Letter to Paul Hodes

It is not often that I write my congresscritter. It is a futile exercise that ultimately only serves to add legitimacy to their actions. We still have the "right" to voice our opinions to our representatives in government. They can claim they weighed the thoughts of the people and that they decided accordingly. A load of hullabaloo if you ask me, but I think ending the Federal Reserve (well, in this specific instance, auditing it) is one of the most important issues of our time. The evil that is this organizatin cannot be overstated. So, to further the end of auditing the Fed, I sent the following letter to the "Honorable" Paul Hodes:

Rep. Hodes:

I am writing to request that you join 271 other Representatives in sponsoring H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.

The Federal Reserve, since its inception in 1913, has caused massive devaluation of the dollar and the biggest financial crises this country has ever seen, including the Great Depression. Over the past century, many influential economists, such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich August von Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, have noted that central banks have the power to destabilize an economy through their manipulation of the money supply.

An audit of the Federal Reserve will likely highlight the enormous increase in the supply of money that has occurred during this current financial meltdown. The Fed has sent this money, often without congressional approval, to private companies for their own profit. The "independence" of the Fed threatens our Republic, our economy, and the quality of life for every American.

Sincerely,
Tyler Stearns

Faulty Depression History

Every time I see an investment product, like a stock or mutual fund, they always list the past earnings (always positive, of course) as a selling point. But if you notice, they are always sure to put in: "past performance does not guarantee future results." This is good advice, however. The economy consists of millions, billions even, of autonomous actors making their own decisions in an ever-changing environment. It would be foolish to look exclusively to the past to see into the future.

That is why I hate when people like Christina Romer, chairwoman of Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, point to empirical evidence from the Great Depression to justify the policy of today as if it will have the same effects. But what I hate even more is when the empirical evidence doesn't even support the claim. Romer thinks it was a reduction in deficit spending that caused "the depression within the Depression" of 1937. Luckily we have Mises.org, where a great man like Robert Murphy can post an analysis of this claim. Click the link to find out why Romer's Keynesian fallacy is wrong. Hint: the empirical evidence is ambiguous and contradictory.

The Wonders of Central Banking

Zimbabwe has just released a new $50 million bank note. This comes after it was reported that inflation reached 165,000% in the month of February. Oh what prosperity central banks can bring! I can't wait for the day it costs $15 million to buy a loaf of bread here in the United States.

We should take note of this worst case scenario before we start expanding the powers of the Federal Reserve. Economic central planning doesn't work, even in monetary policy. The Fed hasn't solved our problems this time around and sure didn't do a good job during the Great Depression. In fact, we still have business cycles and inflation. What exactly does the Fed do?

Spend, Spend, Spend!

CNN reported on March 24 that a clear majority of citizens are going to use their tax rebates to pay off debt or put in savings. The so-called economic stimulus bill will give $170 billion back to taxpayers, or about $600 per individual and $1,200 per married couple. The professed purpose of this scheme is to help the faltering U.S. economy come out of recession. But economist Jared Bernstein is concerned about this news from CNN: “While [saving the rebate] is a valiant thing to do, what you want them to do is spend it.”

Despite having the title of ‘economist,’ Mr. Bernstein doesn’t seem to understand the concept of economic growth and capital accumulation. The economy can only expand, and therefore rise out of recession, with a solid base of capital. The only way to attain the funds necessary for this is through savings. Using Mr. Bernstein’s logic, we would all be rich and prosperous if only we spent all our money on plasma TVs and Cadillacs. Clearly it is unwise for an individual to spend his entire paycheck and go into debt, so why does Mr. Bernstein, and most economists, think increased spending and debt works on the national scale?

The Lie About Earmarks

John McCain is furious that the Senate shot down his proposal to have a one-year moratorium on spending earmarks. The Senate blocked the proposal by a vote of 71-29 on Thursday. McCain is not a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word; thus, he attacks earmarks as some kind of financial plague that is bankrupting our country.

The truth of the matter is earmarks are merely a way to distribute money that has already been approved for spending. The Congressional Research Service defines earmarks (PDF), informally, as "provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities."

Even if earmarks represent an increase in spending, the total for the latest budget equals a grand total of $14.8 billion. That is out of a $3.1 trillion budget. Will 0.4% of the latest budget really bring financial ruin? For some reason I think the $9.5 trillion of national debt or the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve pose a greater threat to our economy than Congressional earmarking.

But if he wants to make an issue of negligible spending, John "Open Borders" McCain should look into the proposed United States/Mexico Totalization Agreement. This plan will give Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens who work in the United States as little as a few months. The low-end cost estimates (i.e. government figures) project it will cost $525 million over the first five years. Of course, that wouldn't fit into McCain's agenda of loose borders and wild spending.

I wish McCain would stop pretending to be fiscally responsible. He is just another tax-and-spend Republican in the mold of George W. Bush, who was the biggest spender since LBJ and his Great Society. I also wish he, and all his Beltway buddies would stop playing these stupid games with earmarks and tackle the real financial crises we are facing. Alas, I doubt McCain will suddenly become a voting-clone of Ron Paul.

Lew Rockwell on Antiwar Radio

I just got around to listening to this interview today. It is a great survey of all topics important to libertarians: war, economics, political philosophy. Lots of memorable insights during this hour long interview.

Listen here.

The Ron Paul Counter-Revolution

Many libertarians laud the American colonists for instigating a revolution against the British crown, and rightly so. I don't see any more effective redress for the time and circumstances. But I have begun to think that continuing such an analogy to the Ron Paul movement is in error.

Can we really call this the Ron Paul Revolution? I say this is a Counter-Revolution. What is revolutionary about bringing back the traditions of freedom and limited government? I say it is revolutionary to call for destroying the Constitution and starting wars to "democratize" those countries we view as uncivilized.

Garet Garrett put it best in the opening of The Revolution Was:

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom."

We are here to take back what is rightfully ours; no more New Deal-style socialism; no more Wilsonian wars for "democracy"; we want authentic prosperity and lasting peace.

What brought this all together for me was reading a blog post by John Cochran on the Mises Institute Blog. He posted a poem by Patrick Barrington, entitled "I Want to be a Consumer":

I Want to be a Consumer

"And what do you mean to be?"
The kind old Bishop said
As he took the boy on his ample knee
And patted his curly head.
"We should all of us choose a calling
To help Society's plan;
Then what to you mean to be, my boy,
When you grow to be a man?"

"I want to be a Consumer,"
The bright-haired lad replied
As he gazed into the Bishop's face
In innocence open-eyed.
"I've never had aims of a selfish sort,
For that, as I know, is wrong.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the world along."

"I want to be a Consumer
And work both night and day,
For that is the thing that's needed most,
I've heard Economists say,
I won't just be a Producer,
Like Bobby and James and John;
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the nation on."

"But what do you want to be?"
The Bishop said again,
"For we all of us have to work," said he,
"As must, I think, be plain.
Are you thinking of studying medicine
Or taking a Bar exam?"
"Why, no!" the bright-haired lad replied
As he helped himself to jam.

"I want to be a Consumer
And live in a useful way;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I've heard Economists say.
There are too many people working
And too many things are made.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help to further trade."

"I want to be a Consumer
And do my duty well;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I've heard Economists tell.
I've made up my mind," the lad was heard,
As he lit a cigar, to say;
"I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And I want to begin today."

The true revolutionaries are those who inverted the entire discipline of economics. The Austrian economists fought for decades to show that prosperity can only be attained through production, savings, and capital accumulation.

The post-Keynesian and neoclassical economists of today would have you believe that printing money and spending it is the true path to a world of wealth. That is simply wrong; it is, however, the true path to depression and financial disarray.

I could be mistaken, but I do not see what is revolutionary about returning to sound economics, limited government, and a humble foreign policy. We had it once and they stole it from us. Let's win it back.

Long Live the Counter-Revolution!