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known life forms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.] This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life.” (Emphasis added)

Not one single piece of vegetation can exist without CO2. Without vegetation all animals and all humans would die. The Earth would look like Mars. One of the pillars of environmentalism is that humans are the greatest threat to the existence of the 4.5 billion-year-old Earth. The essence of Earth Day is that you are the enemy, primarily for your use of energy (coal, oil, and natural gas).

A global propaganda campaign will glorify Earth Day and its message is that you must change your life to accommodate the lies that sustain the environmental movement and permit government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency to strangle the economic life of the nation.” See here.

The propagandists for Earth Day say that unless we cripple our economy, the earth will heat up, causing disaster. But this false claim flies in the face of the evidence from geology. The earth was much warmer in past geological ages than even the wackiest global warming scaremongers are projecting, but life flourished abundantly then. The great David Stockman gives an excellent summary of the evidence:

“What we actually need to take into account is that the so-called Climate Crisis is complete hogwash, starting with the basics of so-called man-made global warming. The fact is, the present era is one of the coolest and least carbon-intensive periods of the last 600 million years.

Stated differently, the true science makes mincemeat of the elitist narrative espoused by officialdom through Europe and North America and the mainstream media. Yet it is now being used as an excuse for the unfolding economic disasters caused by the central banks and the Warfare State and a pretext for new rounds of authoritarian suppression of economic liberty exemplified by California’s recent move to outlaw combustion engine autos after 2035.

Indeed, the geological and paleontological evidence overwhelmingly says that today’s average global temperature of about 15 degrees C and CO2 concentrations of 420 ppm are nothing to fret about, and even if they rise to about 17-18 degrees C and 500-600 ppms by the end of the century, it may well on balance improve the lot of mankind.

And that’s only logical. When its warmer and wetter, growing seasons are longer and crop yields are better—regardless of the agricultural technology and practices of the moment. And it’s better for human and community health, too—most of the deadly plagues of history have occurred under colder climes, such as the Black Death of 1344-1350.

Yet the Climate Crisis Narrative shitcans this massive body of “the science” by means of two deceptive devices that invalidate the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) story.

First, it ignores the entirety of the planet’s pre-Holocene (last 10,000 years) history, even though the science shows that more than 50% of the time in the last 600 million years global temperatures were in the range of 25 degrees C or 67% higher than current levels and far beyond anything projected by the most unhinged climate models today. But, crucially, at those temperature peaks planetary climate systems did not go into a doomsday loop of scorching meltdown—warming was always checked and reversed by powerful counter-veiling forces.

Even the history the alarmist do acknowledge has been grotesquely falsified. We are referring to the so-called “hockey stick” of the past 1000 years, which Al Gore made famous in his propaganda flick about global warming, which purports to show that temperatures were flat until 1850 and are now rising to allegedly dangerous levels.

But that’s a complete crock. It was fraudulently manufactured by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) to “cancel” the fact that temperatures in the pre-industrial world of the Medieval Warm Period (1000-1200 AD) were actually higher than at present!

Secondly, it is falsely claimed that global warming is a one-way street in which rising concentrations of greenhouse cases (GHGs) and especially CO2 is causing the earth’s heat balance to continuously increase. The truth, however, is that higher CO2 concentrations are a consequence and by-product, not a driver and cause, of the current naturally rising temperatures.

Again, the now “canceled” history of the planet knocks the CO2-driver proposition into a cocked hat. During the Cretaceous Period between 145 and 66 million year ago a natural experiment provided complete absolution for the vilified CO2 molecule. During that period, global temperatures rose dramatically from 17 degrees C to 25 degrees C—a level far above anything today’s Climate Howlers have ever projected.

Alas, CO2 wasn’t the culprit. According to the science, ambient CO2 concentrations actually tumbled during that 80 million years expanse, dropping from 2,000 ppm to 900 ppm on the eve of the Extinction Event 66 million years ago.

You would think that this powerful countervailing fact would give the CO2 witch-hunters pause, but that would be to ignore what the whole climate change brouhaha is actually about. That is, it’s not about science, human health and well being or the survival of planet earth; it’s about politics and the ceaseless search of the political class and the apparatchiks and racketeers who inhabit the Washington beltway for still another excuse to aggrandize state power.

Indeed, the Climate Change Narrative is the kind of ritualized policy mantra that is concocted over and again by the political class and the permanent nomenklatura of the modern state—professors, think tankers, lobbyists, career apparatchiks, officialdom—in order to gather and exercise state power.

To paraphrase the great Randolph Bourne, inventing purported failings of capitalism—such as a propensity to burn too much hydrocarbon—is the health of the state. Indeed, fabrication of false problems and threats that purportedly can only be solved by heavy-handed state intervention has become the modus operandi of a political class that has usurped near complete control of modern democracy.” See here.

Let’s do everything we can to expose the phony Earth Day “holiday”.

The post Earth Day—A Phony Holiday appeared first on LewRockwell.

In an essay entitled “A Strategy for the Right” the late economic and libertarian scholar, Professor Murray N. Rothbard, called John C. Calhoun’s Disquisition on Government “one of them most brilliant essays on political philosophy ever written.”  Published in 1850, the year of his death, Calhoun’s Disquisition warned – and explained – how the American political system could evolve into tyranny, and how to stop that from happening.  Americans are now living under the tyranny that Calhoun feared, proving once again the prescience and brilliance of his Disquisition.

Calhoun’s 173-year-old treatise is not just a diagnosis of how we got here, but a roadmap for escaping from this tyranny and being rid of the “woke” totalitarians among us who are so hellbent on destroying America and replacing it with, well, they don’t really know, in the tradition of Marxist revolutionaries everywhere.

Who Was John C. Calhoun?

John C. Calhoun was born into a family of Scots-Irish immigrants in the South Carolina upcountry in 1782.  He had two uncles who were killed by British soldiers during the Revolution and his father Patrick was a frontier scout.  His early education included intimate knowledge of the American Revolution from his family history as well as his studies.  He was mostly home schooled, which prepared him to enter Yale University where he was the 1804 class valedictorian. His mentor was Yale university president Timothy Dwight, a renowned expert on Lockean political philosophy.

Calhoun was a Jeffersonian philosophically.  Professor Clyde Wilson, the editor of The Collected Works of John C. Calhoun, has written that Calhoun viewed all American issues through the lens of the great philosophical divide between Jefferson the decentralist/states’ rights/strict constitutional construction advocate and his political nemesis Alexander Hamilton, who championed centralized, monopolistic, and “energetic” government, including a “permanent president” elected for life.  Hamilton denounced the Constitution after its ratification, calling it a “frail and worthless fabric,” because of its limitations on state power.  It was Hamilton who invented the “implied powers” (aka, not listed in the document) theory of constitutional interpretation; the perversion of the Contract and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution; and other subterfuges designed to turn the document into a de facto rubber stamp on anything the government wanted to do – as long as it was “properly” interpreted by people like himself.  That is why Jefferson and his political heirs, such as Calhoun, considered the brilliant and Machiavellian Hamilton to be a dangerous threat to American freedom.

Calhoun was the last of the founding fathers, philosophically speaking, and considered his Disquisition on Government to be a statement of his “understanding of society and government” and his “bequest to posterity,” writes Clyde Wilson.

Calhoun was a member of “the great triumvirate” in American politics of the early nineteenth century along with Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.  In that capacity he served as a member of congress from South Carolina, secretary of war under President James Monroe, U.S. senator from South Carolina, secretary of state under Presidents John Tyler and James Polk, and vice president of the United States during the administrations of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.  It is these life experiences, along with his deep knowledge of the literature of liberty of the time, especially the Lockean tradition that fueled the Revolution, that he relied on in writing the Disquisition.

Calhoun on Government and Society

Calhoun was a brilliant expositor of the natural rights philosophy that rights to life, liberty, and property are God given; that the primary purpose of government is to secure these rights from domestic and foreign enemies of freedom; and the realization that there is always a danger that governments can be perverted in a way that they destroy rather than protect these God-given rights.  In this his writings are very much in sync with a French contemporary of his, Frederic Bastiat, who articulated his views of the natural rights philosophy in his famous book, The Law, published in 1850, the same year as the Disquisition.  It is also the same year that both of these great men died.

To Calhoun “society” is ordained by God for our benefit; government is created by men and its only legitimate purpose is to secure our natural rights to life, liberty and property.   That is the purpose of constitutions, he said.  However, the powers invested in governments to prevent injustice and oppression, he wrote in the Disquisition, “will, if left unguarded, be by them converted into instruments to oppress the rest of the community” (emphasis added).  Government, after all, “has itself a strong tendency to disorder and abuse of its powers . . .”  (As Yours Truly has written on numerous occasions, the purpose of government today is for those who run it to plunder those who do not).  This is reminiscent of Jefferson’s dictum that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

By “society” Calhoun meant the myriad local communities established by Americans without direction by any government.  As Clyde Wilson writes in Calhoun: A Statesman for the 21st Century, the original colonists were not wards or employees of government but “people who conquered a wilderness with their own labor and capital and at the risk of their own life and limb.” Thus, the American revolution was not a revolution in society, writes Wilson, but “the action of the existing societies of the 13 colonies to preserve themselves against the interference of a distant government . . . the preservation of living societies from the schemes of rulers.”

This is the true meaning of “consent of the governed.”  “Consent” was given to ratify the Constitution by the separate political communities of the sovereign states, and they reserved the right to withdraw that consent should the government that they created as their agent interfere with their “happiness,” as the ratification documents of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island specifically declared.  The Constitution was not ratified by a majority vote of the general population but by separate political communities organized at the state level by the “free and independent” states, as they are called in the Declaration of Independence, at state political conventions.  This was required by Article 7 of the Constitution itself.

To the Jeffersonians “consent” did not mean a mere majority of any popular vote, especially since elections and vote counting could always be rigged, as they fully understood, being keen students of political history.  A “leading error,” Calhoun wrote, is to “confound the numerical majority with the people” and their consent.  This will eventually destroy constitutional government, said Calhoun, for it implies that all that is needed for perfect government is “the right of suffrage – and the allotment to each division of the community a representation in the government, in proportion to numbers.”  In reality, majority rule is nothing more than one part of society coercing and plundering another part (the minority), the very “violence of faction” that James Madison warned of in Federalist #10, writing that, historically, it had destroyed popular governments everywhere by creating a pervasive sense of injustice.  The whole purpose of the Constitution, said Madison, was to limit this “violence of faction” by electoral majorities.

Calhoun was battling the top Hamiltonian “nationalist” statists of his day, such as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and U.S. Senator Daniel Webster.  In his famous 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Story wrote that “the majority must have a right to accomplish that object by the means, which they deem adequate for the end . . . .  The will of the majority of the people is absolute and sovereign, limited only by its means and power to make its will effectual” (emphasis added).  This “power,” of course, is the coercive power of a heavily-armed government.  “Trust in the efficacy of frequent elections,” said Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster in his 1830 senate debate over protectionist tariffs and nullification with Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina.  History has proven that to be one of the most farcical statements ever made by an American politician.

What all of this means is that the Constitution was meant to be society’s vehicle for controlling the state, not the state’s vehicle for controlling society, as it is today, where the limits of everyone’s freedoms are periodically decreed by five black-robed government lawyers with lifetime tenure.

The bigger error, Calhoun wrote, is “the prevalent opinion that a written constitution . . . is sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any organism – except such as is necessary to separate its separate departments, and render them independent of each other – to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and the abuse of power.” The separation of powers would never be sufficient to enforce the Constitution, in other words, contrary to Madison’s theory on the subject.  History has proven Calhoun to be right and Madison wrong on that point.

The party in power – whichever party – will be opposed to the constitutional restrictions intended to limit it.  “As the major and dominant party, they will have no need of these restrictions . . . .  The ballot-box . . . would be ample protection to them.”  (Especially if the party in power administered the elections!).  “[T]hey would . . . regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints; and endeavor to elude them, with the view of increasing their power and influence.”

The “minor, or weaker party,” on the other hand, will make its strict construction arguments for actually enforcing the constitution, but “the party in favor of the restrictions” will inevitably “be overpowered,” wrote Calhoun.  It is folly, he said, to believe that “the party in power” and “in possession of the ballot box” and “the physical force of the country” could “be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution.”

The “end of the contest” would then be “the subversion of the constitution.”

This will occur, said Calhoun, because of a kind of class struggle in society, but not the Marxian class struggle between the capitalist and working “classes.”  Instead, in a democracy “[S]ome one portion of the community must pay in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements; while another receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes.”  Society will be divided into two classes:  net tax payers versus net tax consumers.  “The necessary result . . . is to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who . . . pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds . . .”

The right of suffrage causes this condition and can in no way counteract it.  It does not perfect government but turns it into an authoritarian tyranny of “absolute government” as Calhoun called it.

Echoing Calhoun, economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe described democracy as “a soft variant of communism” in his book Democracy: The God that Failed.  After all, if one single “social plan” is imposed by force on all of society by government (i.e., communism), it makes no difference whether that is done by a dictator or by a legislature.  Socialism is socialism.

In order to generate genuine consent, and not the phony “consent” of electioneering, each portion of the society must be given “a negative on the others,” said Calhoun.  This “negative power” may be called “veto, interposition, nullification, check or balance of power” and this is what makes a constitution a useful tool for societal control of its own government.  It is what makes the people the masters rather than the servants of the state.  He called this idea the “concurrent majority.”

Calhoun was always a unionist and viewed nullification of laws thought to be unconstitutional as an alternative to secession.  In this he was following the footsteps of Jefferson and Madison, authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, respectively, which nullified the abolition of free speech invoked by the Adams administration’s Sedition Act by declaring that it would not be enforced within their borders.  (The Adams administration used its “Sedition Act” to imprison journalists sympathetic to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party and even imprisoned an opposition member of Congress, Rep. Mathew Lyon of Vermont, a member of Jefferson’s party, for criticizing Adams in the House of Representatives.  The Sedition Act declared “malicious” talk about the government to be illegal, with the government itself determining what is “malicious”).

Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, for example, stated:  “Resolved, that the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government” and “[W]hensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”  Madison’s Virginia Resolution said virtually the same thing.  New England, Ohio, Wisconsin, Delaware, and South Carolina would invoke Jeffersonian nullification  on a variety of issues, from banking to immigration policy to trade policy, that they believed were unconstitutional during the antebellum era.

Calhoun also believed nullification would encourage the enforcement of constitutional limits on government by letting the powers that be know that unconstitutional legislation designed by one faction of the country only to plunder another faction could be ignored or nullified, rendering their plundering efforts useless.  Compromise rather than plunder would then be encouraged, he argued. Moreover, with protections of a concurrent majority in place, the franchise could be expanded, wrote Calhoun.

Under simple majority rule, on the other hand, an expansion of the franchise would guarantee and expansion of political plunder by more and more enfranchised factions.  The protections of a concurrent majority would encourage “patriotism, nationality, harmony, and . . . promoting the common good” instead of “faction, strife, and struggle for party ascendancy,” he wrote.  As an added benefit, Calhoun argued, the kind of people attracted to government would be, shall we say, less sleazy and corrupt and more patriotic and public spirited.

Calhoun’s Economic Policies

In the 1820s the South was largely an agricultural society that sold as much of three-fourths of its agricultural products overseas.  Most manufacturing, such as it was, was in the Northern states, and they had been pursuing the Hamiltonian policy of high tariffs and a protectionist trade policy to shield themselves from competition and raise prices.  They also championed what we today call “corporate welfare” or “crony capitalism.”  Their first political success was a tariff increase in 1824 that garnered only 3 of 107 yes votes in the House of Representatives from Southern states and 2 of 25 yes votes in the U.S. Senate.

The South was in agreement with modest “revenue tariffs” of 10-15 percent that would fund the constitutional functions of government, but believed that they were being plundered by high, protectionist tariffs.  Protectionist tariffs forced them to pay significantly more for farm tools, clothing, shoes, and much more, with little benefit from the tariff revenue.  Almost all of the benefit went to Northern manufacturers who, being isolated from international competition, raised their prices and profit levels.  To make it worse for the South, protectionist tariffs impoverished their European trading partners whose profits from American markets dried up.  This made them less able to buy American exports, primarily cotton, rice, and tobacco grown in the South.  This is why Bastiat labeled protectionist tariffs “legal plunder.”

Emboldened by their success with the 1824 tariff and their new-found dominance in Congress, the Northern states then passed the hated “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828 that raised the average tariff rate to nearly 50 percent.  Some items, such as imported woolen blankets, had a 200 percent tariff attached.  The price of woolen blankets and dozens of other items skyrocketed.

Led by Calhoun, South Carolina invoked the principle of Jeffersonian nullification.  An ordinance of nullification was enacted at a political convention that declared the tariff act to be “unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violated the true meaning and intent thereof.”  It was therefore “null, void, no law . . .”  All tariff enforcement in Charleston Harbor was suspended.

President Andrew Jackson threatened to enforce the tariff, but in the end a compromise was reached in 1833 – and secession avoided – with a lowering of tariffs over the next ten years.  Nullification had worked just the way Calhoun explained it should work, as an alternative to secession that could keep the union together by encouraging regional compromise.  By 1860 the average tariff rate was the lowest ever during the nineteenth century – 15 percent.  (But was raised to the 60 percent range by Lincoln and the Republican party, where it remained for the next half century).

Calhoun made many speeches on the subject of free trade with the clear intent of educating the public.  In an 1842 speech he hit the nail on the head regarding the true purpose of protectionism by asking, “Protection against what?  Against violence, oppression, or fraud? . . . .  No; . . . It is against low prices.”  He also pointed out that the tendency of protectionist tariffs is “to make the poor poorer and the rich richer.”

Do the protectionists “ask that a tax should be laid on the rest of the community, and the proceeds divided among them,” he asked.  “No, that would be too open, oppressive, and defensible.”  Squelching competition with protectionist tariffs achieves the same result, but in a much more obfuscating way that makes it easy to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.  It should rightly be called “monopoly” or “plunder,” he suggested.

In that same 1842 speech Calhoun announced his economic ideas to be: “Free Trade: Low Duties:  No Debt:  Separation from Banks:  Economy:  Retrenchment: and Strict Adherence to the Constitution.”  Competition, no deficit spending in peacetime; no collusion between bankers and Big Government; Cutting government spending; and spending only on the items listed as the legitimate constitutional functions of the federal government, in other words.

Free trade was literally “the cause of civilization and peace,” he said.  By “cause of civilization” he meant the benefits of the international division of labor, not today’s corrupt, socialistic “trade deals” with their thousands of pages of regulations written by corporate lobbyists and their political puppets.  That is not free trade but the opposite:  socialist central planning.  The latter point about peace was perhaps best expressed by Frederic Bastiat when he said, “If goods can’t cross borders, armies will.”  People who prosper together through trade and commerce, who become business associates and even friends, are less inclined to wage war on each other.

The “deep state” of his day hated and despised Calhoun for these views and to this day he is demonized and marginalized because of such ideas.  As is Jefferson for that matter, especially by the “court historians” of the academic history profession.

Calhoun’s Foreign Policy

A onetime secretary of war, Calhoun believed that the purpose of national defense is to defend America and Americans from foreign adversaries, not forcing our version of “salvation” on other countries.   He was an anti-imperialist, another reason why the deep state of his time despised him.  Diametrically opposed to Calhoun was John Adams, who wrote in his diary that he considered America to be “the opening of a grand scheme and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth” (emphasis added).  Adams can be thought of as the original “neocon.”  Fast forward several hundred years and one hears his voice in  President George W. Bush promising that his “war on terror” will eliminate evil from the world.

In a speech regarding the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), Calhoun disputed the idea “lately urged in a very respectable quarter” that “it is the mission of our country to spread civil and religious liberty all over the globe . . . even by force, if necessary.  It is a sad delusion.”  At the end of the Mexican-American War there were those in Congress who wanted to essentially conquer and occupy Mexico. To this Calhoun said:  “I am at a loss to see how a free and independent republic can be established in Mexico under the protection and authority of its conquerors.  I can readily understand how an aristocracy or a despotic government might be, but how a free republican government can be so established under such circumstances, is to me incomprehensible.”  He could very well have been discussing the U.S. government’s 21st-century military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of “nation building.”

Calhoun believed that the Mexican war was a Caesar-crossing-the-Rubicon moment.  It was a “deed . . . from which the country would not be able to recover for a long time if ever.”  He wrote to his daughter Anna that “Our people have undergone a great change.  Their inclination is for conquest and empire . . .”   That, he believed, was a mortal threat to American prosperity and freedom.

Calhoun’s Roadmap for a New America?

America is already experiencing a soft secession movement with more conservative citizens leading the way in moving away from the socialist disasters of New York, California, Illinois, and almost all of the big cities run by the hard-Left Democrat party political machines.  They are moving to more conservative or even libertarian parts of the country such as Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Montana, and elsewhere.  (Of course, each of these states also has its islands of “woke” socialism, usually around the state capitals, university towns, and inner cities with large welfare populations).

Peaceful American disunion is inevitable in the opinion of your author.  It may not happen tomorrow or next week, but it will happen.  We are at the end of the road of a country of some 330 million people ruled, essentially, by a few hundred (or perhaps a few dozen) political oligarchs who control one or the other of the two major political parties.  The day will come when there will be a New America and New Americans.  The old America will remain in the socialist hellholes of New York City, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, etc. while the segment of the population that still values freedom and prosperity over tax slavery and imperialism will go elsewhere.  They will take to heart the advice of the author of the Declaration of Independence that when government becomes destructive of the consent of the governed it is the peoples’ right to alter or abolish it and institute a new government more conducive to their safety and happiness.

The ideas of John C. Calhoun, the inheritor of the Jeffersonian political tradition in America, provide a roadmap for these freedom-seeking Americans of the future.  As for the role of government in the new American societies of the future, Calhoun would counsel peace and “a wise and masterful inactivity” that would give all Americans the greatest chance to enjoy prosperity and to live as free human beings.

Thomas Jefferson himself would most assuredly approve of the coming American disunion.  In an August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckenridge regarding the New England secession movement (which culminated in the 1814 Hartford Secession Convention) Jefferson wrote that, should there be a “separation” into two confederacies, “God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

The post Can John C. Calhoun Save America? appeared first on LewRockwell.

New York – I was kicked out of New York’s prestigious Collegiate private school many moons ago for ‘revolutionary and disruptive activities.’

Thank goodness my wise parents sent me to the International School of Geneva, Switzerland where I thrived.

The underground French fascist group, ‘la Main Rouge’ repeatedly threatened to kill me for organizing student demonstrations against France’s colonial war in Algeria.  But I survived.

Being a life-long rebel and hell-raiser, I am naturally sympathetic to today’s pro-Palestinian student protests that are now sweeping American and European campuses.

Students may be poor and too emotional, but they are often filled with repulsions at the sight of mass killing, political brutality, and murderous hatred such as we see today in the prison camp of Gaza.  They have yet to learn the sordid truth about how money can buy indulgences from killing civilians and other war crimes.

Just ask Joe Biden, and British PM Rishi Sunak.  They are continuing to arm and finance Israel’s mass killing and starvation in Gaza for the sake of huge cash donations as elections loom, and the support of ardently pro-Israel voters who are marching to the drum of Israel’s far right-wing government.  The US and British media have been whitewashing the genocide in Gaza and twisting their reporting to justify mass killing of civilians. The New York Times has earned opprobrium by ordering its staff to slant the news it misreports.  This once great newspaper has ruined its reputation.  It reminds of the great Mark Twain’s famous bon mot, ‘If you don’t read the news you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed.’

Let’s be frank.  President Joe Biden, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and their pal Egypt’s despot Abdel el-Sisi are directly responsible for the deaths of 14,000 Palestinian children, almost 35,000 Palestinian civilians seriously wounded, some 2 million Palestinians now homeless, growing starvation and disease across Gaza used by Israel as a refuse dump for unwanted Arabs.  The Biden administration is providing over $14.1 billion in arms to Israel, including the deadly 2,000lb bombs used to crush entire civilian apartment buildings and hospitals, plus tank shells fired at residential targets.  All in clear violation of US arms export laws written by Congress.

Why is Biden the key player in such mass destruction? Why is his UN delegation vetoing resolutions to stop Israeli laying waste to Gaza?  It’s election time coming up.  And because the Democrats get the lion’s share of their finances from pro-Israel sources.

Big money talks. Human rights walk. The US Congress, a sorry collection of used car salesmen, has been bought and sold. What a disgrace for the USA.  The oil Arabs could also have bought Congress, but they were too busy squabbling with one another.

So, while the high and mighty averted their gaze to massacres and famine in Gaza, it was left up to students around the globe to raise their voice in anger over the crimes there. My alma mater, Georgetown Foreign Service, raised a chorus of protests. So too Columbia University and UCLA, Sciences Po in Paris, in fact just about everywhere except Germany, whose people are still paying Israel for World War II. 

Big money donors, who made billions off our rigged financial system, are trying to silence protests over Israel’s wanton cruelty.  Israelis are right to be furious over the killing of an estimated 1,139 Israeli civilians and soldiers.  But killing tens of thousands of innocent Arabs was wildly out of proportion and clearly criminal.

America, Britain, and Canada have disgraced themselves – all for the sake of money.  The Gaza massacre has revealed the US to be a deeply corrupt society.  University students at least helped save America’s honor. They are doing the right thing.  Alas, they do not yet have a Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young band to turn their protests into electrifying music.  Meanwhile, Palestinian children continue to starve or die of disease while Israel ruins its name and paid-for politicians spout lies.

The post Students Go After the Hypocrites appeared first on LewRockwell.

The classical liberal defense of contractual freedom is derived from the principle of individual autonomy. Freedom of contract entails the right to enter into or exit from contracts at will. As Richard Epstein argues in his defense of the contract at will:

The first way to argue for the contract at will is to insist upon the importance of freedom of contract as an end in itself. Freedom of contract is an aspect of individual liberty, every bit as much as freedom of speech, or freedom in the selection of marriage partners or in the adoption of religious beliefs or affiliations (p. 953).

Utilitarian classical liberals, like Epstein himself, who agree with him on the value of individual liberty therefore defend the widest possible scope for contractual freedom. They would only accept limits on that freedom in exceptional cases which Epstein defines as “the infrequent cases in which discharge of the contract at will is inconsistent with the performance of some public duty or with the protection of some public right.”

By contrast, from a natural-rights libertarian perspective freedom of contract is derived from the right to self-ownership: “The right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property” (Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, p. 133). This entails the right to enter into agreements in respect of oneself or one’s property: “the right of property implies the right to make contracts about that property to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the property of another person.”

From a Rothbardian perspective “the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) are those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party [or] where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft)” (p. 133). As Rothbard explains, all rights are property rights, and there are no rights that are not also property rights. From this perspective there is no right to enforce a contract for “public policy” reasons, nor does “public policy” constitute the rationale for why particular contracts should not be enforced.

Nevertheless, in practice there is a great degree of overlap between Epstein’s and Rothbard’s perspectives because libertarian boundaries of property rights (where one person’s property encroaches upon another person’s property) often coincide with the specific types of public policy which Epstein has in mind in his defense of the contract at will. In Epstein’s view “the principle [of the contract at will] must be understood against a backdrop that prohibits the use of private contracts to trench upon third-party rights, including uses that interfere with some clear mandate of public policy, as in cases of contracts to commit murder or perjury.” From a Rothbardian perspective a contract to commit murder would violate the right to self-ownership and a contract to commit perjury would in many cases constitute fraud (implicit theft) so such contracts would violate property rights and there could be no grounds for enforcing them.

The example of promises to marry

To understand the boundaries of enforcing contracts the example of marriage contracts is instructive. The law for centuries treated a promise to marry as legally binding. Writing in 1929, Robert C. Brown observes that “One of the lurid and sensational forms of American court activity is the suit known technically as a suit for the breach of a contract to marry, but more popularly by the simple designation of a ‘breach of promise’ suit.” As Brown highlights, the remedy sought in these cases, as in all cases of breach of contract or tort, was damages as compensation either for losses incurred or for defeated expectations:

…when the term “breach of promise” suit is used, neither lawyer nor layman has any difficulty in understanding what is meant. It is that action dear to the heart of the reporter for the sensational newspaper, which is normally brought by young and attractive but sophisticated women against mature and wealthy men, and where the plaintiff very often wins a competence for life.

If necessary, the courts could even arrest the delinquent party, for example if he seduced a woman and failed thereafter to marry her and haul him to court to account for his conduct. This example arose in the following 1892 case:

…the defendant, by false and fraudulent representations as to the nature and consequences of the act he solicited, and by means of undue influence, taking advantage of the position of the plaintiff as his affianced wife, the trust and confidence thereby obtained, and her absence from her relatives and friends and natural protectors, and her isolation in his home and dependent position there, inflicted this gross wrong and outrage upon her, and thereafter abandoned her, leaving his home for a distant place and refusing to marry her (Hood v Sudderth, Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1892).

It may be morally abhorrent to resile from a promise of marriage after stringing a woman along in such circumstances (such cases were almost exclusively brought by or on behalf of women), but few people in liberal Western society would argue that there ought still to be a legal remedy for breach of such contracts:

Breach of promise, although not actionable in most jurisdictions, is a breach of a promise to marry another; in other words, it is a broken engagement. It is a tort against the breaching party. The principle of breach of promise treats the promise to marry as an enforceable contract which may entitle the non-breaching party to receive damages. However, such an action has been barred in most of the jurisdictions and does not give rise to a valid cause of action.

The marriage analogy is a powerful illustration of what classical liberals mean by individual liberty. As Rothbard observes, “Compulsory marriage is such a clear and evident form of involuntary slavery that no theorist, let alone any libertarian” would insist that people be forced to enter into a marriage simply because they have promised to do so.

By extrapolating from the example of marriage contracts it is easier to see why contracts – other than contracts in relation to property rights – ought not to be legally enforceable. Forcing anyone to be bound by a contract against his will is a form of slavery. If contracts that violate the principle of self-ownership were enforceable then chattel slavery itself could be justified if the slave willingly agreed to it. While a classical liberal would reject that outcome as being against “public policy,” some libertarians wrongly think that in theory, as in Walter Block’s thought experiment, contracts to enslave human beings would be legally binding and enforceable as long as the agreement is entirely voluntary. To the contract absolutist the rationale for not enforcing such contracts would simply be their involuntary character. Unbound by the public policy concerns of classical liberals, contract absolutists make the error of treating freedom of contract as absolute in the sense that any contract is legally binding and enforceable if all parties willingly agree to it. This was the defense put forward in a German case involving a contract between Armin Meiwes and Bernd Brandes to eat and be eaten:

In one of the most extraordinary trials in German criminal history, the self-confessed cannibal admitted that he had met a 43-year-old Berlin engineer, Bernd Brandes, after advertising on the internet, and had chopped him up and eaten him … Crucial to the case is a gruesome videotape made by Meiwes of the entire evening, during which Brandes apparently makes clear his consent.

The confusion surrounding this case arose because of that element of consent: “The unprecedented case has proved problematic for German lawyers who discovered that cannibalism is not illegal in Germany.” This highlights the gravity of the error into which contract absolutists fall, when they suppose that anything people agree to must be enforced without regard to the reason why any contracts should be enforced in the first place.

The importance of self-ownership

The right to private property is derived from the principle of self-ownership which is rooted in human nature and the inalienable liberty and free will of human beings. No human being can consent to be a chattel, much less consent to volunteer himself as dinner for a cannibal. As Rothbard explains:

Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property (p. 133).

To avoid confusion about which contracts ought to be enforceable Rothbard highlights the importance of identifying the reason why contracts other than those involving property rights are not enforceable. He asks: “Clearly, liberty and compulsory slavery are totally incompatible, indeed are diametric opposites. But why not, if all promises must be enforceable promises?” (p. 134). The reason why contracts are not generally enforceable is that enforcing an agreement is incompatible with the other party’s freedom to exit from the agreement at will. We may exhort one another to keep our word and not break our promises as reflected in the old adage that a man’s word is his bond, and people may choose to shun us if we break our promises, but force cannot be deployed to force us to do as we agreed. Agreements may or may not be morally binding, but they are not legally enforceable:

…it may well be the moral thing to keep one’s promises, [but] it is not and cannot be the function of law (i.e., legal violence) in a libertarian system to enforce morality (in this case the keeping of promises) (p. 133).

Based on the right to private property, it can be seen why Rothbard argues that a contract would only be enforceable in a case which amounted to theft or implicit theft (e.g. fraud), as this would entail the enforcement not of the promise itself but of the property rights alienated under the agreement. The simplest example would be a contract to purchase property where the buyer takes possession of the property but reneges on his agreement to pay for it.

Employment at will

Applying this analysis to the employment contract, it is clear that just as we no longer think a husband owns his wife, so we no longer think a master owns his servant or an employer his employee. The contract of employment is simply an agreement by a free person to work in return for a wage paid by another free person. Either party is free to leave the contract at will and has no duty to give reasons or show just cause for doing so. Epstein argues that there are no policy reasons to constrain that liberty and shows that on the contrary public policy falls in favor of the freedom to hire and fire at will. As with the case of the broken marriage engagement, upholding one’s agreement may be the moral and kind thing to do and willful breach of a promise may ruin one’s reputation, but it ought not to be legally enforceable. Thus, the ruling in Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad (1884) was correct:

[M]en must be left, without interference to buy and sell where they please, and to discharge or retain employees at will for good cause or for no cause, or even for bad cause without thereby being guilty of an unlawful act per se. It is a right which an employee may exercise in the same way, to the same extent, for the same cause or want of cause as the employer.

Based on the principle of self-ownership, the libertarian analysis yields the same result. The libertarian rationale for defending employment at will is clear: “there can be no property in someone’s promises or expectations.” (Ethics of Liberty, p. 134).

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post Freedom of Contract and Property Rights appeared first on LewRockwell.

This is an excerpt from David Stockmans book: Trump’s War on Capitalism.

As we have  seen,  The  Donald’s economic policy  actions and nostrums were  thoroughly wrong-headed and  counterpro- ductive. But   the  opposite  assumption—that market capitalism was  working according to the  texts   penned by  Adam  Smith— was also  dead wrong and  had  been  for decades. Today’s bailout- ridden crony capitalism is not  remotely the  real  thing, and  that’s especially because free markets can’t function efficiently and  pro- ductively when  they  are flooded with  cheap credit printed by the central bank.

The  ill effects  of these  perversions are  legion, but  one  of the most  obnoxious is the  massive  financial windfall to  a tiny  elite of the  wealthy and  a concomitant depletion of the  middle class. Ironically, The Donald was  elected and  heralded by  the  latter, but   his  policies did  absolutely nothing to  change the  system’s long-standing windfalls to the rich.

Here is but  one of the smoking guns that can be offered in evi- dence. To wit, in 1989 the collective net worth of the top  1 percent of households weighed in at $4.8 trillion, which  was 6.2x the $775 billion net worth of the  bottom 50 percent of households. By Q1 2022, however, those figures were  $45 trillion versus  $3.7 trillion, meaning that the wealth differential was now 12.2x.

In round numbers, therefore, the top  1 percent gained $40 tril- lion of wealth over  that thirty-three-year period compared to  the mere  $3 trillion gain  of the  bottom 50 percent. Stated differently, there are currently 65 million households in  the  bottom 50 per- cent,  which  have  an average net  worth of just  $56,000. This com- pares to  the  1.2  million households in  the  top  1 percent which currently sport an average net worth of $38,000,000.

Needless to say, there is no reason to believe that left to its own devices  free  market capitalism would generate this  680:1 wealth differential per  household. Indeed, three decades ago—and well before the  Fed went  into  money-printing  overdrive—the per household wealth differential between the  top  1 percent and  the bottom 50 percent was barely half of today’s level.

Back  in  the  heyday of  America’s  post-war prosperity, in  fact, President Kennedy’s famous aphorism that “a  rising tide  lifts  all boats” was repeatedly confirmed. But once Alan Greenspan inaugu- rated the current era of rampant central bank money printing, stock market coddling and  egregious bailouts, the  more  accurate charac- terization is that a rising tide  mainly has been  lifting all the yachts. And it goes without saying that only a teensy-tiny number of MAGA red caps were to be found actually lounging aboard these  vessels.

The  truth is, Donald Trump’s tenure in  the  Oval  Office  wit- nessed the  steepest climb  ever in the  wealth of the  top  1 percent. Nor  is that surprising. The  Donald was relentless in demanding that the  Fed  push interest rates  ever  lower  and  run  the  printing presses ever  faster. Most of the  billionaires, however, have  never bothered to thank him  for the resulting windfall.

There  is no  mystery, of  course, as  to  why  capitalism lost  its historic middle class growth mojo  during recent decades. Or why that occurred even  as  financial markets became bubble-ridden fountains, pumping egregious amounts of windfall wealth to the very top  of the economic ladder.

The culprit was “financialization.” By inducing relentless debt creation and   leveraged speculation,  the  Fed  and   other central banks have  bloated the  financial asset  sector out  of  all  historic proportion to the real economy.

Net Worth of Top 1 percent versus Bottom 90 percent, 1989 to 2022.

Thus,  between 1954 and  the  mid-1990s, total household  finan- cial  assets  oscillated around  2.5x–3.0x GDP, as  tracked by  the purple line  below. But  once  the  Fed’s  printing presses went  into high gear  under the  Greenspan “wealth effects”  doctrine and  the serial  bailouts that flowed  thereafter, the  ratio escalated steadily skyward, reaching nearly 5.0x GDP in 2021.

The  fact  is,  there was  no  sustainable or  sound basis  for  the eruption shown in the chart below. As we indicated with respect to total assets  in Chapter 2, this  ratio amounts to the  price-earnings (PE) multiple for the  entire economy. And since  the  trend rate  of economic growth and  productivity has deteriorated notably sincem the turn of the century, if anything the macroeconomic PE multi- ple should have  been  falling, not  rising.

Nor  is this  eruption of the  de  facto  macroeconomic PE  ratio merely an  academic curiosity. At the  1954–1987  average of 2.7x GDP, household financial assets  in 2021 would have  totaled $64 trillion, not  the actual level of $114 trillion. That  is to say, finan- cialization has  generated upwards of $50 trillion  of extra house- hold financial assets  out  of thin air.  And  about three-fourths of that bloated asset total is held by the top 10 percent of households.

Financialization of the US Economy: Financial Assets as Multiple of GDP, 1948 to 2021.

What has kept the financialization ratio trending skyward was the very opposite of sound, sustainable economics. After 1990 the savings rate  dropped precipitously, even as the debt-to-GDP ratio rose to new heights. America did not  save its way to solid  financial prosperity but  borrowed its way to a fantasyland of phony wealth for the few and  deteriorating economics for the many.

The  cornerstone of  long-term growth and  wealth creation is net  savings from  current economic output. The  latter measures true  savings or  the  amount of  economic resources left  for  new investment in productivity and  growth after  government borrow- ings  have  been  subtracted from  private household and  business savings.

But as to the current trend, fuhgeddaboudit. This measure aver- aged a healthy 7.5 percent to 10 percent of GDP in the  economic heyday before 1980. But  especially after  the  money-pumping era of Greenspan and  his  heirs  and  assigns commenced in the  early 1990s, the net national savings ratio headed relentlessly south. By 2022 the ratio was an anemic 1.0 percent of GDP—a sheer rounding error in the sweep  of post-war history.

Again, the  actual net  national savings in  2022 was  just  $260 billion, but  that figure  would have  computed to  $1.96 trillion at the 7.5 percent net savings rate  of the pre-1980  period.

That  $1.7 trillion of net  national savings has  gone missing, of course, does  make  a huge difference. Gross savings by the private sector had  fallen  sharply, and  then The  Donald came  along and enabled governments to  scarf-up most  of the  available new  sav- ings  to fund massive, serial  budget deficits.

So,  the  obvious question answers itself.  A true  MAGA  policy would have  reversed the  Fed’s  long-standing war  on  savers  via dramatically higher, normalized interest rates, while  at  the  same time  getting the US  Treasury’s sharp elbows out  of the  bond pits by balancing the federal budget.

That  would have  generated the  surge in net  national savings needed to revitalize investment in productivity and  growth. Alas, sound money and  fiscal rectitude were not  terms that the  Donald had  any familiarity with  whatsoever. In fact,  his  stance on  these crucial matters  was  worse   than that of  every  Democrat presi- dent of modern times, starting with  Joe  Biden and  going all the way  back  through Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and  FDR.

That’s right. At the end  of the day, The Donald’s monetary and fiscal  policy  bacchanalia amounted to  an  outright war  on  capi- talist  prosperity. That  alone should disqualify him  from  another berth on the Republican ticket and  term  in the Oval  Office.

The nation can ill-afford four  more  years of The Donald’s apos- tasy  on  the  core  issues  of  central banking and  the  public debt. That’s  because neither public nor  private debts liquidate them- selves  over time. If the   badly unbalanced income/outgo  rela- tionship is  not  addressed, chronic cash  shortfalls from  current operations just  cause  debts to accumulate and  compound.

It is not  surprising, therefore, that during the past  half century the  nation’s combined public and  private debt-to-income (GDP) ratio soared skyward. In fact,  the  150 percent debt-to-GDP ratio which  had prevailed through the  1970s  went  vertical thereafter, reaching 358 percent by  the  time  of  the  Great Financial Crisis, where  it remains stranded to this  day.

As it happened, once the Fed got into  the money-printing busi- ness after  1970, everybody joined the debt accumulation parade— governments, businesses, financial institutions, and  households, too. Accordingly, the  $1.7 trillion of total public and  private debt outstanding on  the  eve of Nixon’s dollar default in August 1971 rose to $10.7 trillion upon Greenspan’s arrival at the Fed in August 1987;  and  it then reached $50.0  trillion on  the  eve of the  Great Financial Crisis in late 2007, stood at $66 trillion when The Donald was sworn in, and  totters at just  under $95 trillion at present.

In  effect,   continuous  Federal  Reserve money-printing  has resulted in what  amounts to a massive  national leveraged buyout. Just during the thirty-six years since Greenspan took over the Fed, total public and  private debt (i.e.,  held  by households, businesses, and  financial institutions) has  soared by a factor of 9.2x.  By con- trast, America’s  nominal income (GDP) rose  by just  5.6x during the same  period.

Again,  we are not  talking about mere  academics. Had the  red line in the chart remained at its 1.5x level of historic times, which ratio was pretty much constant all the way back  to 1870 and  which had  accompanied the  greatest century of  economic growth and middle-class prosperity in human history, the  nation’s total debt today would be about $40 trillion.

Accordingly, the  aforementioned actual figure  of $95 trillion means that the  main  street economy is now  lugging around an incremental debt burden of $55 trillion. And  that’s  why aggregate economic growth and  middle-class prosperity is faltering badly.

Yet,  did  Trump—the King of  Debt—have a  clue  during his presidency or after?

He most  definitely did  not.

National Leverage Ratio: Total Debt to GDP, 1947 to 2022.

In fact,  real  economic growth has  dropped from  a trend rate of 3.5 percent per  year  before the  turn of the  century to  barely 1.5 percent per  annum since  then. And  the  reason for that is real fixed private investment has stopped growing because the meager private savings available have  been  channeled into  private specu- lation and  public debts.

Since  the  year  2000, real  net  fixed  private investment—which strains out  the  inflation and   the  annual depreciation from  the gross  investment figures—has dropped  from  $933 billion to  just $621 billion during The  Donald’s final  year  in office.  Relative to national income, this  figure  plunged from  7.1 percent of GDP at the turn of the century to 3.4 percent in 2020.

Stated differently, main  street has  experienced a continuing deterioration in the  share of national income being plowed back into  new  investment—the motor fuel  of growth and  rising pros- perity. But  then again, Donald Trump’s MAGA  notwithstanding, the 1 percent did  get their yachts.

Real Net Private Investment  Percent of Real GDP, 1997 to 2020.

The Sound  Money Road Not Taken

Had he accepted it, the true  mission of the Low Interest Man was to  make  the  dollar good as gold again. That  meant big  budget surpluses, high interest rates, a tumbling stock  market, the end  of financial engineering in the C-suites, and  the painful sweating out of inflation that became embedded over the last several  decades in wages,  prices, costs,  house prices, and  much more  on main  street.

Those  were the things which  draining the Swamp was actually all about.

But none of that was in The Donald’s DNA. Not  even remotely. Nevertheless, deflationary austerity  was  and   remains  the   only viable  alternative to  the  failed  spend, borrow, print, and  inflate economic policies of  the  Washington  uniparty—the embedded groupthink apostasy that Donald Trump embraced with  unre- served gusto.

The  truth is, all of today’s maladies—low growth, high infla- tion, a shrinking middle class, and  the concentration of vast wind- fall  wealth at  the  tippy-top of  the  economic ladder—stem from the  central bank’s basic  modus operandi. That  is, the  Fed’s  over- whelming presence in Wall  Street money and  capital markets via massive  bond-buying, interest rate  pegging, yield  curve  manipu- lation and  price  keeping operations designed to prop-up equities and  other risk assets.

This   modern  form   of  Wall   Street–centric central banking has  been  an  abject failure and  not  just  because it is anti-growth, pro-inflation, and  deeply biased in  favor  of the  super-rich, who own  most  of  the  financial assets  which  have  been  inflated to  a fare-thee-well. Its even more  fatal  defect is that it led to near  total capture  of the Fed by  Wall  Street operators, traders, speculators, and  their shills  in the financial press.

The result was crony capitalism in capital letters. And that put the Eccles  Building at the very epicenter of the Swamp.

There  is no  mystery as to  why  this  is the  case—even  crediting the arguably good intentions of the twelve people who serve on the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee). With every Fed meeting there are extant literally tens of trillions worth of bets that have been placed by Wall Street’s fast money-operators based on the expected FOMC policy  announcement. The latter include changes in money market rates  by as little  as twenty-five basis points, guidance on the monthly rate of bond-buying or selling to the nearest $5 billion, and hints in the post-meeting statement and chairman’s press conference as to  what  hairline maneuver the  FOMC might undertake at  the next  monthly meeting and  in the months immediately beyond that.

In a word, the  rise at the  Fed  of what  Alan  Greenspan called “the   wealth effects  doctrine” has  fundamentally changed Wall Street. In days  of yore  it invested based on  the  facts  embedded in the flow of business and  financial information on the free market. But  now  it trades overwhelmingly on the  flow of monetary policy tweaks coursing through the  brains of the  twelve  FOMC mem- bers  and  a handful of  Wall  Street gurus who  attempt to  divine their latest revelations and  intentions.

Accordingly, the Fed dare  not  disappoint the momentary Wall Street consensus because its  entire “policy transmittal” process works  through the Wall Street–centered financial markets, not  the main  street banks and  S&Ls of times  gone by. Under today’s Fed model, prices in the  money, bond, stock, and  real  estate markets are actually the  transmission mechanism which  purportedly con- veys the Fed’s policy signals and  intentions to main  street.

So, for want  of a better term, Wall Street has the FOMC by the short hairs. And it never  lets go. Doing Wall Street’s short-term bid- ding at  meeting after  meeting after  meeting leads  to  nothing less than permanent policy capture of the Fed by traders and speculators.

And  we  do  mean traders, not  investors. In theory the  latter were   historically happy  with   honest  market-based  pricing  of financial assets  on Wall Street and  a convertible dollar linked to a fixed  weight of gold. After  all,  old-fashioned “investors” were  in the  business of picking profitable investments for  the  long-haul based on the intrinsic facts of the instrument in question.

That’s  not  the  case  with  today’s Wall  Street traders. Not  by a long  shot. To  the  contrary, they  make  their money through Fed subsidized carry  trades or  options market positioning based on zero or negative cost of capital in real terms, and also via artificially low cap  rates  (i.e.,  long-term interest rates  and  their reciprocal in the form  of higher P-E ratios). So if you are invested in assets  that are appreciating due to rising valuation multiples and  are funding them to the tune of 80 percent or more  in zero cost overnight debt markets, it is truly  a case of shooting fish in a barrel.

This proposition cannot be overstated. Dwelling down in the canyons of Wall  Street cheek-by-jowl with  the  traders and  specu- lators, the  members of the  FOMC lose all contact with  the  long- term  trends they are  fostering through their day-to-day capitula- tion  to the demands of the fast money. For instance, the overnight interest rate  (Fed funds and  money market rates  which  track it) is of little  use to main  street because prudent businesses do not  wish to finance either fixed  or short-term capital in overnight markets that can  be  here  today and  gone tomorrow in  terms of rate  lev- els, conditions, and  availability. And that’s  for the obvious reason that their funded capital—buildings, machinery, inventory, receiv- ables,  etc.—is not  highly liquid or capable of being monetized at book value  on a moment’s notice.

Besides, their capital stock  is designed to  support the  long- term  capacity of an  enterprise to  produce goods or  services. It’s not  there to be liquidated in order to pay  off short-term funding that can’t be  rolled over.  So the  Fed’s  number one  policy  tool— the  Fed  funds rate—is  essentially irrelevant  to  the  main   street economy.

But  in contrast to main  street businesses, Wall  Street traders’ books are  far  more  liquid, meaning that assets  can  generally be quickly liquidated, even  if it  involves a mark to  market loss,  if funding is interrupted. It also means traders are inherently incen- tivized to  borrow short and  cheap and  to  invest  in  longer term assets  with  more  yield  and  and/or appreciation potential. In this context, therefore, cheap carry  trade finance is the  mother’s milk of speculative riches.

As it turns out, during the  years  of egregious money-printing, the  inflation-adjusted or “real”  cost  of carry  trades has  been  neg- ative  during the  preponderance of time. For  instance, during the 108  months between February 2008  and  Trump’s arrival in  the Oval  Office,  the  real  federal funds rate  was negative every  single month. And  when  that span is extended out  to  the  present—184 months—the data shows  it  has  been  negative 96 percent of  the time.

So, if you were a fast money operator on Wall Street you made profits by borrowing on the money market and  rolling it over day after  day,  even  as the  longer-duration assets  being funded were producing higher yields  or better rates  of appreciation and  there- fore a positive spread on the carry.

In the  great scheme of things, this  was damn near  criminal. It showered Wall  Street speculators with  hideous riches, and  pro- vided a giant incentive for  capital and  talent to  flow  into  finan- cial speculation. And also, for the corporate C-suites to indulge in massive  financial engineering—huge stock  buybacks, overvalued M&A  deals,  leveraged recapitalizations, etc.—in  lieu  of  produc- tive investment on main  street.

The  latter point cannot be  emphasized strongly enough. The Fed’s day-by-day Wall Street coddling, subsidizing, and  price-sup- porting  actions have  turned the  capital markets into   a  casino where  short-term trading is everything, and  investing for the long run  is hardly an afterthought.

Unfortunately, stock  options–endowed  corporate executives cannot resist  the  resulting temptation to get  richer quicker. That is, the  opportunity to goose options’ value  via financial engineer- ing machinations that generate stock  price  gains  in the short-run, even  as  they  undermine long-run earnings growth through too much debt accumulation and  too little  investment in plant, equip- ment, technology, and  human capital.

A succinct word for  this  perverse process, of course, is finan- cial strip-mining.

The  question therefore recurs. How did  the  monetary policy mechanism work before the Fed fell into  bed with Wall Street after Greenspan’s post Black  Monday bailouts in October 1987? And why  in  those now  forgotten earlier times  did  the  US  economy thrive just  fine absent the  heavy  hand of Fed  micro-management of the nation’s total GDP?

The  answer is that even  Volcker  did  not  target interest rates or  attempt  plenary management of  the   GDP.  His  goal   was the  restoration of  sound money and  returning goods and  ser- vices inflation to  absolutely minimal levels.  Likewise, the  great William McChesney Martin before him  had  no pretense that he and  the  FOMC were  running the  US  economy. He knew  that was the  job of businessmen, investors, savers,  workers, consum- ers, and  even  speculators pursing their own  best  interest on the free market.

In short, for the  Fed’s  first seventy-three years  of existence up until Greenspan’s arrival in August 1987, its modus operandi had not strayed too far from the original vision of its legislative author, Congressman Carter Glass. The latter’s vision  was that the  Fed’s purpose would be to safeguard sound money and  to ensure that the  commercial banking system remained liquid as the  US  econ- omy  expanded in  the  normal course or  encountered temporary rough patches from  time  to time.

But   the   watchwords  were   sound  money and   a  well-func- tioning banking system. The  pre-Greenspan Fed  was  not  in  the jobs,  growth, housing, business investment, and  2 percent infla- tion  business. All that claptrap was  invented by  Greenspan and his  heirs  and  assigns based on  the  excuse  that the  misbegotten Humphrey-Hawkins mandates of 1978 made them do it.

The  latter did  not—there are  no  rigid inflation or  unemploy- ment targets in the  legislation, just  a motherhood-type aspiration for  full  employment and  low inflation. But  the  Fed’s  subsequent mission creep into  outright monetary central planning has  now gone so far that the damage can only be undone by returning to a strict  Carter Glass  approach to central banking.

That  is to say, the  one  decisive reform that is needed is to jet- tison the  FOMC and  all  activist day-to-day Fed  intervention in financial markets and  return to a passive discount window modal- ity.  That  shift  and  that shift  alone would rescue the  Fed  from  its captive status deep down in the bowels of Wall Street.

To  be  very  clear,  under this  alternative monetary regime the banking  system could  get   liquidity when   it  was  needed, but only  at  a penalty spread above a market-driven floating rate  at the  Fed’s  discount window. Under a revived Glassian model the money market, not  the FOMC, would set the discount rate  based on  the  supply of  savings and  the  demand for  borrowings. And the discount window would be open for business one commercial bank-borrower at a time,  day in and  day out.

There  would be  no  monthly Fed  meeting drama—endlessly amplified by financial TV—about the  Fed  funds rate  and  level of bond-buying. Nor  would there be a massive  concentration of bets (i.e.,   front-running) around the  Fed’s  expected action because policy-action would be delivered in tiny fragments and  via contin- uous pricing bits at the market-driven discount window, not  via a “breaking-news” flash on bubblevision ten times  per  year.

Moreover, the  remit of  the  Fed   under the  Glassian model would be strictly limited to support for  commercial bank liquid- ity. Period. The private economy would take  care of growth, jobs, and  the  other elements of  GDP. And  White House bullies like LBJ and  Donald Trump could huff  and  puff  at length about eas- ier money, but  to no  avail  because there would be no  FOMC or monetary politburo to heed their wishes.

At the same time,  there would be no financial bubbles or main street goods and   services   inflation, either.  That’s   because the mechanism by  which  the  Fed  fosters financial bubbles and  CPI inflation—artificially low interest rates  and  inflated financial asset prices—would be disabled.

The  vast  unearned  windfalls garnered  by  the  super-rich in recent years  were  not  the  natural product of capitalism at  work. Bubbles happen when  the  central bank subsidizes debt and  cod- dles  speculation. This inherently attracts talent and  capital to the speculative trading pits,  leading to  even  higher asset  prices and ever larger speculative bubbles.

However, under a  Glassian model, attempts  at  debt-fueled speculation  would self-correct. That’s  because the  interest rate at  the  discount window would automatically rise  in  response to surging demand for  credit, and  appreciably so.  That  was  effec- tively  demonstrated by  the  Volcker  interlude in  the  early  1980s when  Tall  Paul essentially enabled the  Fed  funds rate  to  find  its own  market-clearing level.  It did—at  22 percent in the  face of the virulent inflation that had  been  unleashed by the  money-printers during the previous decade.

At the  same  time,  the  banking system would not  be left  high and  dry.  But  instead of  validating the  Wall  Street canard that discount window borrowing is a bad  thing because it taints the reputation of the bank obtaining the  Fed  advance, such  discount borrowing would become par  for  the  course. It would become the  one  and  only  source of sound money liquidity injections into the  banking system to support real  growth and  productive main street investment.

In the historic monetary literature this was called a “mobilized discount rate.” This  kind of  free-ranging market rate   not   con- strained by the  Fed’s  heavy  foot  would choke off excess  demand for credit, and  do so long  before today’s plague of Fed-subsidized financial asset  inflation had  time  to build up a head of steam.

One   more   feature of  a  restored  Glassian discount  window model is crucial and  would guarantee that its  modus operandi would be  non-inflationary at  the  CPI level,  as well.  Glass  never intended for the  Fed  to be in the  business of buying and  holding Uncle Sam’s debt paper, thereby subsidizing the government bor- rowing rate  and  encouraging the  politicians to run-up the  public debt. Government debt came to dominate the Fed’s portfolio only by the accident of enlisting it to finance WWI.

By contrast, Congressman Glass  was  a believer in  what  was called the “real bills” doctrine back  in the day.  In simplified terms it held  that bank loans  backed by already produced goods (i.e., finished inventory or receivables paper due  for settlement within a set period such  as ninety days) were the  only  suitable collateral for loans  at the Fed discount windows. Accordingly, when  the Fed printed new  money to  advance a discount loan  to  a commercial bank member, the  associated collateral would signify  that new supply of goods had already been  brought into  existence to match with  the expanded credit.

To be sure,  the  real bills  route to Fed  liquidity support for the banking system was not  perfect. But it stands head and  shoulders above the  current defective arrangement where  the  Fed  creates endless amounts of new credit by buying government paper with- out  regard to the supply-side of the economy.

For  this  to  work  in the  present era  only  one  change would be needed, and  it  would bring the  Fed  inflationary money-printing spree  and  endless showering of windfall wealth on  the  1 percent to an abrupt hall.  A present day Glassian Fed would accept only secured commercial loans as collateral for new Fed credit. It would therefore cap its current holdings of federal debt and guaranteed housing paper at the present $8.3 trillion level and undertake a fixed plan of paydown.

For  example, as long  as it was fixed and  irrevocable, the  Fed’s current rate  of $95 billion per month of government debt liquida- tion  (called quantitative tightening or QT) would result in an end game  of  zero holdings of  government and  GSE  paper roughly seven  years  down the  road. Under that scheme the  Fed  would never  buy  another US  Treasury bill,  note, bond, or  guaranteed GSE  security, ever again.

Accordingly, the  Fed’s  heavy-handed price  supports for Uncle Sam’s  debt emissions would end  and  legislators would have  to service  the  public debt in the  bond pits  out  of private savings at honest market rates. Upon the  Fed’s  ending of public debt mon- etization, therefore, yields  on  Treasury paper would soar,  caus- ing profligate spending by the  Washington War  Machine and  the domestic stimulus racketeers to come  to an abrupt halt.

That   would  also   end   the   current  inflationary  disconnect between excess  demand fueled by  US  Treasury debt monetized by the Fed  and  the available supply of goods and  services. Under a Glassian discount model, Say’s Law would prevail: new supply would come  into  being first and  only then could new central bank credit follow.

Equally important,  the  cavalcade of  money-printing central banks that have  enabled the  collapse of America’s  trade accounts and industrial economy would undergo a decisive volte-face. Dollar- denominated interest rates  would rise, causing the dollar’s FX rate to  sharply strengthen. And  that would be  unrelenting bad  news for the  mercantilist exporters, which, as The Donald so unartfully described it, were stealing production and  jobs from  America.

More precisely, these  great mercantilist production machines have had  one Achilles  heel all along. Namely, they converted their dollar-based imports of  energy, metals, and  myriad other com- modities into   processed goods and   finished manufactures and components, which, in  turn, were  resold to  the  US  and   other advanced economies at a profitable mark-up. However, were these goods converters to allow  their currencies to abruptly collapse in the  face  of  a  newly  hardened dollar, their domestic economies would face  gale-force inflation as the  domestic currency cost  of imported supplies soared.

At length, China and  the  other mercantilist exporters of the world would need to  severely  tighten their monetary policies by raising rates  and  shrinking their own  domestic money supplies. This  would be  necessary in  order to  support plunging FX  rates and  thereby counter the  severe  imported inflation that would be generated by a strong global dollar. Even  then, local wages would have  gone up  with  rising domestic inflation, while  debt service and capital costs would also rise owing to higher interest rates and credit scarcity. In short order, the  artificially competitive advan- tage  that had  materialized during the  Fed’s  money-printing era would be substantially vaporized.

In a word, a sound dollar has been  the  key all along to revers- ing the  accumulating main  street disaster in trade, industrial pro- duction, jobs,  and  middle-class incomes. And yet, Donald Trump was and  remains surely  the  most  pig-headed dollar-trasher to rise to the top  of American politics. Ever.

The current roadblock to fixing  the  Fed,  and  therefore fixing the  American economy and  restoring sustainable prosperity,  is that the  conservative party in America has  come  under the  thrall of a dangerous protectionist, statist bully, and  monetary quack. Unless he  is sent  to  the  showers decisively there is literally no hope for  an  outcome that does  not  end  in  financial, fiscal,  and economic disaster.

The post The Rising Tide Which Lifted All the Yachts appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I was still in graduate school and still in my early twenties, I was riding on the airport shuttle to an event at the Mises Institute when I encountered an interesting phenomenon. It was the phenomenon of the “libertarian” who is free-market in the small stuff, but embraces war and statism in the big things.

I still remember that shuttle ride well. I had become involved in a discussion with a man who was probably twenty years my senior. He was on the way to the same Institute conference, and was expressing the usual free-market sentiments about low taxes and the problems with government regulation.

When the topic turned to foreign policy, however, freedom and the evils of the state were quickly forgotten. This man ended up singing the praises of Washington’s interventions in Central America and in its illegal arms sales to Iran. That is, he sided with the neoconservatives who had perpetrated the Iran-Contra affair. This self-described libertarian was lamenting that the Reagan administration had been caught illegally spending federal money while meddling in wars in both the Middle East and in the Americas.

When I suggested that illegally fomenting foreign wars was not exactly compatible with a “limited” state or even constitutional government, he then reverted to a well-worn tactic often used by older men who lack a real argument: he said I was too young to understand.

Now that I am at least as old as that man was then, I’ve been around long enough to have encountered many people like him. It is easy to find libertarians who will act on principle on the small, easy topics, but will then abandon all principle on the big stuff.

What is the small stuff? It’s things like smoking marijuana, rent control, prostitution, and ride-sharing. At libertarian conferences and in online discussions, it’s pretty straightforward and easy to oppose government regulation of taxi services, or to denounce rent control, or be against locking up women—most of whom are poor—for accepting money in exchange for sex. These issues, however, are generally rather peripheral to state power. To remove state action from these areas does little to endanger the state or its core powers. To favor restraints on state power in these topics, we might say, is to be a “microlibertarian.”

The big stuff is another matter. It’s those more controversial topics like war and peace, geopolitics, and—as we have learned in the past several years—”pandemics.” These topics are much more central and dear to states and their agents. As Charles Tilly noted long ago, “war made the state and the state made war.” Or, as Randolph Bourne put it, “war is the health of the state.” Murray Rothbard has explained how the issue of war is at the very heart of any efforts to defend freedom and human rights.

Moreover, we have recently seen how regimes employed many of the same propaganda and fear-based tactics employed in wartime in the name of “fighting the pandemic.” Many of the same policies employed during wartime were employed during the covid panic: embracing “emergency powers,” demanding total obedience to “experts,” and accepting near total state control over entire sectors of the economy. In both wartime and pandemic-time we are told that state power cannot be limited, because otherwise the “enemy”—whether an imagined foreign bogeyman or a disease—will win. There are far fewer libertarians willing to embrace true laissez-faire and freedom in these cases. But such immovable stalwarts do exist. We might call this smaller group of libertarians “macrolibertarians.” They stick to defending freedom even when it comes to the big, controversial stuff.

Your average microlibertarian will quickly surrender his liberties and defer to state power in an effort to combat the “threat.” The supposed defenders of freedom in “peacetime” or “non-pandemic time” will happily explain to you why free-markets work “in theory” sometimes, but that the really important stuff like “national interest” and “public health” require government control.

In the case of pandemics, for instance, some microlibertarians even embraced vaccine mandates. Walter Block, for instance, has called for the death penalty for those who refuse a vaccine mandate, writing:  “Would I compel the 60 percent to get the vaccination on libertarian grounds? You’re darn tootin’ I would. Not so much to save them. That would be paternalism. But, rather, in order to save the lives of the 40 percent who are vulnerable. If any member of this 60 percent refused this vaccination, I would execute him as threatening mass murder of 40 percent of the population.”

Things are even worse for microlibertarians when it comes to foreign policy. This was often found in the refrain “I agree with Ron Paul except on foreign policy” during Paul’s presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012. The sentiment expressed a common position: “I think the state is bad on some things, but I’m not really interested in confronting the major issues at the core of state power.”

Historically, of course, we have seen a precipitous decline in the popularity of libertarian ideology whenever the regime has managed to whip the public into a war frenzy. Perhaps the most salient and recent example of this is what happened after 9/11. During the 1990s, anti-government sentiment grew throughout the decade as many Americans in the post-Cold War world recognized that the American state was a far greater threat to them than any group of foreigners. That, of course, largely evaporated after 9/11 as countless self-described advocates for “small government” embraced warrantless spying, torture, and endless war.

We see a similar phenomenon today with both the Ukraine War and the State of Israel’s war against Gazans. The microlibertarians over at the CATO Institute, for instance, fired Ted Galen Carpenter because he wasn’t sufficiently enthusiastic about perpetual war between NATO and Russia.

When it comes to the war in Gaza, leading microlibertarian Block has encouraged the “heroic Prime Minister Netanyahu” to be more aggressive in his efforts to “pulverize” women and children in Gaza. Are there any limits on the Israeli state in this view? Not so long as the “threat” needs to be stamped out by strong state action.

In these cases we see the microlibertarian position in action: limits on state power work for the small stuff, but not for the big stuff. Consequently, the powers and prerogatives most central to state power—and which offer the greatest threats to the lives and freedoms of ordinary people—get a free pass.

This isn’t to say that the “small stuff” is unimportant. Of course it is good and important to condemn rent control and the drug war and the countless ways that states impoverish and control us. I have written on many such topics myself and have published many articles on these topics on mises.org. Rothbard certainly did not ignore these topics. On the other hand, to oppose rent control while also favoring the mass murder of 100,000 civilians is not simply a matter of having some minor “blind spot.” It is an enormous contradiction.

To take this position is to refuse to hit the state where it hurts. It reflects a fundamental complacency when it comes to murderous and despotic state power so long as that power is used during alleged “emergencies.” This is any extremely common position, of course, and many well-meaning people embrace it. Those who do, however, are effectively neutralized when it comes to opposing the issues most dear to states and their agents.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post The Problem with Microlibertarianism appeared first on LewRockwell.

The first thing to know about Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.’s’ book Our Enemy, the Fed is he’s giving it away.  Click the link, get your copy and read the whole book.  Clearly, such intellectual charity is not only rare but in the educational spirit of Mises.org. The subject matter is light-heavy but Woods, author of the bestseller Meltdown (reviewed here), navigates it with the smooth skill of a master, making the reader experience satisfying from beginning to end.

The title reflects another insight, paralleling as it does Albert Jay Nock’s Our Enemy, the State.  Most of us were raised to believe government and its agencies serve our best interests.  As libertarian scholarship has shown the truth is the exact opposite, particularly with government’s sleazy relationship with money and banking.  Admittedly, it’s a hard idea to accept since it involves a pernicious breach of trust, but Woods makes it abundantly clear.  To our overlords we are easily-duped chattel.

Until Ron Paul decided to run for president and his End the Fed came along in 2009, the general public was mostly blind to the Fed’s existence.  Austrians aside, the few who knew something about it — mostly university-trained economists on the take from the Fed — considered it a vital part of an advanced industrial economy.  Yet the Fed had been around for 96 years when Dr. Paul’s book emerged.  Given that it’s in charge of the money we use how did it remain in the shadows for tax-burdened citizens for nearly a century?  What’s up with that?

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tells us the Fed’s congressional assignment is “to promote maximum employment and price stability.” (Bold in original)  For these it talks about interest rates, and its aim is to increase the money supply so that prices rise gently at or around a 2% rate.

How gentle is a 2% rate?  After 10 years of 2% monetary inflation, it would take $121.90 to buy what $100 bought in year one.  But that’s over a decade, and you might not notice it unless you’re one of the hungry poor not on welfare.  The Fed’s inflation of the money supply has been ongoing since it began operations in 1914, draining 96% of the dollar’s purchasing power.

On what planet is a 96% devaluation considered stability?  Its real purpose is to inflate then assure us it makes good sense.  Never mind the boom – bust cycle it creates along with the debauchery of our currency.  We’re being gaslighted.  Where did all the newly-created money go?

Dr. Paul, who had a long career in Congress whose confrontations with Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have become legendary in libertarian circles, tells us:

Law permits this highly secretive, private bank to create credit at will and distribute it as it sees fit.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve can blatantly inject in a public hearing that he has no intention of revealing where the newly created credit goes and who benefits. When asked, he essentially answered, “It’s none of your business,” saying that it would be “counterproductive” to do so.  [My italics]

The picture I get is of people in a hideout somewhere — in this case, the FOMC meeting in the Eccles building in Washington, D.C. — cranking out money then injecting it into the economy in some mysterious manner, while telling us in Keynesian doublespeak their operations keep us safe and prosperous.  Is it really hard to fathom that those in charge might be up to no good?

Woods comes out swinging

After defining the Federal Reserve System — the Fed — as the American central bank enjoying “a government-granted monopoly on the creation of legal-tender money,” Woods proceeds to evaluate the Fed from a broad or macro perspective.

What exactly did the Fed fix?  Christina Romer who served under Obama as Chair of his Council of Economic Advisors found that “recessions were in fact not more frequent in the pre-Fed than the post-Fed period.” Even comparing the periods of 1796-1915 to post-WW II — thus omitting the Great Depression of 1930-1945 — “economist Joseph Davis finds no appreciable difference between the length and duration of recessions as compared to the period of the Fed.”

Woods takes us back through American history to see how banking and credit developed.  Government, which has no money of its own, befriends ones that have it.  During the period between the expiration of the first Bank of the US and the creation of the Second Bank of the US — 1811-1817 — the government granted banks the privilege of expanding credit unsecured by deposits while allowing them to tell depositors attempting to withdraw their money to “come back in a couple of years.” While banks could be charged with legal counterfeiting and embezzlement, Woods does not use the terms.  In fact nowhere in the book does he use the words “counterfeit” or “embezzle.”

When the Second Bank of the US started inflating in 1817 it created the Panic of 1819.  He writes:

The lesson of that sorry episode — namely, that the economy gets taken on a wild and unhealthy ride when the money supply is dramatically and artificially increased and then suddenly reduced — was so obvious that even the political class managed to figure it out.

Many inflationists before the panic became hard-money believers after.  Condy Raguet and Daniel Raymond, a disciple of Alexander Hamilton, became hard-money advocates and wrote books on economics.  John Quincy Adams cited the hard-money Bank of Amsterdam “as a a model to emulate.”

But the inflationists persisted and pushed for more government intervention, and one in particular: Unit banking.

In the nineteenth century, nearly all American states instituted a regulation known as unit banking, which limited all banks to a single office. No branch banking was allowed, whether intrastate or interstate. The obvious result was a very fragile and undiversified banking system in which banks could be brought to ruin if local conditions turned sour.

Fractional-reserve banking is a major cause of bank panics. But the US went further.  Other countries did not “cripple their banking systems” with unit banking laws.  Canada, in particular, had no unit banking laws and no banking panics.  The Bank of Canada did not emerge until 1934.

As Milton Friedman was fond of pointing out, although the Great Depression claimed over 9,000 American banks, the number of banks that failed in Canada at that time was zero. American bank panics, it turns out, were in large part the result of government intervention — in the form of unit banking — in the first place.

Yet it was the market and the imposed pseudo-gold standard that took the blame, and Americans got Hoover’s meddling then FDR’s New Deal.

Later in the book Woods mentions the hands-off approach to the depression of 1920-1921, “which saw unemployment shoot up to 12.4 percent and production decline by 17 percent. Wholesale prices fell by 56 percent.”  And the Fed kept its printing press quiet.  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the depression was over by the summer of 1921.

Falling prices are bad?

One of the strongest parts of Woods’ book is his treatment of deflation — falling prices.   It is only in the inflationary world of larcenous economics that falling prices are the “It” to be avoided.

A few of the points he makes:

— Increasing the money supply to support increased production is a fallacy.  “Any supply of money can facilitate any number of transactions.”

— The money supply under a hard money system grows “relatively slowly, and the supply of other goods and services increases more rapidly. With these goods and services more abundant with respect to money, their prices fall.”

— The claim that people would stop buying things if they knew prices would fall ignores the fact that people “value goods in the present more highly than they do the same goods in the future. This factor offsets the desire to wait indefinitely for a lower price.”

— If deflation is anticipated entrepreneurs and the firms they deal with would adjust their bids accordingly.

— With the increase in money’s purchasing power people could save simply by hoarding.

— Who’s hurt the most by deflation?  The power centers in society — government and Wall Street.  We hear hysteria over deflation because it hurts the establishment the most, “and only the mildest concern about inflation, which hurts everyone else.”

Conclusion

Tom Woods has published another gem and is giving it away.  The war we’re fighting now depends for its outcome on sound information and, as always, personal integrity.  Never forget, the Fed has to go.  His book provides much of the intellectual ammunition needed to neutralize the enemy and avoid repeating the mistakes that brought us this mess in the first place.

The post Woods Targets the Fed appeared first on LewRockwell.

A commenter on my blog was questioning my antisemitism and in support of Israel sent me a link to an article from the Gatestone Institute wherein they claimed Qatar was funding US Universities.  Therefore, the barbarian Muslims were Bad and Israel Good. The point was to prove to me that Muslims are interfering in our colleges which should be a violation.  The President of Gatestone, Nina Rosenwald, is Jewish and a self-described, ‘ardent Zionist’.  She was on the Board of Directors for AIPAC and the Jewish Institute for National Security in America (JINSA).

And there my research did backflips.

JINSA was founded in 1976, 3 years after the Yom Kippur War in Israel.  Its original stated purpose was to make sure that America could produce adequate military supplies for Israel.   In the 1980’s JINSA widened its focus to “general U.S. defense and foreign policy, with missions and meetings with national leaders and officials in:    Ethiopia, Belgium, South Korea, India, Bulgaria, Italy, China, Hungary, UK, Germany, Costa Rica, Spain, Eritrea, Jordan, and Ukbekistan. 

Known for its very Hawkish military views, JINSA works directly with US military officers and the Department of State – aka Blinken.   Facilitating the media propaganda, JINSA writes the op-eds and ads to promote Zion ideologies.  In 2002, JINSA created LEEP, wherein US police and Sheriffs are taken to Israel to teach them ‘techniques for countering domestic terrorism in the US’.  As in the IDF style tactics, training, and strategies are then utilized by US police and security in tactical defense, interrogation and abuse.

Each fall, a member of congress is given the LEEP Award which has a fair number of neoconservatives, including;   Cheney, McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Robert Gates – Secretary of Defense 2007 – among others.

In other words, JINSA is running the US military and Congress.   JINSA works alongside the NGO, Foundation For Defense of Democracies (FDD).  FDD is an Israeli lobby group working in the US to direct the US government’s Affairs.  Funding sources have included;  Bernard Marcus, Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, The United Arab Emirates, Roland Arnall, and William Rosenwald Family Fund (Gatestone Institute Nina’s Daddy) – among others.

In 2023, FDD, along with other US-based think tanks, was alleged of running a defamation campaign against the regional rivals of the UAE and creating false terrorists, including Iran, Qatar and Turkey.  The organization has been criticized for spreading Islamophobia rhetoric.  They tell Netanyahu what to do.   They initiate Middle East wars and use US weapons to do their bidding in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, and now Russia.

FDD convinced Mike Johnson to pass the Ukraine funding bill ~according to their website.   I withdraw my apology.

In the latest transcript issued by FDD on April 22 – Ukraine and Russia were the topic.  Rear Admiral Retired, Mark Montgomery:  “I’d also like to point out that in the Ukraine provision there is a nice little nugget, in addition to the $3 billion-plus in Foreign Military Financing for Ukraine, there’s $1.6 billion for Eastern European countries, and this acknowledges that Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania particularly have jacked up their spending well above 2%, each of them closing in or exceeding 3%, recognizing the Russian threat right there.”

Translation:  American Taxpayers funded Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania’s military budgets for NATO via the Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan Funding Supplement.

While discussing the Israel War, Saudi Arabia is considered a potential ally to the West to counter Iran and Palestine.  Having watched the US, UK, France, Israel and Jordan’s combined efforts to take out Iran’s 300 missiles/drones, the thought is that Bin Salman was so impressed he would like to gain access to that weaponry, an alliance, and gain the iron dome system which can repel incoming attacks ~ per FDD.

While Qatar was once an ally of the US and Israeli governments, most recently the FDD has proposed clipping ‘Qatar’s media wing’, al Jazeera, because they are peddling propaganda and interfering with the Israeli/US agenda.  As such, the FDD anticipates wholly censoring the outlet.   As in banned.  Like Tik Tok.   Like any media that doesn’t tow the line of Feed.  In an act of monumental hypocrisy, the Department of Justice is trying to force al Jazeera to register as a foreign agent – something the Zionist AIPAC or any other lobbying group, media organization or NGO run by Israel – has failed to do.

The US Arsenal For Democracy.  A phrase coined by FDR wherein military funding was bumped from $24 million to $700 million an increase of 2916% over night wherein peaceful manufacturing was suddenly converted into the Military Industrial Complex.  And has bludgeoned into a trillion+ – and incited nearly every war to justify the spending.

The FDD transcript details that the current funding for Ukraine was definitely Mike Johnson – they have no intention of letting Ukraine lose and have already set up the ammunition and weaponry that will defeat Russia after Russia depletes its weaponry in 2024 via an offensive campaign.   Ukraine to play the Tortoise.  Anticipating a ‘long war’ discussions included using Mike Johnson in 2025 to push thru another package while encouraging more ‘stiff republicans’ to travel to Kyiv so as to experience Kyiv’s generosity and sway their vote to HAWK.  Trump is mentioned as an outlier who has little effect or control.  Defending Israel against its five neighbors and defending Taiwan against Xi Jinping are considered doable concurrently if necessary.  The hope is that Jinping will be pushed into a corner whereby Taiwan in exchange for not helping Russia is a critical stipulation/blackmail.

Blinken just returned from his China visit an embarrassment of attempted blackmail.  Either drop Russia or we will tell the world we have proof of election interference.  It appears Xi kicked out Blinken.

There is already an apportioned amount in the 2025 US Funding bill for Ukraine with the ability to add more via supplemental funding bills approved by – Mike Johnson.  In addition, there are other resources that are siphoned from different departments:

Mark Montgomery:  “So I think you could see some US AI money and even some of the State Department I&L money. That’s the International Narcotics Bureau over at State, which does the border patrol support to Ukraine.”  US border patrol is in Ukraine.

Full Circle.

The Israeli complex of Control over US Military, US Congress, US policy, US debt, US allies and enemies is in full spectrum hegemony.   Has been for decades – at least.  They drive what America does militarily, societally, within the media landscape of propaganda, censorship, and Congressional action and opinion – Governed by – the Israeli COMPLEX.  And this information is available should any person stumble upon its source – as did I.  Via a relatively innocent commenter referring me to the Gatestone Institute…

Reprinted with permission from Helena-The Nationalist Voice.

The post Israel Owns Our Military and Congress via NGO’s FDD & JINSA appeared first on LewRockwell.

So we know from previous sources that – – –

With National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68), signed by president Harry S Truman on September 30, 1950, That Thing That Lives in Washington D.C. decided to continue using the manufacture of military materials to pump-up the economy. That’s called “military keynesiansm.“

– – – that ten years later, President and Five-star General Dwight Eisenhower caught a glimpse of the result and warned us like this – – -

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-congressional complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” –Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address 1961, Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

– – – and that as President Harry S. Truman, who created the CIA confessed – – –

“Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there’s nobody to keep track of what they’re up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they’ll have something to report on.” –Pres. Harry S. Truman

So in its insatiable craving for conflict, somewhere in the deepest darkest recesses of its profit-hungry self-serving memetic existence, the Military-Industrial-CIA part of what’s now called the Deep State, realized a Dastardly Villain was essential to con the public into being taxed to pay for its murderous habits.

So the CIA branch got busy creating villains — and, as Mr. Truman pointed out, making their own wars too. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq — you get the idea. As General Wesley Clark revealed, they were even hatching plans to take down seven countries in five years – – –

And so, as a result, as PhD and CIA operative Chalmers Johnson managed to point out — in a foreign publication — as long ago as 2008, Military Keynesianism directly and indirectly, supported approximately 40% of the U.S. economy. Just for example, Boeing (bombers, military choppers etc.), Lockheed-Martin (fighters, choppers, missiles, etc.), Raytheon (Cruise missiles etc.) even GM (tanks, etc.) counted on their military sales to survive.

So much for President Eisenhower’s warning.

To heck with it. We need a goddam villain!

And so when push came to shove, those fellows fixated on the low hanging fruit. That would be Russia. They were figuring with all the 1960s free Hollywood hype and propaganda– James Bond for example — “we” would fail to make the distinction between the former communist Soviet Union and modern capitalist Russia. Were they right?

Those fellows also conveniently “forgot” Russia had learned the hard way that voluntary exchange in open markets beats heck out of communism. And further, that their leader Vladimir Putin regularly referred to us as “Our friends and partners in the West” — because he and the Russians were making money hand-over-fist by engaging in voluntary exchange with us and our European sidekicks.

Whistling past the graveyard, however, those fellows conveniently disregarded the fact that while maybe low-hanging, Russia is still a thoroughly nuked-up fruit. And for good reason, the Russians don’t trust NATO.

And central to that distrust is the potential five-minute ICBM missile flight-time from the mutual Russia/Ukraine border to Moscow. With Ukraine in NATO, that would put Moscow’s retalitory nukes in “launch on warn“ mode, leaving no time to straighten out any mistakes, technical glitches, misunderstandings, etc., risking WWIII and the end of the world.

Look, you don’t build multi-billion-dollar gas pipelines if you’re intending to screw-up your customers. And you certainly don’t blow them up.

So by 2023, “we” were already well on our way to a Quickstart of The Final World War.

Even Joe Biden recognized it – – –

Biden Says Risk of Nuclear ‘Armageddon’ Is Highest Since 1962 [Cuban Missile] Crisis –The New York Times

So, how have things been going since?

Here are a few points you might consider – – –

James Rickards: Ukraine’s Starting To Get Dangerous, Putin Doesn’t “Bluff”

UK to Give Ukraine Depleted Uranium Shells Despite Russian Warnings

Putin warns the West a Russia-NATO conflict is just one step from World War Three | Reuters, March 17, 2024

And this analysis of the Ukraine situation – – –

Heading Towards Armageddon! –Larry Sparano and Paul Craig Roberts, April 3, 2024

And then there’s this refresher as to what we have to look forward to – – –

Facing Nuclear War –Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD, April 6, 2024

And where we came from – – –

Still M.A.D. After All These Years? –L. Reichard White

And finally, a light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe. And it’s more like a kerosene lantern. And someone has to light it – – –

Preventing a Nuclear War –Alasdair Macleod, March 29, 2024

One of the things Mr. Macleod suggests that might stop WWIII would be to crash the dollar which would first show-up as a jump in the price of gold.

And, according to CNBC, “Gold shatters record roof, heads for third straight weekly gain on buying momentum”

That “record roof” would be $2,368.90 per ounce as of April 15, 2024, 3:27 AM, up an unprecedented $400 in the last three weeks.

So maybe, if they can hold things off till Trump gets re-elected. If he does – – –

If Trump Had Been Sworn-in Instead of Biden, Would There Be a War in Ukraine?

The answer to that question is, “Almost certainly NO!” Because he and Mr.Putin see eye-to-eye on the horrors of nuclear war.

On the other hand, That Thing Living in Washington D.C. is sending another $60.8 billion in Stupid Kill Money to Ukraine, guaranteed by sanctioned Russian money.

And Poland, a member of NATO, is apparently already sneaking some of its troops into a Ukraine “operation zone.”

Poland Sending Troops Ahead of Deployment in Ukraine –Zaporozhye Region Official

According to the NATO treaty, “an attack on any member is an attack on all members” and that commits all NATO members — including That Thing That’s Living in D.C. — to join the battle.

And, if faced with such an “existential threat” Putin [in person] says Russia would use nuclear weapons –YouTube

How about if Biden immediately appoints Mr. Trump as a special envoy to Russia?

Fat chance, right?

Well, maybe Mr. Putin will have enough patience to wait and see if Mr. Trump gets re-elected again.

Unless you have other suggestions, the Quickstart is right on schedule.

As I tell my friends, “Don’t look at the flash!”

HERE for updates, additions, comments, and corrections. AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!

The post Don’t Look at the Flash! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Free speech only comes into its own when you freely consent to hear what you hate to hear.

When everyone is singing from the same songbook, it sure may sound mighty sweet – but it is not free speech. It then becomes a type of cackle of congregating geese or perhaps even the synchronized song of several robins of early spring, singing the same song together. Except for the robins themselves (or perhaps even for them!), this would become insufferably boring after the first full flush of amorous feeling.

It is the multitudinous, different tones and timbres and pitches of birdsong that has been the stuff of the poet’s longing and the spurned lover’s consolation when he walks in the woods alone. In comparing the song of the skylark to that of the nightingale and several other choristers of the skies and choosing one (Shelley, the skylark) or the other (Keats, the nightingale), we may join the poet in the exercise of free choice that follows the exercise of free speech.

For those of us who have resolved to fight the good fight of freedom, for those of us who believe in the right to protest and the right to free speech, we must support free speech anywhere, everywhere, even in our universities. Especially in our universities.

We don’t have to agree with those who protest. We may even detest their views with all our hearts. But we of all people must uphold their right to protest. To protest in peace is a fundamental right. It follows from the right to free speech and it is deeply indebted to our Christian civilization and the bequeathing to us of the ability to choose life or death, blessing or curse, for ourselves.

The present, widespread turmoil in American universities is not new. It follows a glorious tradition of civil disobedience and protest which has inspired generations of Americans. Quintessentially, Americans have seen themselves as blessed among the nations in their ability to protest in the hallowed grounds of their institutions of higher education and exercise their “first amendment rights.” That ancient incubator of new ideas which is the university, has nowhere seen as much of the ever present tension between free speech and tyranny, as in America.

The people of the Western world are coming round to the idea at last, that children in Gaza must be protected from harm – from having their limbs and faces blown off, from being burned and incinerated by bombs dropped from the skies; from undergoing ampuations without anesthesia; from being orphaned and seeing adults dying slow, painful deaths all around them; from dying of hunger and thirst; and from being shot and bombed to death themselves -with 15,000 of them killed so far, in the space of just six months. Normal people, who have not lost their common humanity cry out in despair and shake their fists with anger at the powers that have allowed this demonic travesty to happen. And most people, upon witnessing what is happening to the trapped children in the besieged, bombed and battered city of Gaza are, (in the words of Roger Waters, the Pink Floyd frontman), “on the edge of tears.”

But the cowardly powers behind the throne seem to think they can literally get away with murder. The chicken hawk Speaker of the American House has lately put his satanic stamp upon sending 61 billion dollars to the killing fields of Ukraine (where 300+ billion dollars to Ukraine so far has not stopped the Russian advance) and several billion dollars to Israel, which will be used to kill more children in Gaza with American bombs. The world was treated to the curious spectacle in the august hall of Jeffersonian democracy a week ago, when, after unleashing the dogs of war, members of congress started waving little Ukrainian flags no less! Mr. Blinken, America’s secretary of state is acting like a blinking, blundering, but dangerous fool – and there is no coherence or common sense at all that comes out of the mouths of our “leaders” – Trudeau, Biden, Sunak, Macron, Scholz, all seem to be under an evil spell.

Students in numerous American universities have now decided that enough is indeed enough – and for the last week, have been protesting peacefully in Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Berkeley, Emory and numerous other universities. Tyrannies feel particularly threatened by peaceful student protests, since they know that nothing short of brute and crude force will be able to suppress them (temporarily). They also know from recent history that American student protests spread with an organic intensity and fervour from university to university – and then to the public at large. And when American students have spoken their free speech with just cause, the tyranny knows that a whole generation of people have been inspired to stand up for liberty, for freedom, for peace over war and for love over prejudice and hate. The tyranny trembles at the sounds of students marching or camping in protest.

Read the Whole Article

The post Free Speech in American Universities appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last Sunday’s Demonic Flooding of America was so popular, this is its companion piece, a fleshed-out examination of the Head of the Snake, the cabal that is behind the Great Reset, the Covid and Global Warming hoaxes, and every profit-bonanza-war of the last thirty, if not 500 years, but especially Ukraine.

They call themselves by a proliferation of names: the Olympians, the Elect, Bilderbergers, the 300, demi-gods, the Black Nobility, other silly secret names that must not be spoken. They are secret because their intent is evil. They practice the occult – foolish and irresponsible – they are “Masons” of the crazy branch, a cult that operates entirely in the dark and entirely for themselves. They are as power-hungry as Hillary Clinton and far more corrupt than she or Biden or his dreadful son. They have been around for a thousand years, laughably tracing their bloodlines back to Sumer and the Pharaohs and they think that is important. In fact, who they are is Hunter Biden, he is their id, the visual manifestation of their disgusting decadence and sexual compulsion. Hunter, to my mind, was brought into their cult and went mad with the drugs, the blood drinking, the killing and the sexual sacrifices, the intimacy rites that fuel their power.

I wish I was kidding. I wish like hell this wasn’t true.

What I am attempting is to skirt the depths of paranoia by using real world data, and actual documents, as well as planning that is in the public domain and established fact. I am using personal experience in order to real-world it. So many writers in this area tip over into the unprovable, and of course, this is deliberate, yet another foul psyop run on the defenceless and innocent.

I grew up in the richest neighborhood in Canada, Westmount, and in the old money summer place of Canada, or one of them. We were part of them and not. My parents heritage was American, originally, which was a count against us. Both ancestors arrived in Connecticut in the 1630’s when there were a mere handful of settlers in the River Colony and 375 years later, they somehow found each other.

This is how rich the neighborhood was: my second-favorite boarding school roommate’s family house was a castle numbering 50,000 square feet.

This is how close we were to MKUltra and Allan Dulles: That house, Ravenscrag, was given to Allan Dulles and psychiatrist Ewan Cameron, after the family’s four sons died in the second war.  That house was where my mother was used as an experimental subject in MKUltra.

My favorite boarding school roommate’s husband’s father ran the McConnell Foundation as his charity. The McConnells, who owned the Montreal Star among other things, invited the Rockefellers, the CIA and MKUltra to town, contributing to the project of running the first mind control experiments on non-consenting human subjects, including their own wives. This too is established fact, well documented.

Here’s the question everyone asks. How did they get so cruel? How can these men and women, their heirs, bent on forcing the Great Reset, imprisoning everyone in 15 minute cities, chipped, monitored, and fed chemical stew, justify themselves?  How did the top run of health professionals see Covid for what it was, as they had to, and yet go along with the vaccines, knowing, as we now know they knew, how dangerous, how lethal they are. It is impossible to view Edward Dowd’s latest disability figures, look at his projections of illness and death down the line and not think this was a deliberate cull.  Another example of their barbarity, their murderous intent.

I’ll tell you how. They have contempt for nearly everyone. They are so rich and so privileged, and in the case of the people I grew up among, long-held privilege, that they see humans outside their circle as herd animals to be manipulated. I know that because that is how they speak deep inside their world and for six sentient years and eleven years of childhood, I was there in this extremely social world, a string of parties reaching to the horizon every year, listening to every word, divining every thought. The kids mirrored their parents. No outsider can get into that world, so they were safe expressing their contempt for lesser humans. There were so many rules to follow that people were judged on the tiniest of movements, attitudes, the way you walked, ate, spoke. The necessary exquisite manners acted like a fence. It took a good decade to learn the right table manners, which had to be so automatic you could only learn it in early childhood. They could spot outsiders within ten seconds and  instantly exclude them. Among themselves, they spoke freely. Why was it so secret? Because breeding was a principal subject of casual conversation. Bloodlines. And the art of keeping that wealth and privilege. And hate. Contempt.

By the time I left, I loathed their vicious, adamantine selves more than I can say, and if we, my family, were a part of it, I foreswore them. I rejected everything.

After my first book was published, my father gave me my great-great-grandmother’s memoir fragment. I was so traumatized by what had happened to my parents, that I fell into it like a warm bath. I think I met her, Charlotte Phelps St John, when she was ancient and I was four. It took place in my grandmother’s apartment building, one of those vast echoing stone buildings where we used to warehouse the prosperous elderly. She, my great-grandmother, and my great-aunt were in town visiting and they wanted a look at me, the first girl born in the family for two generations.

Everything you have been told about the founding of America is a lie. Especially the role of women. These four women were so powerful, so profoundly, deeply rooted in themselves and their own proven virtue, I’ve not met a modern human male or female that comes close to their banked power.  For 350 years, they and thousands of families like them, ordinary, not “bloodline”, had been building towns, churches, schools, and infrastructure across the continent. In their towns, they knew when someone was in need, and they were there, face to face, helping, through their churches, their clubs and societies. Intimate. Not performative bullshit charity. Right up against it, solving actual problems, helping real people, not fending them off onto “government”.  My great-great-grandmother’s parents and grandparents had been Officers on the Underground Railroad, and their entire family was a fountain of charity. You were judged as an adult on that contribution, not on the money you made. My great- grandmother had started the Vancouver General Hospital, a multi-billion dollar enterprise today, in a tent with her friends from church. All of them were cornerstones of the culture, fully responsible adults.  Her grandson, my great-uncle and his wife were the same. If they were alive, there would be no way in hell that Vancouver would be a sickening hub of child sex trafficking, money laundering, and drugs. We have lost all of that. All of it.

How?

It was taken from us. That strength had to be broken, and the Fabians, the Huxleys and H.G. Wells, to use names that you’d recognize, invented the system of thought that propels the war on us. The thinking started pre-WW1, and flourished, bloomed and metastasized after WW2, when the optimism and creativity and power of the US flew its flag high. They, the Rockefellers, the Bilderbergs, Kissinger, the Black Nobility of Venice, Bank of International Settlements, the owners of the New York Fed, ancient European families who hold American debt, and a hundred others, determined to break US industrial society, to reduce it to its former peasantry, to immiserate its population in order to control it. If America had grown from the 50s, it would have broken their power and their wealth.

And most of all, they hated America’s optimism, its ‘can-do’ attitude, its brazen confidence that did not bow to any man.

Read the Whole Article

The post They Break Every Family, Every Country appeared first on LewRockwell.

Looking over the last lines of T.S. Eliot’s fabled Four Quartets, the great masterwork on which his reputation rests, one sees in the final movement of the poem a striking reminder of that which we do well never to forget. It is the knowledge that, in this life certainly,

We shall not cease from exploration, 
And the end of all our exploring 
Will be to arrive where we started 
And know the place for the first time.

What Eliot is trying to tell us, it seems to me, putting it in a less poetical fashion, is that the end will always be found in the beginning, and that when we finally do come to the end, it will have been granted to us so that once more we may return to the beginning. But not in a way we might have expected. That is because all too often, as Eliot says elsewhere in the poem,

We had the experience, but missed the meaning, 
And approach to the meaning restores the experience 
In a different form, beyond any meaning 
We can assign to happiness. 

And so the only reason for us to set out at all is so that we may go back to where it all began. Only this time, please God, renewed, repristinated. And thus we may truly come to know the place for the first time.

And what is that place but the half-remembered innocence we lost so very long ago, before the serpent insinuated its poison into the fruit, leaving us bereft in a fallen world where circumstance and sin force our minds to recognize that,

The whole earth is our hospital 
Endowed by the ruined millionaire,
Wherein, if we do well, we shall 
Die of the absolute paternal care
That will not leave us but prevents us everywhere.

And who is the “ruined millionaire” but Adam, in whose fall we sinned all. Which is why it is the world before everything fell apart that we most long to return to, the place to which we are most drawn. “Who indeed would think himself unhappy not to be a king,” asks Pascal in the Pensées, “except one who had been dispossessed?”

It is because we are all deposed kings and queens that we retain, however dimly, memories of what had once been. Why else are we hollowed out on the inside if not to leave room to pine for the world we left behind, the vanished Eden we cannot completely rid our memories of? “The heart is restless,” St. Augustine assures us, “until it finds rest in Thee.” And how does the soul achieve such repose? It is not self-generated, that’s for sure. It is pure gift, due to the overflowing largesse of God. As always, says Eliot, “A condition of complete simplicity

(Costing not less than everything)  
And all shall be well and 
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one. 

Read the Whole Article

The post On Beginnings and Endings appeared first on LewRockwell.

“If you care about your country . . . read Ludwig von Mises.”
– UFC Fighter Renato Moicano, Las Vegas, April 13, 2024

The thirty-eighth annual Mises University, where I have lectured for more than thirty of those years, will be held from July 28th to August 3rd at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.  Year after year, student attendees from all over the world tell us that it was the best week of their school year; that they learned more about the economic world in that week than in four years of college; that they would love to come back next summer; and that they will urge their friends and classmates to apply next year.

Mises University is the world’s leading instructional program in Austrian economics.  Staffed by some of the world’s leading Austrian School economists, all of whom are excellent speakers and teachers, students attend lectures and discussions all day long for a week where they learn all about how markets work, competition and monopoly, value and utility theory, money and banking, business cycles, the organization of industry, economic history, the philosophy of science, financial economics, and much more.

After the first two days focusing on the core principles of Austrian economics the rest of the week is filled with dozens of elective classes on myriad subjects ranging from socialism, minimum-wage laws, and political cronyism to protectionism, “wokeness” and Big Tech, economics of regulation, economics of bureaucracy, energy economics, medical care economics, the economics of war, and much more.  A highlight of the week will be a special “mystery speaker.”

The list of topics is so broad because, as Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action:  “Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything.  It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.”  Indeed, Mises believed that it was the “civic duty” of “all reasonable men” (and women) to not rely only on the pronouncements of the “experts” but to educate yourself and essentially become your own economist.  Not to become a “scholar,” necessarily, but a better citizen who has familiarized himself with economic principles.  Mises University is the best place in the world to do that, or to jump start an academic career in the Misesian/Rothbardian tradition of the scholarship of freedom.  Indeed, many of today’s Mises University faculty were themselves students at Mises U. during their college years.

Thanks to the generosity of Mises Institute supporters there is no registration fee for students who are accepted.  The only cost is driving to Auburn or getting yourself to one of the nearby airports (Atlanta, Montgomery, Columbus, Birmingham) and taking a taxi or shuttle service to the Auburn University Hotel.  Students receive admission to all sessions, accommodations for seven nights, three meals a day, transportation to and from the hotel to the Mises Institute each day, and refreshment breaks.

In the spirit of meritocracy and capitalism there is an optional exam at the end of the week where the top student as chosen by a faculty examining committee receives the Doug French scholarship prize of $2,500; second and third place students receive the Kenneth Garschina prizes of $1,500 and $750 respectively.

So, dear LewRockwell.com readers, consider getting the college students in your lives – in any discipline – to apply to Mises University.  The deadline to apply to the best week of their year is June 24.

Register here. 

The post Attention LewRockwell.com Readers! Treat the Students in Your Life to The Best Week of Their Year appeared first on LewRockwell.

The leading investment strategies of the day are:

• The university investment model, currently emphasizing non-marketable investments, which I pioneered but which has now become too crowded.

• Momentum investing, in which you or your algorithm buy whatever seems to be going up.

• Indexing, also a form of momentum investing because most index funds are capitalization weighted.

• Risk Parity, which tries to realize equity like returns from fixed income through leverage, although this has faded after the 2022 debacle.

For some time we have had a Momentum Market, both in stocks and some commodities. What had gone up has continued to go up, in some cases a lot. Despite exceptions, especially in recent weeks, it has now become commonplace for large companies ($10 billion or more market capitalization) to enjoy price to sales ratios of 20-97x sales.

There are many examples of momentum driven, manic markets: the years leading up to 1929, 1973, 2000, and 2022. Not all stocks were expensive, but the momentum stars were hyper-expensive.

Then as now, corporate executives were selling. The executives may not be selling directly to their own shareholder “bosses,” but given the high level of company share repurchases, the net effect may be the same.

Some Math from the Dot-Com Bust of 2000

The worst Momentum Market bust was of course 1929 and aftermath. Investors buying in at the top then would have had to wait half a century for their market values to catch up with a portfolio of treasury bills, although far fewer years if dividends were reinvested. What about the dot-com bust in 2000, the one following a tech driven market eerily like our own? How bad was it?

Bear market change, March 27, 2000 – October 9, 2002:

• S&P 500: -49.03%

• Nasdaq: -82.84%

But is this the whole story?

The bubble had looked like it might be bursting in 1998:

July 20, 1998 – October 8,1998:

• S&P 500: -18.97%

• Nasdaq 100: -22.99%

Then the Nasdaq in particular staged a spectacular comeback:

October 8, 1998 – March 27, 2000:

• S&P 500: +58.83%

• Nasdaq 100: +316.76%

What if you had invested in Nasdaq in the first half of 1998? Yes, you would have taken a hit in the second half, but you then would have experienced the huge gains of 1999 before falling into the 2000 collapse. How would you have  fared under that scenario:

 (First half of 1998 high to end of bear market) July 20, 1998 – October 9, 2002:

• S&P: -34.40%

• Nasdaq: -44.92%

What if you got really lucky and came in just after the 1998 correction but before Nasdaq soared 300%, then held on through the dot-com bust?

October 8, 1998 – October 9, 2002:

• S&P: -19.04%

• Nasdaq: -28.48%

So even a 300% gain for Nasdaq shortly before 2000 would not have protected you from the major loss that followed.

Many of the stars of the dot-com era fell forever in the bear market of 2000. A few barely survived, remained in the wilderness for many years, then eventually returned as members of today’s Magnificent Seven (or Six or Five or whatever it has now morphed into.)

For example, Amazon rose 21 times from the beginning of 1998 to its 1999 peak, fell 92% from 2000 to 2002, essentially returning to where it started. By the end of 1999, Microsoft had a market capitalization of $620 billion based on a $33 share price, $20 billion in sales, and a 38% profit margin. After the collapse in 2000, it took fourteen years for the share price again to hit $33.

Buy and Hold?

This implies that buy and hold might not be a rewarding strategy for new investors or new money. On the positive side, major opportunity awaits on the far side of a bust.

This originally appeared on HunterLewisLLC.com.

The post How Bad Could It Get? appeared first on LewRockwell.

This is an excerpt from David Stockmans book: Trump’s War on Capitalism.

As it happened, the US Congress acted like greased lightning, enacting the  $2.2 trillion CARES act  virtually sight unseen just  eleven  days  after  The  Donald’s March 16 press  conference initiated the  Covid lockdowns. The  bill  was over  eight hundred pages long and included a more ostentatious cornucopia of spend- ing authorities and  free stuff than had  ever before been  imagined in even the  most  profligate quarters of Capitol Hill. This tsunami of money amounted to roughly $6,000 for every man, woman, and child  in America, or 45 percent of all federal government expen- ditures in 2019.

The money was literally shoveled into  the US economy in mas- sive dollops with virtually no eligibility standards, qualification pro- cesses, and  enforcement/accountability procedures. This included:

• $425 billion for the Federal Reserve to support business loans and  bailouts.
• $75 billion for direct subsidies to airlines and other industries.
• $350 billion to launch what became the notoriously corrupt SBA-operated Paycheck Protection Program (PPP for small  businesses).
• $300 billion to fund checks amounting to $3,400 per family  of four, going to approximately 90 percent of the US population.
• $250 billion mainly for the $600 per week unemployment insurance benefit on top  of normal state  program benefits averaging $355 per  week.
• $150 billion in walking-around money for state, local, and tribal governments.
• $140 billion for a sweeping, open-ended array of public health programs.
• Tens of billions more  in special interest pork of every kind, shape, and  purpose.

Not  surprisingly, The  Donald did  not  hesitate to  take  credit for this  grotesque act of fiscal malfeasance:

We are marshalling the  full power of government and  society to achieve victory over  the  virus.  Together, we will endure, we will prevail, and  we will WIN! #CARESAct

Signing Ceremony for The Most Grotesque Act of Fiscal Malfeasance in American History.

The   budgetary  outcomes  were   truly   astounding—especially when  the  second Covid Relief  bill  signed by The  Donald in Dec- ember 2020 and  its extension and  companion, Biden’s American Rescue Act enacted in March 2021, are  added to the  total. In all, Washington enacted $6.5 trillion of Covid-relief measures in barely 365 days.  This figure  was nearly 50 percent larger than the  entire federal budget—defense, social  security, education, Medicare/ Medicaid, interest and  all the rest—in  the pre-Covid year of 2019.

That’s   right. Trump ignited a  grotesque outbreak  of  fiscal recklessness far worse  than anything GOP orators had  inveighed against since  the  time  of FDR. And  much of this  spending erup- tion   was  recorded in  the  government data series  for  personal transfer payments. The latter is posted monthly and  at annualized rates, thereby capturing in real  time  the  impact of Trump’s fiscal cyclone ripping through the US economy.

The  annualized run   rate   of  government transfer payments, including the  state  and  local  supplemental portions, posted at a normal level  of $3.15 trillion in February 2020. So that’s  the  pre- Covid baseline. But after  the sight-unseen $2.2 trillion CARES act was enthusiastically signed into  law by The Donald in late March, it erupted to a $6.42 trillion annualized rate  in April.

Thereafter a  second wave  surged the  transfer payment rate to  $5.682 trillion in  January 2021 when  the  second relief  act  was signed by The Donald in December, followed by a final burst at an annualized rate to $8.098 trillion in March 2021 owing to Biden’s American Rescue Act.

But even in the case of the latter, the driving force was completion of the $2,000 per person stimmy that The Donald had  advocated in the run-up to the election, which  had  been  only partially funded in the  December legislation. And this  stimmy completion came  along with  extension of unemployment toppers and  other expenditures that had  been  originated in the two earlier Trump-signed measures.

This  was the  very  worst  kind of government spending explo- sion  imaginable. That’s  because transfer payments are inherently inflationary poison when   they  are  funded by  new  government debt which, in turn, is monetized (purchased) by the Fed,  as these clearly  were. This kind of regime of spend, borrow, and  print pow- erfully gooses demand without adding an iota  to supply.

Ironically,   therefore,   Trump-O-Nomics   was   the    epitome of  anti-supply side.  It was  a stark repudiation of  the  theory of Reaganomics, and  far, far worse  in its practical impact on federal spending and deficits  than the accidental ballooning of the public debt on the Gipper’s watch.

None of this  fiscal madness, of course, would have  been  even remotely plausible without the  utterly unnecessary lockdowns. Even  then, however, no real Republican would have  signed legis- lation authorizing such  massive  transfer payments if they  were to be funded exclusively with  borrowing and  money-printing.

The Donald did so, of course, and there is no mystery as to why. Trump has  no  fiscal policy  compass at all. So, it was a good way to quiet what  otherwise would have been  a fatal  political uprising against the  public health martial law that his administration had imposed during an election year.

That’s  the  real  irony of the  story. When it comes  to  the  core matter of fiscal discipline, The Donald was no disrupter at all. He was  actually the  worst  of the  lot  among the  last  half-century of Washington spenders, and  by a long  shot, too.

Annualized  Rate of Government Transfer Payments, 2017 to 2021.

For avoidance of doubt, here is a longer-term perspective, reflect- ing  the  year-over-year rate  of  change in  government transfer pay- ments going back  to 1970. That  was shortly after  the  Great Society legislation had kicked off today’s $4 trillion per year flood of transfers.

To  appreciate the  veritable fiscal  shock that issued from  The Donald’s pen,  it needs be  noted that in  the  last  quarter of 2019 the Y/Y gain in government transfer payment spending was about $150 billion, which  was consistent with  the longer-term trend.

However, by Q1 2021 that Y/Y gain had  soared to $4.9 trillion. Again,  that was the delta, not  the absolute level. That  is to say, the year-over-year gain  from  The Donald’s Covid Relief  Bacchanalia was 33x larger than the pre-Covid norm!

And, no, you can’t blame this inflationary time-bomb solely on Biden as the MAGA partisans insist, although Biden would surely have  signed the  two  early  COVID-bailout measures had  he been in The Donald’s shoes  during 2020.

But  that’s  just  the  point—The Donald is a paid-up member of the Washington uniparty when  it comes  to government spending. All of the  hideous excesses of the  Covid bailouts were  launched on  his  watch, signed into  law  with  his  pen,  and/or legitimized with  the  imprimatur of an  ostensible Republican president. The American Rescue Act  was  just  the  final  installment of  Trump’s unhinged Covid spend-a-thon.

After all, the  overwhelming share of the  $6.5 trillion of Covid spending consisted of  $2,000+  stimmy checks   to  90  percent of the  public, the  $600 per  week  unemployment toppers, the  mas- sive Payroll Protection Program (PPP) giveaways, and  the  flood of money into  the  health, education, local  government, and  non- profit sectors. Every one of these  items was blessed by The Donald twice  before Sleepy  Joe reclaimed these  measures as the  Dem  big spenders’ apostasies that they  actually were.

Needless to say, the Covid bailouts were not The Donald’s only fiscal  sin.  When you  compare the  constant dollar growth rate  of total federal spending during his  four  years  in  the  Oval  Office with  that of his recent predecessors, it is evident that The Donald was in a big spender’s league all of his own.

Trump   Shoots  the  Moon:  Y/Y   Change  in  Government  Transfer  Payments, 1970–2021.

In constant 2021 dollars, for  instance, the  federal budget grew by  $366 billion per  annum on  The  Donald’s watch, a level  qua- druple the  big  spending years  of Barack Obama, and  nearly 11x higher than during the 1993–2000  period under Bill Clinton.

Federal  Spending: Constant 2021 Dollar Increase Per Year:

• Trump, 2017–2020:  +$366 billion per annum.
• Obama, 2009–2016:  +$86 billion per  annum.
• George Bush the Younger, 2001–2008:  +$136 billion per annum.
• Bill Clinton, 1993–2000:  +$34 billion per  annum.
• George Bush  the Elder, 1989–1992:  +$97 billion per annum.
• Ronald Reagan, 1981–1988:  +$64 billion per  annum.
• Jimmy Carter, 1977–1980:  +$62 billion per  annum.

The  same  story  holds for  the  annual growth rate of  inflation-ad- justed federal spending. At 6.92 percent per annum during Trump’s sojourn in the Oval  Office it was 2x to 4x higher than under all of his recent predecessors.

At the  end  of the  day,  the  historical litmus test  of GOP eco- nomic policy  was restraint on government spending growth, and therefore curtailment of the relentless expansion of the Leviathan- on-the-Potomac. But when it comes to that standard, The Donald’s record stands first among no equals on the wall of shame.

Federal  Spending: Annual Real Growth Rate:

• Trump, 2016–2020:  6.92 percent.
• Obama, 2008–2016:  1.96 percent.
• George Bush  the Younger: 3.95 percent.
• Bill Clinton, 1992–2000:  1.19 percent.
• George Bush  the Elder: 3.90 percent.
• Ronald Reagan, 1980–1988:  3.15 percent.
• Jimmy Carter, 1976–1980:  3.72 percent.

Likewise, when  it comes  to ballooning federal deficits  and  public debt, Donald Trump earned his sobriquet as the King of Debt and then some. Relative to the  nation’s economic base,  the  average of The Donald’s four  deficits  at 9.0 percent of GDP was literally off- the-charts of modern presidential history.

Average  Surplus/Deficit  as  Percent   of  GDP   Under  Post-War

Presidents (fiscal years):

• Truman (1947–1953): +0.73 percent.
• Eisenhower (1954–1961): -0.37 percent.
• Kennedy-Johnson  (1962–1969): -0.88 percent.
• Nixon-Ford (1970–1977): -.2.38 percent.
• Carter (1978–1981): -2.33 percent.
• Reagan-Bush (1982–1993): -4.13 percent.
• Clinton (1994–2001): -0.13 percent.
• George W. Bush  (2002–2009): -3.31 percent.
• Obama (2010–2017): -4.98 percent.
• Trump  (2018–2021): -9.00 percent.

Similarly,  in  inflation-adjusted terms  (constant  2021  dollars), The Donald’s $2.04  trillion per  annum add-on to the  public debt amounted to double the fiscal profligacy of the Obama years,  and orders of magnitude more  than the debt additions of earlier occu- pants of the Oval  Office.

Constant 2021 Dollar Additions to the Public  Debt per Annum:

• Donald Trump: $2.043 trillion.
• Barack Obama: $1.061 trillion.
• George W. Bush: $0.694 trillion.
• Bill Clinton: $0.168 trillion.
• George H.  W. Bush: $0.609 trillion.
• Ronald Reagan: $0.384 trillion.
• Jimmy Carter: $0.096 trillion.

Indeed, in the  long  sweep  of things, the  real damage was done in the  Covid/Lockdowns/Stimmies year  of 2020.  Federal spending erupted by  nearly $2 trillion during that year  alone and  soared from  22.3 percent of GDP in 2019 to nearly 32 percent of GDP in 2020. And when state and  local  outlays are included, The Donald managed to bring government spending in the US to a European social  democracy–style 40 percent of GDP.

It might be  well  and  truly   asked: With   charts like  the  one below, who  needs Republicans of the  ilk represented by Donald Trump?

Federal Spending Share of GDP, 2000 to 2021.

There is no secret  as to how spending and  debt soared like never before during Trump’s time  in the  Oval  Office.  Trump wanted to wield the biggest defense stick on the planet on the primitive theory that he could bluster his way to foreign policy  success  just  like he claims  to  have  done with  the  trade unions and  subcontractors in New York City.

But  to  get  his  big  defense stick,  he  had  to  accommodate the Congressional  porkers  on   nondefense  discretionary  spending and  leave  entitlements untouched. And  that he was happy to do because Trump just  didn’t care about federal spending.

Thus,  when  big-spending Barack Obama left the White House the national security budget properly measured totaled a stagger- ing  $822 billion. That  included $600 billion for the  Pentagon,  $46 billion for  security assistance and  international operations and

$177 billion for veterans’ compensation and  services, which  reflect the deferred cost of prior wars.

So  much for  the  “peace candidate” of 2008 and  the  anti-war democratic party of the Vietnam era and  its aftermath. To the con- trary, Obama’s $822  billion national security budget embodied the cost of global hegemony and the Forever Wars to which  it gave rise—notwithstanding that the  only  real threat to homeland secu- rity  in  the  post-war period, the  former Soviet  Union, had  been consigned to the dustbin of history twenty-five years earlier.

Donald Trump came  bounding into  the  Oval  Office  talking what  sounded like a different game—America First. But as his last Attorney General, Bill Barr,  recently noted, even if you believe in his  policies don’t expect him  to  execute them. His four  years  in the  White House proved he can’t organize or lead  his way out  of a wet paper bag,  and  his budgetary fiasco in the national security space  provides striking confirmation of Barr’s  observation.

To  be  sure,  Trump did  manage to  see through the  uniparty’s demonization of Putin, and the feckless neocon claim that he seeks to  recreate the  former Soviet  Empire. After  all,  in  Washington’s theater of the absurd Vlad Putin was simply The Donald’s doppel- ganger when  it came  to demonization and  putting on the beltway hate. So, Trump got that part of the equation right.

But  Trump actually had  no  idea  what  he  meant by “America First”  except that the line elicited boisterous cheers from the patri- otic  throngs at  his  campaign rallies. The  fact  is, he  was  histori- cally ignorant beyond measure; lazy as they come when  it involves studying your  brief; and  a total sucker for military pomp and  cir- cumstance and  the medal-bedecked uniforms of the generals.

So while  Trump talked about bringing the  Empire home, he actually fueled its  budget like  never  before. The  vastly  bloated national security budget left  behind by Obama took on  $215 bil- lion  more   girth on  The  Donald’s watch. His outgoing  broadly measured national security budget (FY  2021)  actually broke the trillion-dollar barrier, weighing in at $1.035 trillion, or 26 percent more  than what  Obama and  the  Congressional uniparty had  frit- tered away in FY 2017.

In short, The Donald was so ill-informed and  confused that he ended up  with  a national security budget which  amounted to the Military-Industrial Complex first, not  one  designed strictly for the defense of the  homeland—better termed Fortress America, which was advocated in the early post-war era by Mr. Republican, Senator Robert Taft  of Ohio. The  latter’s views were  the  very  opposite of today’s global  hegemony  views  of  the   neocons who   dominate the  GOP ranks on  the  military and  foreign affairs  committees on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, the  truth of the  matter is that the  present-day GOP was hijacked a few decades ago by a loathsome tribe of born-again Trotskyite statist, who  discovered that a perpetual condition of global war  was the  true  passageway to  state  power and  political self-aggrandizement in the Imperial City.

That  is more  than evident when  you  compare Trump’s result- ing  trillion-dollar national security budget  with  the  maximum

$500 billion spending level  that would be  needed to  fully  fund Fortress America. The staggering $500 billion per  year  difference makes it  starkly evident that even  on  the  Pentagon side  of  the Potomac, The Donald was a thorough-going patsy  for the Swamp creatures.

In the  first  place, a Fortress America–based implementation of The  Donald’s vague notions about bringing the  forces  home rests on the truth that in the present world order there are no tech- nologically-advanced industrial powers who have either the capa- bility  or  intention to  attack the  American homeland. To  do  that you need a massive  land armada, huge air and  sealift  capacities, a Navy  and  Air Force many  times  the  size of current US  forces  and humongous supply lines  and  logistics capacities that have  never been  even dreamed of by any other nation on the planet.

You  also  need an  initial GDP of  say  $50 trillion per  year  to sustain what  would be  the  most  violent conflagration of  weap- onry  and  material in human history. And  that’s  to say nothing of needing to be ruled by suicidal leaders willing to risk the  nuclear destruction of their own countries, allies, and economic commerce in order to accomplish, what? Occupy Denver?

So  the  entire idea  that there is a  post–Cold War  existential threat to America’s  security is just plain bogus because, obviously, no alleged foe has the requisite GDP or military heft. Russia’s GDP is a scant $1.8 trillion, not  the $50 trillion that would be needed for it to  put an  invasionary force  on  the  New  Jersey  shores.  And  its pre-Ukraine defense budget was just $75 billion, which  amounts to about four  weeks of waste  in Washington’s trillion-dollar monster.

As for  China, let  us  not  forget that even  its  communist rul- ers  sill believe it is the  “Middle Kingdom” and  therefore that it already occupies the most  important territory on the entire planet. So why would Beijing’s rulers want  to occupy Cleveland OH or Birmingham AL to either extract high-cost production or root out dissenters from  Chairman Xi’s thought?

More importantly, China doesn’t have  the  GDP heft  to  even think about landing on the California shores, notwithstanding Wall Street’s endless kowtowing to the China Boom. The fact is, China has accumulated in excess of $50 trillion of debt in barely two decades!

Therefore, it didn’t grow  organically in the  historic capitalist mode; it  printed, borrowed, spent, and  built like  there was  no tomorrow. But the resulting façade of prosperity would not last six months if China’s $3.6 trillion global export market—the source of the hard cash that keeps  its Ponzi upright—were to crash, which is exactly what  would happen if it tried to invade America.

To  be  sure,  its  totalitarian leaders are  immensely misguided and  downright evil from  the  perspective of their oppressed pop- ulation. But  they  are  not  stupid. They  stay  in power by keeping the people relatively fat and  happy and  would never  risk bringing down what  amounts to an economic house of cards.

And  the  nuclear blackmail card  can’t be  played by  either of these  foes, either. According to a recent CBO analysis, the annual cost  of maintaining and  investing America’s  triad nuclear deter- rent—submarine-launched ICBMs, land-based ICBMs, and  the strategic nuclear bomber fleet—is just  $52 billion per  year,  or less than 6 percent of the pentagon’s current budget and  barely 4 per- cent  of overall national security spending.

That   triad  deterrent  is  what   dissuades both  Moscow and Beijing from  attempting nuclear blackmail and  therefore invasion by  nuclear checkmate. That  is to  say,  the  lynchpin of America’s security lies in the  arrangement known as MAD  (mutual assured destruction), a mechanism that has worked for seventy years.  And it worked even at the peak  of the Cold War when  the Soviet  Union had  forty  thousand nuclear warheads and  leaders far more  unsta- ble than either Cool-Hand Vlad or Xi Jinping.

At the  end  of  the  day,  it  is the  great ocean moats, the  triad nuclear deterrent, and  the  relative economic diminutiveness  of Russia and  China that keep  the  American homeland secure and safe  from  hostile foreign encroachment. Most of the  rest  of the massive  pentagon budget is based on  false predicates, fabricated threats, and  the  budget-grabbing  prowess of its  own  marketing (i.e.,  think tanks) and  lobbying (i.e.,  defense contractors) arms.

In this  context, Trump did  ask  the  right question, even  if he never  came  up  with  an  actionable answer. Namely, why  in  the world do  we still  have  costly,  obsolete arrangements like  NATO thirty-two years after  the Soviet  Union perished?

The  only  real  answer is that it is a mechanism to  sell arms  to its thirty-one-member states. Indeed, Europe had  long  ago proved it  did  not  really  fear  that Putin would be  marching his  armies through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. That’s why Germany pre- viously  spent only  1.3 percent of GDP on  defense and  was more than happy to buy cheap energy via Russian delivered pipeline gas.

Germany’s current quasi-warlike posture vis-a-vis  Russia doesn’t gainsay that history, either. The truth is, the German Green Party—which is what  keeps  the  Scholz social  democrat govern- ment in power—has gone full-on warmongering for  the  hideous reason that the  Greens live to end  the  era of fossil  fuel.  So, what better way to do it than cut off the cheap oil and  gas supplies from Russia on  which  Germany’s fossil-fueled economy is based and then blame it on a demonized Putin?

Moreover, even  a  passing familiarity with  European history reminds you  that Russians and  Poles  hate  each  other and  have done so over  centuries of wars  and  bloody altercations. So Vlad Putin may not  be a Russian Gandhi, but  he is sure as hell way too smart to  attempt to  occupy Poland. Ditto France, Germany, the Low Countries, Italy, Iberia, and  the rest.

In short, Washington doesn’t  need NATO to  protect our allies  in  Europe  because they   are  not   facing any  threat that can’t  be  handled by  their own  ways  and  means, preferably of the  diplomatic variety. In fact,  the  whole   disaster in  Ukraine today is rooted in the  War  Party’s mindless expansion of NATO in  violation of  all  of  Washington’s  promises to  Gorbachev to not  expand an  inch  to  the  east  in  return for  the  unification of Germany. Yet the double-cross has been  so extensive that NATO now  includes every  one  of the  old  Warsaw Pact  nations and  has even  attempted to  extend its reach to  two  of the  former Soviet Republics (i.e.,  Georgia and  Ukraine).

The same holds for Washington’s so-called “allies”  in East  Asia and  the  massive  US  military resources committed to  the  region. The truth is, functioning as the gendarme of the planet is the only possible justification for the extra $500 billion per year cost of the current national security budget.

For example, why does the US still deploy 100,000 US forces and their dependents in Japan and Okinawa and 29,000 in South Korea?

These  two  counties have  a combined GDP of  nearly $7 tril- lion—or  235x  more  than North Korea, and  they  are  light-years ahead of  the  latter in  technology and  military capability.  Also, they   don’t  go  around the   world engaging  in  regime change, thereby spooking fear on the north side of the DMZ.

Accordingly, Japan and  South Korea could more  than provide for their own national security in a manner they see fit without any help  whatsoever from  Imperial Washington. That’s  especially the case because absent the  massive  US  military threat in the  region, North Korea would surely  seek  a rapprochement and  economic help  from  its neighbors, including China.

Indeed, sixty-five  years  after  the  unnecessary war  in  Korea ended, there is  only  one  reason why  the  Kim   family   is  still in  power in  Pyongyang and  why  periodically they  have  nois- ily  brandished  their incipient nuclear weapons and   missiles. Mainly, it’s because Washington still occupies the  Korean peninsula and  surrounds its waters with  more  lethal firepower than was brought to  bear  against the  industrial might of Nazi Germany during the  whole  of WWII.

Of  course, these  massive  and  costly  forces  are  also  justified on  the  grounds of supporting Washington’s commitments to the defense of Taiwan. But  that commitment has  always  been  obso- lete and  unnecessary to America’s  homeland security.

As it  happened, Chiang Kia-Shek lost  the  Chinese civil  war fair  and  square in  1949,  and  there was  no  reason to  perpetuate his  rag-tag regime when  it  retreated to  the  last  square miles  of Chinese territory—the island province of Taiwan. The  latter had been  under control of the Chinese Qing Dynasty for two hundred years  thru 1895, and  after  Imperial Japan was expelled from  the island in 1945, Taiwan was once  again “Chinese.”

So  today it  is  separated from   the  mainland   only  because Washington arbitrarily made it  a  protectorate and   “ally”  when the  loser  of the  Chinese civil war set up  shop in a small  remnant of  China’s modern geography, thereby establishing an  artificial nation that had  no  bearing whatsoever on  America’s  homeland security, and  in subsequent decades accomplished nothing except bolster the  case for a big  Navy and  for US  policing of the  Pacific region for no good reason of homeland defense.

That is to say, without Washington’s support for the nationalist regime in Taipei, the  island would have  been  long  ago  absorbed back  into  the Chinese polity where  it had  been  for centuries. Even now,  the Taiwanese would surely  prefer peaceful prosperity  as the  24th province of China rather than a catastrophic war against Beijing that they  would have  no hope of surviving.

By the same token, the alternative—US military intervention— would mean WWIII. The  only  sensible policy, therefore, is for Washington to  recant seventy years  of  folly  brought on  by  the China Lobby and arms manufacturers and green-light a Taiwanese reconciliation with the mainland. Even a few years thereafter, Wall Street bankers peddling M&A deals  in Taipei wouldn’t know  the difference from  Shanghai.

In short, there is no  need whatsoever for  America’s  massive conventional armada and  what  is now  (FY  2024)  its $1.3 trillion annual national security expense. That’s  the  true  implication of America First, but The Donald didn’t have a clue about its bearing on the actual national security budget.

To   the   contrary,  his  support  for   the   massive   increases in Pentagon spending was  based on  the  primitive theory that the route to a successful foreign policy  was, well, himself!

That  is to  say,  national security would come  from  a big  mili- tary  stick in his stubby small  hands and  a lot of eyeball-to-eyeball sit-downs between The Donald and  the other ostensible bad  guys of the world. But that was sheer  nonsense, of course. Implied mil- itary  threats and  dickering at  a one-on-one summit of  the  type Trump had  with  Vlad  Putin, Kim  Jong Un, and  Xi Jinping were mainly just  theater—a global version of The Apprentice. What ulti- mately keeps  America safe,  however, is its  nuclear deterrent.  As long  as that is intact and  effective,  there is no  conceivable form of nuclear blackmail that could be used  to jeopardize the security and  liberty of the homeland.

Yet according to  the  aforementioned CBO study the  current annual cost of the strategic deterrent of just $52 billion includes $13 billion for the  ballistic missile  submarine force,  $7 billion for the land-based ICBMs, and  $6 billion for the  strategic bomber force. On  top  of that there is also  $13 billion to  maintain the  nuclear weapons stockpiles, infrastructure, and  supporting services  and

$11 billion for strategic nuclear command and  control, communi- cations, and  early warnings systems.

In all,  and  after  allowing for  normal inflation and  weapons development  costs,   CBO’s   ten-year  estimate  for   the   strategic nuclear deterrent is just  $756 billion. That  happens to be only  7.0 percent of  the $10 trillion baseline for  the  total cost  of  defense proper over  the  next  decade and  only  5.0 percent of the  $15 tril- lion  national  security baseline when   you  include international operations and  veterans.

The  adoption of a Fortress America national security budget of $500 billion per year over the next  decade would save in excess of $5 trillion. And  that would surely  be  more  than doable from the  $14 trillion CBO baseline for total national security spending excluding the strategic forces.

Under a Fortress America defense strategy, there would be no need for  eleven  carrier battle groups including their air-wings, escort and  support ships, and  supporting  infrastructure.  Those forces  are  sitting ducks in this  day  and  age  anyway but  are  only necessary for  force  projection abroad and  wars  of  invasion and occupation. The American coastline and  interior, by contrast, can be protected by land-based air.

According to another CBO study, the ten-year baseline cost for the  Navy’s  unnecessary eleven  carrier battle groups will approach $1 trillion alone. Likewise, the land forces of the US Army will cost $2 trillion, and that’s  again mainly for the purpose of force projec- tion  abroad.

As Senator Taft  and  his  original Fortress America supporters long  ago recognized, overwhelming air superiority over the North American continent is what  is actually necessary for  homeland security. But  even that would require only  a small  part of the cur- rent  $1.5 trillion ten-year cost  of US  Air Force  operations, which are heavily  driven by global force  projection capacities.

At the  end  of the  day,  if The Donald had  really  been  commit- ted  to  an  America First  foreign policy, he  would have  done his homework, taken on the  national security Swamp Creatures, and put in place  a Fortress America budget that could save $5 trillion over  the  next  decade. And  from  there could have  begun the  pro- cess of putting Washington a sustainable fiscal path.

Then  again, when  has  The  Donald ever  done his  homework, got in real bruising political battles over substantive policy  matters rather than tweetstorms, and  cared a whit  about the nation’s fiscal solvency?

How The Donald Threw In the Towel on Domestic

Spending

Finally, there is one  more  element gravitating toward fiscal catastrophe that got  a  real  boost under Trump-O-Nomics. The truth is, the GOP has been  thoroughly Trumpified and  distracted from  its  main  fiscal  mission by  The  Donald’s utterly misguided war  on  the  US  borders and  demagogic anti-immigrant howling and  by his parallel eagerness to embrace big tax cuts without pay- ing for them (see Chapter 6).

Moreover, with  The  Donald’s loud insistence, the  contem- porary GOP has even  taken a powder completely on Medicare, Social   Security,  and   the   lesser   entitlements.  That’s   $50  tril- lion  of current law spending over  the  next  decade, and  yet the GOP recently agreed with  Joe Biden and  the  Dems  to cut  nary a penny from  these  monster programs in  the  last  debt ceiling settlement.

But no sooner did they brush themselves off from  their shame- ful surrender on  the  debt ceiling deal  than they  were  at it again. This  time  proposing huge tax  cuts  with  no  off-setting spending reductions, and  again with  The Donald’s fulsome support.

In total, the  recently tabled House GOP tax  package encom- passed $240  billion of  tax  cuts  such  as  increasing the  standard deduction on  income taxes,  expanding opportunity zones, roll- ing back  some requirements for reporting transactions to the IRS, and  restoring expired Trump-era business expense write-offs.

Thus, under the new GOP tax plan, the standard deduction for singles would increase by $2,000 to $15,850, and  for married cou- ples  the  standard deduction would increase by $4,000 to $30,700. Accordingly, the  chief  GOP sponsor proclaimed that the  day  of the proverbial free lunch has truly  arrived:

“With this  provision in  place, an  American family  of  four  will not pay a cent in federal  taxes on their first $68,000  of income,” said House Ways and  Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, Missouri Republican.

And  if dogs could whistle, the  world would be a chorus! That  is to say, has  Rep. Smith done the  math? Roughly 75 percent of all US workers earn  less than $68,000 and  yet Republicans are going to exempt them from  paying any federal income taxes  at all, even as the  Washington behemoth is allowed to keep  on spending and borrowing like there is no tomorrow?

Of course, there will be a tomorrow, albeit a fiscally disastrous one  for which  the  Trumpified GOP can  share fully  in the  blame. It is supposed to be the party that keeps  Washington on the fiscal straight and  narrow, but  under The Donald’s feckless  MAGA  slo- gans  it has  degenerated into  the  party of gluttonous war  spend- ing,  unpaid-for tax cuts,  and  entitlements cowardice.

Once upon a time  there was a majority of Republicans led by Senator Robert Taft  who  believed in  fiscal  rectitude and  small government—and on both sides of the Potomac River. As we have indicated, Taft advocated Fortress America, not  global hegemony, as the  route to homeland security. His view was right then, and  it is still correct now.  So the truth is, Donald Trump is the anti-Taft. He’s no Mr.  Republican at all—just  a dangerous poseur.

For  avoidance of  doubt, just  consider what  he  embraced in order to  get  his  extra national security spending. It might have been  supposed, of course, that with  control of the  veto  pen  and strong GOP positions in both the House and  Senate during these four  years  that the  near  quarter-trillion dollars per  year  of extra largesse for the  national security state  would have  been  off-set by some  hefty  curtailments on the domestic side.  The party in power being the fiscally conservative GOP and  all.

But  not  a chance. The nondefense budget of $3.38 trillion left by Obama (FY 2017) weighed in at $6.07 trillion when The Donald finally  shuffled out  of the Oval  Office in FY 2021.

That  $2.69 trillion nondefense spending increase amounted to a 79 percent gain  over the four-year period, averaging nearly $675 billion per  year.  Big  spender Obama, by  contrast, had  increased the  non-defense budget by an average of just  $112 billion per  year and  Bill Clinton’s per  annum nondefense increase figure  was but

$85 billion.

Nor  can you blame The Donald’s domestic spending bonanza entirely on entitlements and  interest payments, even though legis- lative curtailment of these mandatory spending accounts is exactly the  job  of the  GOP in our  two-party democracy. As it happened, however, The  Donald also  presided over  a veritable eruption of spending  for  the   third  component of  nondefense  spending— appropriated domestic programs.

That’s  right. We are talking about the  very corner of the  bud- get  where  the  presidential veto  pen  is potentially mightier than the  beltway’s assembled army  of PACs  and  lobbies or  the  over- flowing pork barrels of hometown goodies. But  in round terms, nondefense discretionary spending rose from $600 billion per year to $900 billion during The Donald’s four  budgets. That’s a 50 per- cent  gain,  yet there was nary  a veto  to be hurtled at the  appropri- ations bills  and  eleventh-hour omnibus spending extravaganzas that came  across  The Donald’s desk.

But  here’s  the  thing. Donald Trump has never  made any bones about his  complete disinterest in curtailing government spending and  borrowing. Still,  he did  not  accomplish these  monster spend- ing  increases by unilaterally defying the  will of the  GOP congres- sional delegations, either. These  hideous spending and  borrowing eruptions represented, instead, the  overwhelming consensus of the bipartisan uniparty.

The majority of both parties devoutly desire to feed the Warfare State monster ever greater rations, even as they give a perennial hall pass  to entitlement spending and  jump at every  possible chance, such  as the  trillions of Covid Lockdown relief  spending and  the green energy tax credit scams,  to open the fiscal spigot wider.

Alas,  that gets  us  to  the  dirty secret  of the  nation’s now  $33 trillion public debt. Mainly that the once  and  former conservative anti-spending party has  been  taken over  by the  MAGA  hat  “cul- ture  warriors” and  the  neocon warmongers, but  most  especially by  a permanent class  of Washington Republican legislators and staff who live for the power and  pelf that manning-up the Empire bestows upon them.

Serving on  the  broad array   of  national  security committees, grazing at the  foreign affairs  think tanks and  NGOs, junketing far and  wide  across  the  planet as latter-day pro-consuls, visiting the dozens of occupied countries, and  inspecting America’s  eight hun- dred military bases—all  are  far  more   thrilling than returning to Green Bay to run  a car dealership.

So  they   feed   the   Empire,  and   the   Empire nourishes their sojourns on the great stage  of world affairs.  That’s the heart of the real  Washington Swamp. And  the  clueless Donald Trump fed  it like never before.

The Poison of Relentless Public  Borrowing

Ultimately, excessive, relentless public borrowing is the  poison that will  kill  capitalist prosperity and  displace limited constitu- tional government with  unchained statist encroachment on  the liberties of the people. For that reason alone, The Donald needs be locked-out of the nomination and  banished from  the Oval  Office.

Of  course, the  great enabler of  The  Donald’s  reckless fiscal escapades was  the  Federal Reserve, which  increased its  balance sheet   by  nearly $3  trillion or  66  percent during The  Donald’s four-year term. That  amounted to  balance sheet  expansion (i.e., money-printing)  equal  to   $750  billion  per   annum—compared to  gains  of $300 billion and  $150 billion per  annum during the Barack Obama and  George W. Bush  tenures, respectively.

Still,  Trump wasn’t  satisfied with  this  insane level  of  mone- tary  expansion. He never  did  stop  hectoring the  Fed  for  being too  stingy with  the  printing press  and  for  keeping interest rates higher than the  King of  Debt in  his  wisdom deemed to  be  the correct level.

Balance Sheet of the Federal Reserve, 1960 to 2020.

In short, given  the  economic circumstances during his tenure and  the  unprecedented stimulus emanating from  the  Keynesian Fed,  Donald Trump’s constant demands for  still  easier  money made even  Richard Nixon look  like a paragon of financial sobri- ety.  The  truth is, no  US  president has  ever  been  as  reckless on monetary matters as  Donald Trump. That’s  why  it’s  especially rich  that the  die-hard MAGA  fans  are now  gumming loudly for a revival  of the  great Trump economy. Yet it is the  egregious fiscal, monetary, and Lockdown excesses during his tenure that gave rise to the current economic mess.

Then  again, the  MAGA  faithful have  been  thoroughly Trumpified. After years of The Donald insisting that even more  fiat money should be pumped into  the economy, the GOP politicians gave  the  Fed  a free  pass  during the  2022 campaign—and did  so during an inflation-besotted election season that was tailor-made for a hammer-and-tongs attack on the inflationary money-printers domiciled in the Eccles  Building.

Once upon a  time,  GOP politicians knew  better. Certainly, Ronald Reagan did  amidst the  double-digit inflation of the  early 1980s.

The  Gipper did   not   hesitate to  say  that Big  Government, deficit-spending and  monetary profligacy were  the  cause  of  the nation’s economic ills. He was right, and  he won  the  election in a landslide. Indeed, he was even  persuaded to include a gold stan- dard plank in the 1980 GOP platform.

By contrast, consult the videos or transcripts of a score  or two or three of MAGA  rallies. Did  anything remotely resembling the Reagenesque take  on inflation ever flow from  The Donald’s bom- bastic vocal = cords?

Of course not. So to repeat: Donald Trump is not  an economic conservative in any way, shape, or form. He’s simply a self- promoting demagogue who,  during four  years in the Oval  Office, only  managed to compound the  nation’s ills stemming from  bad policy  ideas  deeply embedded inside the Washington beltway.

Lead  among these  is runaway federal spending, borrowing, and  printing—a terrible policy  malfeasance that Donald Trump pushed into  a League All of His Own.

The post A Big Spender’s League All of His Own appeared first on LewRockwell.

“And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”

~ William Shakespeare, Richard III

How easy it seems to me that people are so readily deceived, and that extreme gullibility among the masses remains as the primary attitude evident. I do realize that this is not uncommon, but it is amazingly confounding, after thousands of years of continuous lies by the ruling State; absurdity beyond reason to be sure. But still they vote to choose (have selected) a master to lord over them. Will this idiocy never end? Now, there is a new ‘Saint’ in town, and as depicted by weak-minded so-called freedom advocates, he is alluded to as a ‘self-described’ Anarcho-capitalist. This is Javier Milei, the new god of ‘libertarian’ type posers. Murray Rothbard would roll in his grave at such an idiotic pronouncement as this.

Yet another politician, the lowest form of human possible, is lauded and bowed down to by the fake alternative crowd, who claim to be the freedom society of the peasant class. Those being fooled by these deceitful political imposters have become tiring to say the least, as one after another of these trimmers takes his place at the top of the power pyramid, only to affect his personal and political desires on others, and sees his need for power over the many as his highest purpose. This is always at the expense of his subject class. There are many of these plotting chameleons who reach high positions of power; Trump comes immediately to mind, but in fact, there will always be more to come, as they gleefully follow in the footsteps of their duplicitous predecessors.

This Milei character is no different, but he has been able to trick the alternative media into a frothing state of undue worship, and has taken center stage by storm, even in the face of complete and total contradiction. First and foremost, he is certainly no Anarcho-capitalist. That term is reserved for true anarchists who abhor government and the State, and capitalists, who in the real sense of the word, believe only in actual free markets; meaning private markets without government or government interference or control. Milei is neither of these things, and in fact is the exact opposite. This can be easily uncovered by merely observing every action he has proposed, mandated, or initiated.

He made many claims while campaigning for the highest position in government, something no real anarchist could ever carry out, making promise after promise to free the people, and make them prosperous, while claiming he would tear down the very government he was seeking to control. Hypocrisy at this level is saved for the most corrupt among us, as no sane or honest person could pull it off without losing his soul. What that means of course, is that he had no soul to begin with, but was seeking a position that he was at the same time condemning. This is a common practice of politicians, and is double-speak of course, but could only be meant to fool the weak-minded proletariat, and claimed ‘intellectual’ liberty frauds, and never be a sincere objective. The proof is in his actions, and they are oh so telling of lies, corruption, manipulation, and power-seeking.

Milei took office in December of 2023, with grand plans to overhaul the Argentine government. His first order of business, as proclaimed by Milei during his campaign, would be to shut down completely, and abolish, the central bank, which is Banco Central de la República of Argentina. Did he do so? Of course not, but he did place some of the same past criminal heads in government, at the helm of that evil institution. He immediately appointed the insider Santiago Bausili as Governor and head of the Board of Directors. Bausili had been with J.P. Morgan for 11 years, and Deutsche Bank for 9 years, responsible for international capital markets in Latin America, handling hedging and derivative (unbridled leverage) instruments. Before then, he was Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury of Argentina. He was in the middle of the latest downfall and economic destruction of Argentina over many years, but he was the immediate and first choice of Milei to head the central bank. So much for “abolishing” the Fed, and saying that it was a “non-negotiable matter.”

The ex-Peronist and now Security Minister under Milei, is Patricia Bullrich, and insider who ran in opposition against Melei, and is the president of Propuesta Republicana, (Republican Proposal) which was made up of the ruling coalition during Mauricio Macri’s presidency from 2015 to 2019. He attended the World Economic Forum seeking investment, and held meetings with the likes of Biden, David Cameron, Branson, Eric Schmidt of Google, the Queen of the Netherlands, and other globalists and CEOs. He was a disaster of course. Inflation rates exceeding 40% during his tenure were common, and Bullrich now has the same position with Milei. There are other suspect cabinet members who have been appointed by Milei, including Luis Caputo, but what else is new? His is a cabinet of insiders with close ties to past Argentinian failures.

But it gets much worse. Milei has tied himself strongly to Israel, and the fanatical and evil murdering Netanyahu, even to the point of converting to Judaism, making Argentina one of the most pro-Zionist supporting countries. This is happening at a time when Israel is committing mass genocide against all Palestinians, and fomenting horrendous regional war that could escalate into world war. As far as I see it, this is a political scam on the part of Milei.

In the midst of claiming to being ‘libertarian,’ Milei has sold his soul to Israel, has destabilized Argentina’s own currency in favor of a failing U.S. dollar; essentially tying Argentina to the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank run by private and government criminals and manipulators like Larry Fink of the evil Blackrock. This could lead to massive dollarization of Argentina to the detriment of their own money, and could also lead to the outside privatization of Argentina’s economy at the hands of the U.S., Israel, and all their fascist partners. This is an incredibly dangerous situation for Argentina, as satellites are now mapping out large swaths of this country and others in that region, for globalized control of all natural resources.

When Milei took office, 60% of Argentina’s population was in poverty, and Milei immediately devalued the currency by an additional 50%, leading to a much worse situation for the entire population. In the meantime, Milei has requested to join NATO, to achieve a more intrusive western alliance so as to gain a military guarantee, hoping to get military support at the expense of U.S. citizens and the West.

At this point, Milei should refer to himself as a self-described dictator, and never an anarcho-capitalist, who has seemingly decided to control Argentina by legislative and non-legislative fiat. He is no ‘libertarian,’ even though so-called modern ‘libertarianism,’ is just another arm of an abusive prevailing governing structure, and he is not and never has been an anarchist at any level. Those who continue to applaud these fascist tyrants, are making a great mistake in judgement, but when Trump is ‘elected,’ (selected) the writing on the wall will be telling, and in lock-step with these same type of policies. Criminal all.

The fooling of the voting fools will likely never end, as the herds of the peon class will continue to seek rule. This it seems, is the way of the world, and what a sad commentary this is concerning those beings (humans) who are supposed to be the most intelligent life on earth. That is a joke my friends, but not one worthy of laughter.

“Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man’s enslavement and all the horrors it entails.”

~ Emma Goldman

The post Milei Is Little More Than a Political Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Beware the False ‘Libertarian’ Hype appeared first on LewRockwell.

Fermented foods like sauerkraut and kimchi are powerful allies to your mental health, courtesy of the neuroactive microbes and molecules they contain.1 Microbes and their metabolites, created during fermentation modulate the microbiota-gut-brain axis, which involves neural, immune, endocrine and metabolic pathways.2

Writing in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, researchers with University College Cork (UCC) in Ireland and colleagues reasoned that fermented foods “offer an affordable dietary intervention strategy” for better mental health.3

Their review highlights how different types of fermented food not only have the potential to alter the makeup of microbiota in your gut but also influence the immune system and microbiota-gut-brain axis, with profound effects on your brain.

Fermentation — An Ancient Tool Valued for Modern-Day Mental Health

Many cultures around the world have relied on food fermentation since ancient times to increase the shelf-life of food. Fermentation also makes food more flavorful while helping to control potentially disease-causing microorganisms and improving foods’ digestibility.4

The process involves the conversion of carbohydrates into alcohol or organic acids using microorganisms like yeasts and bacteria under anaerobic conditions. This leads to the production of beneficial compounds now known to boost physical and mental health.

“Although ancient in origin, fermented foods are now seen as conduits for introducing beneficial microbes and molecules. Moreover, fermented foods are applicable therapeutics across various socioeconomic sectors given their potential affordability and cross-cultural accessibility,” the review explained.5

Fermented foods are rich in phytochemicals and microbe metabolites that include neurotransmitters and neuromodulators. These compounds stimulate pathways of the microbiota-gut-brain axis, including those of the immune system and neuroendocrine, enteric nervous and circulatory systems. When fermented foods are digested, they also produce compounds capable of modulating intestinal barrier and blood brain barrier permeability.6

Fermented foods may also help block dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the system responsible for the management of stress, which has also been linked to multiple neuropsychiatric disorders.7

Researchers with APC Microbiome Ireland at UCC previously investigated the influence of a psychobiotic diet on the microbial profile and mental health of 45 adults.8 Participants were randomized to eat either a psychobiotic diet or a control diet for four weeks. The psychobiotic diet included fruits and vegetables high in prebiotic fiber, including onions, leeks, cabbage, apples and bananas, along with fermented foods, such as sauerkraut and kefir.9

After four weeks, those following the psychobiotic diet had a reduction in perceived stress. Those who followed the psychobiotic diet the most had the greatest decreases in stress. Further, significant changes were found in 40 different chemicals, along with subtle changes in microbial makeup. Professor John Cryan, one of the study’s lead authors who also worked on the featured Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews paper, said in a UCC news release:10

“Although the microbiome has been linked to stress and behavior previously, it was unclear if by feeding these microbes demonstratable effects could be seen. Our study provides one of the first data in the interaction between diet, microbiota and feelings of stress and mood.

Using microbiota targeted diets to positively modulate gut-brain communication holds possibilities for the reduction of stress and stress-associated disorders, but additional research is warranted to investigate underlying mechanisms.”

Virtually Any Fermented Food May Improve Brain Health

In the early stages of the research, study author Ramya Balasubramanian and colleagues compared sequencing data from more than 200 fermented foods in an effort to determine which are most beneficial for the brain. Nearly all of them showed promise, according to Balasubramanian, who said in a news release:11

“I expected only a few fermented foods would show up, but out of 200 fermented foods, almost all of them showed the ability to exert some sort of potential to improve gut and brain health … Fermented sugar-based products and fermented vegetable-based products are like winning the lottery when it comes to gut and brain health.

… For all that we see on sugar-based products being demonized, fermented sugar takes the raw sugar substrate, and it converts it into a plethora of metabolites that can have a beneficial effect on the host.

So even though it has the name ‘sugar’ in it, if you do a final metabolomic screen, the sugar gets used by the microbial community that’s present in the food, and they get converted into these beautiful metabolites that are ready to be cherry picked by us for further studies.”

The Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews paper outlined a wide range of fermented foods that may be beneficial. Among them:12

Both food substrate and environmental conditions alter the fermented food microbiome and therefore its potential health effects. According to the review:13

“Fermented foods are diverse in their preparation, substrate category and type of fermentation. This can influence the microbiota and the molecular composition of fermented foods.

Subsequently, these components can influence the communication between the gut and the brain resulting in modulation of the intestinal barrier and blood brain barrier, peripheral and central immune system and nervous system and thereby modulating the intestinal milieu, general gut and brain health.”

Fermented Foods Help Ward Off Depression

Lactobacillus, found in fermented foods like yogurt, kefir, kimchi and sauerkraut, has been dubbed a “psychobiotic”14 because of its effects on mental health, particularly anxiety and depression. Lactobacillus bacteria help dampen stress responses and prevent depression and anxiety, in part, by modulating your immune system.15

Further, a healthy gut microbiome also depends on the consumption of fermented foods. A study assigned 36 adults to consume a diet high in fermented foods or high-fiber foods for 10 weeks. Those consuming fermented foods had an increase in microbiome diversity as well as decreases in markers of inflammation.16

In another example, Lactobacillus was found to produce gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), a neurotransmitter that inhibits excessive neuronal firing, helping to induce a natural state of calm,17 in animal studies,18 while also reducing depression-related behavior.19

A meta-analysis of cohort studies, involving 83,533 people, also found a significant association between consuming fermented dairy foods, including cheese and yogurt, and a decreased risk of depression.20 The study suggested the gut-brain axis may explain the link between fermented dairy foods and depression, as probiotic-rich fermented foods may help:21

• Lower inflammation in the gut
• Make the gut barrier stronger
• Reduce stress responses via the HPA axis
• Alter GABA receptor expression

One study using brain scans found that consuming fermented milk containing a variety of probiotics can lessen brain activity related to seeing sad or angry faces. Another study found that women who took probiotics had lower depression scores.22

Fermented Foods May Help Preserve Mental Health

Dietary interventions based on so-called “psychobiotics” were described as a “novel nutritional approach targeting gut microbiota for managing cognitive performance and preventing memory decline across the lifespan.”23 The review, published in Food Research International, suggests that fermented foods may help preserve mental health.

Further, feeding your microbes with a psychobiotic diet — one that’s rich in prebiotic and fermented foods — can also reduce stress and possibly stress-related disorders. The study authors stressed the benefits of using whole, fermented foods:24

“Although the more traditional psychobiotic candidates, such as probiotic and prebiotic supplementation, are promising approaches, using whole dietary approaches offers a number of advantages.

This includes the benefits associated with nutritional needs met primarily through whole diet, a more accessible way due to the necessity to consume a food daily, costs of supplemental products as well as the potential synergistic effects in the microbiota that could be elicited by complex diets.”

Interestingly, they also found that tryptophan metabolism may be one underlying mechanism behind fermented foods’ stress-relieving effects. “Tryptophan metabolism has been shown to be closely regulated by the microbiota and can serve as important bioactive messengers in the microbiota-brain communication,” the researchers explained, adding that it’s also involved in many brain-related disorders.25

How to Make Fermented Foods at Home

Given the numerous mental health benefits of fermented foods, if you haven’t yet incorporated them into your diet, now is an excellent time to start. Fermented vegetables are both simple and cost-effective to prepare at home. While you can find fermented foods at supermarkets and health food stores, many commercial options, such as yogurt and kefir, are not healthy.

Many of these products contain high levels of sugar, artificial sweeteners and additives, with a relatively low content of beneficial bacteria. The pasteurization process used in commercial products to extend their shelf life actually destroys the beneficial bacteria they’re supposed to contain.

To reap the maximum health benefits, either purchase raw (unpasteurized) versions of these foods at a health food store or food co-op, or make them yourself. Consuming a diverse range of fermented foods is beneficial, as each offers a unique set of beneficial bacteria.

Fortunately, making fermented foods at home is simpler than it might seem. It doesn’t require extensive time in the kitchen. Start by getting some wide-mouth canning jars and filtered water, along with select organic vegetables of your choice for fermenting. After packing your jars, the only step left is to wait a few days for the vegetables to ferment, or “ripen.”

You can view a step-by-step guide in the video above. As demonstrated, you’ll see that culturing vegetables is simple and cost-effective. You can also make your own homemade yogurt and kefir. If you don’t eat fermented foods on a regular basis, a probiotic supplement shouldn’t be considered a replacement for whole, fermented foods.

Sources and References

• 1 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 2024, Volume 158, 105562
• 2 Scientific Reports March 31, 2023, Introduction
• 3 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 2024, Volume 158, 105562, Highlights
• 4, 5 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 2024, Volume 158, 105562, Introduction
• 6 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 2024, Volume 158, 105562, 2. Fermented food and the microbiota-gut-brain axis
• 7 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 2024, Volume 158, 105562, 2.4 Fermented food and the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis
• 8 Molecular Psychiatry October 27, 2022
• 9, 10 University College Cork October 27, 2022
• 11 Microbiology Society April 14, 2023
• 12 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 2024, Volume 158, 105562, Table 1
• 13 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews March 2024, Volume 158, 105562, Figure 1
• 14 Brain, Behavior and Immunity January 2024; 115: 458-469, Introduction
• 15 Brain, Behavior and Immunity January 2024; 115: 458-469
• 16 Cell July 12, 2021
• 17 The Journal of Neuroscience May 1, 2013; 33(18):7770-7
• 18, 19 Translational Psychiatry June 3, 2022, Discussion
• 20 PLoS One. 2023; 18(2): e0281346
• 21, 22 PLoS One. 2023; 18(2): e0281346., Discussion
• 23 Food Res Int. 2022 Feb:152:110892. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110892. Epub 2021 Dec 22
• 24, 25 Molecular Psychiatry October 27, 2022, Discussion

The post Could Eating More Fermented Foods Help Improve Mental Health? appeared first on LewRockwell.