You are browsing the archive for 2013 October 23.

Avatar of admin

by admin

VIDEO: Judge Napolitano on the US Government’s Unpayable Debt

October 23, 2013 in Economics

By Mises Updates

Judge Napolitano discusses one way the federal government destroys prosperity.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

The New Libertarianism.org

October 23, 2013 in Economics

Libertarianism.org, the Cato Institute’s global resource on the philosophy and history of liberty, has underscored its reputation for innovation, depth of content, and one-of-a-kind user experiences by launching a new, from the ground up, redesign. The site now features greatly enhanced graphics, superior accessibility and interactivity for mobile devices, and swifter navigation. Along with the new design, Libertarianism.org has also launched the first program in its new bi-weekly podcast series, “Free Thoughts,” hosted by Aaron Ross Powell and Trevor Burrus.

…read more

Source: CATO HEADLINES

Avatar of admin

by admin

Saudis Sever Diplomatic Relations with US

October 23, 2013 in Economics

By Ryan McMaken

The Daily Mail reports that Saudi Arabia has severed diplomatic ties with the United States over the US’s refusal to bomb Syria. The Saudis continue to be one of the primary sources of pressure on the US government to attack Syria. This is not the first time the Saudis have pressured the US to attack one of the Saudi regime’s enemies.

Rothbard explains the Saudi role in the lead-up to the first Iraq War, and the US government’s long corporatist alliance with the Saudi dictatorship.

Brian LaSorsa provides another perspective on the US-Saudi alliance here.

And Christopher Westley looks at  all the (literal) hand-holding that has gone on between the US and Saudi regimes.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Matt McCaffrey Explains the Economics Legacy of Edwin Chadwick

October 23, 2013 in Economics

By Mises Updates

6566

In a book review from today’s Mises Daily, Matt McCaffrey writes:

Another central theme in this book is that Chadwick’s peculiar approach to reform led him to view undesirable economic conditions — and the policies necessary to improve them — as matters of effective remuneration; in other words, as incentive problems. Chadwick did not use the term “incentives” to describe his ideas, but he nevertheless viewed the problems of industrial-era economic reform as fundamentally intertwined with remuneration and punishment.

Chadwick’s thorough-going appreciation for the complex and ubiquitous nature of incentives might seem unremarkable by today’s standards, but in the mid-19th century economists had not yet begun to think in the now-conventional language of incentives, and certainly had not begun to advance the mantra “incentives matter” (which is also the subtitle of this book). This fact makes Chadwick’s attention to incentives that much more interesting for historians of economic thought.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Sen. Paul Appears on Fox's Hannity- October 22, 2013

October 23, 2013 in Politics & Elections

…read more

Source: RAND PAUL

Avatar of admin

by admin

Who Will Teach Our Police Our Bill of Rights?

October 23, 2013 in Economics

By Nat Hentoff

Nat Hentoff

My primary hero of the full existence of the Constitution is George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Why him? He refused to sign the Constitution because it didn’t have a “declaration of rights” — the individual liberties of American citizens.

Because of George Mason, who was followed by other non-signers, James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights. These first 10 amendments to the Constitution, when ratified by enough states in 1791, guaranteed to We The People specific limits on government power.

In this self-governing republic, the Fourth Amendment in these guarantees clearly states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In last week’s column, I focused on two shocking cases, unknown to most Americans because the media in its various forms ignored them. These cases dealt with public school students who had been “locked down” in mass searches by police and drug-sniffing dogs. The searches were conducted without court warrants or any indication that the students being searched for drugs or drug paraphernalia had any connection at all to these suspicions.

The cases were Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools in Missouri (2013) and Diane Doe v. Renfrow (1981) in Indiana. I concentrated on the astonishing refusal of the Supreme Court to even hear the cases, thereby excluding students from the Constitution. But now I must go on and focus my attention on the police and the media treating all Americans as though they’re barred from the Constitution.

No high court justice dissented in the decision to not hear the Burlison case, but in Doe, there was a tumultuous dissent from Justice William Brennan concerning this. He asked how students could become responsible citizens if their schools ignored their fundamental constitutional freedoms.

Six years later, his mind still turbulently focused on that case, Justice Brennan, during an interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg, delivered an attack on the media’s too frequent ignorance of the Bill of Rights. He wasn’t just referring to its lack of attention to the Burlison case.

His indictment applies now more than ever. I can’t explain the present-day media’s frequent omission of these very specific safeguards for individual Americans from stories they cover. Perhaps …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Avatar of admin

by admin

The Next Budget Battle

October 23, 2013 in Economics

By Michael D. Tanner

Michael D. Tanner

The fight over the government shutdown may have come to an ignominious end, but the reprieve from Washington budgetary politics will be short-lived. The latest continuing resolution will expire on January 15, while we will hit our debt ceiling again on February 7. In the meantime, a budget conference committee, headed by Representative Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and Senator Patty Murray (D., Wash.), is supposed to reach an agreement by December 13.

While the shutdown fight was so traumatic that many Republicans may prefer that the budget debate simply go away, these negotiations are as crucial as ever.

Yes, a combination of increased revenue and slower spending (mostly a result of the sequester) means that the budget deficit has fallen to $642 billion in 2013, compared with a high of $1.4 trillion in 2009. Of course, that just means that our debt is not growing as fast as it was before; it’s still growing.

Republicans lost this fiscal debate. Here’s a plan to win the next one.”

More important, lower deficits are a temporary phenomenon. According to the Congressional Budget Office, deficits will start increasing again in 2016. By 2023, they will be back up to almost $900 billion, and our gross federal debt will have risen to $25.23 trillion.

Republicans may be divided and demoralized right now, but they cannot afford to throw in the budgetary towel. As the debate moves forward, Republicans must hold the line in several key areas.

Save the sequester: The Democrats’ reverence for “settled law” evaporates when it comes to the sequester, a law duly passed by bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and signed by the president. Repealing the sequester’s mandated spending cuts is likely to be the Democrats’ No. 1 priority in budget negotiations. Already, Obama has promised to “keep fighting to get rid of” the law, saying it’s “hurting our military and our economy.”

Moreover, Democrats may find allies in this fight among Republican defense hawks, who object to cuts in military spending. John McCain, for example, has said that “some of us Republicans and Democrats are meeting about” undoing the law, “particularly those who are deeply concerned about the effect on defense.”

Some Republicans have other priorities: Even Paul Ryan has suggested that he might be willing to trade sequester changes for promises of future entitlement cuts.

We should be clear: The sequester hasn’t actually cut spending. Even if we preserve …read more

Source: OP-EDS