From No Man By Force

Charlie Munger - "Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope."

2010-09-20T18:50:00.001-07:00

I read today in this Bloomberg piece that Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's partner (and ultra wealthy fellow) said we should all be thanking God for the bailouts of the Wall Street banksters.

He comes right out and tells us, the little tax-paying people, that plainly we should be footing the bill for bankster malfeasance. He actually said, “There’s danger in just shoveling out money to people who say, ‘My life is a little harder than it used to be,’” and “At a certain place you’ve got to say to the people, ‘Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope.’”

This is very interesting to me. We see from the same Bloomberg article:

"Berkshire had advanced 26 percent on the New York Stock Exchange this year as of Sept. 17 and benefited from a recovery in earnings at some of its main bank holdings. It is the largest shareholder of Wells Fargo & Co., the biggest U.S. home lender, with a stake valued at more than $8 billion. Berkshire also owns $5 billion of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. preferred stock. "

This is interesting in that Wells Fargo and Goldman received $35 Billion in combined bailout funds; I guess if I had no principles, or no honesty, I'd be happy with this situation, too. After all, someone just stepped in and made my company a boatload of money by saving the losers on which I was so heavily staked! I guess I'd be trumpeting about the greatness of bailouts, too, if I was set to benefit so handily from them.

But, I can't help but think I'd also be wondering when I threw away my principles and accepted that stealing was just fine. Apparently, the old attempts at hiding the theft are getting tiresome, and I should just 'suck it in and cope' with the blatant admission by old rich men that some of us are more equal than others.

Yuck.

Mosques, Muslims and Hypocritical Politicians

2010-08-24T17:32:00.001-07:00

I can't add much to this discussion that is not already being said elsewhere.

I simply want to share that there are two words that state all that is needed to encompass and refute any complaint about Muslims building a mosque near the former World Trade Center site in New York:

Private Property

The politicians who have all sworn to uphold the constitution (which is explicit about protection of private property rights) are such hypocrites when they speak against the construction of the mosque. But then again, the political establishment generally takes part in eminent domain seizures of property to the government, so I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone to see the abject failure of the vast majority of politicians to speak out against any criticism of the building of this mosque (with one prominent and notable exception).

Doubly stolen money!

2010-06-23T20:45:00.000-07:00

I thought it was pretty funny to read that prisoners have defrauded the government (the taxpayers, really) out of funds by taking advantage of the recent tax credit for home buyers.

I guess I think it is funny because the money is stolen to begin with (debt issued by government when the government doesn't have any resources to pay for anything except through taxes) from the people.

Oh well. One day maybe, sometime real soon now, the folks running government will mend their spendthrift ways and live within a budget. Maybe.

Why "From No Man By Force"?

2010-04-28T13:11:00.000-07:00

Because peace will set us free.

Voluntary exchange, peaceful enjoyment of life, liberty and the fruits of our own efforts, cannot fail. When individuals act to exchange for mutual benefit, all parties move away feeling satisfied. When an agreement for exchange cannot be achieved, the involved parties are free to move away and search for another peaceful and agreeable alternative.

The day when this philosophy, as simple as it is, will replace the philosophy that it is OK for one group of people to force another group of people to bend under arbitrarily written rules is long overdue.

We owe it to ourselves to act morally, peacefully and in our own self interest. We do not need a stack of codes, rules and regulations to guide us. Title 26 of the US Code (the IRS tax code) stacks about 20 feet high when printed on 8.5" x 11" sheets!! Natural law and peace will guide us, if we really want to change the world in which we live.

By living this way individually, the world becomes a better place for everyone.

Senators of the People? Not even close...

2009-12-15T17:39:00.000-08:00

Tonight, I watched a video with senator Judd Gregg (R - New Hampshire), and Ron Paul, R-Texas on CNBC's Squawk Box. Ron Paul was the guest host for the show.

I was saddened to see that the 'statesman' from New Hampshire resorted to attacking the ideas of Ron Paul with ridicule and gross distortions rather than logic. See for yourself:

This is a very important issue for America. It gets to the very heart of what is happening with our economy. One of the senators from Arizona, John Kyl, (the Republican Whip - the second ranking Senate Republican) also favors the secrecy for the Federal Reserve that is desired by senator Gregg.

I thought, in the interest of furthering discussion regarding the Federal Reserve in general and the Senate Sunshine Act (S 604) in particular, that I would post a letter I wrote to senator Kyl back in August of this year. The letter was in response to a note from one of his aids stating that the independence of the Federal Reserve was critical to protecting the reputation of the banks who were helped along with TARP funds/bailout monies. NOTE: I did not receive any reply to my letter (nor did I expect one). But, I think it is important to share the fact that people in powerful positions (like senators Gregg and Kyl) are really not interested necessarily in what is best for the people. If they were, there would be serious discussion of the ideas Ron Paul put forth today on CNBC at the very least (since congressman Paul is also in a position of power in our government).

I have come to expect those in power to ignore a simple taxpayer (i.e., me!) and give silence in response to a letter such as the one I sent (see below). But, it is another thing to see one of our elected officials engage in mockery openly in public debate; this is but one of the tools of intellectual cowards and I see it all too often.

With that, I guess I'm still hopeful, though:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

-A catchy phrase sometimes attributed to Gandhi, though it is not clear that he actually said it - still, it's catchy and appropriate, so I'm using it!

Letter (Now Open) to John Kyl, Senator of Arizona, Republican Whip

Dear Senator Kyl,

Please accept my sincere thanks for the letter you recently sent (10 August 2009) in response to my electronic message of that same day.

I must say, I was surprised at the brevity and also the lack of evidence for your position to support Fed secrecy. You mention again your support of "independence" for the Federal Reserve (an argument I've seen attributed to you previously). I fail to see this as an issue, because this (independence) is by default the case. The FED is a legalized cartel of private banks, and its independence is not in question by S604. Transparency is the issue, sir. I would appreciate an intelligent argument describing why you support secrecy in lieu of transparency.

I have a few points I wish to voice with respect to your response. First, the idea that the FED is making decisions independent of political or partisan pressures is, frankly, laughable. There are many examples of a compliant FED doing what is politically acceptable at various points in America's history with the organization working as our central bank. Notably these were at times of various foreign struggles or large-scale state interventions during the 1930's and 1960's, or when a chairman was up for reappointment.

Second, you wrote of and warned about inflation and monetization of debt for deficit spending, and that your support for FED "independence" is meant to somehow prevent "that kind of abuse." The facts don't bear this out. The US government has run a deficit every single year since the mid 1950's (some may think there was a surplus during the Clinton administration, but when one looks at the national debt during those years it still ROSE even though a surplus was reported due to IOUs paid into the Social Security trust and funds taken out to spend immediately). The FED has been complicit in this scheme all along, and therefore an argument that independence will somehow prevent "abuse" is unfounded as well. This "abuse" has been going on since 1913. In fact, the type of “independence” you support has had precisely the opposite effect that you hope it would achieve; it promotes excess government spending and malinvestment by corporations who know they may be bailed out by the government without so much as a public reckoning; this is an enabler of excess risk-taking, the brunt of the negative consequences being shoved over to taxpayers.

Also with regard to price inflation: Milton Friedman stated, "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." The track record of the Fed on this issue is clearly a losing one when measured against its own mandate; the value of the dollar has declined precipitously and continues to do so as the FED balance sheet has ballooned with the purchase of mortgage backed securities, treasury debt and other financial instruments. The resulting decline in the dollar's purchasing power previously and also when excess reserves are loaned into the economy in the future has been (and will be) incredibly damaging on a wide scale. The current increases in the money supply (which are the purview of the FED and the FED alone) will be the catalyst for rising prices (price inflation) in our near future, just as this has been the case since the FED's inception. This runs counter to the FED's own mandate of stable prices, does it not?

Finally, any argument for FED independence in no way precludes transparency of the choice of utilization of funds, especially when these funds are ultimately taken from the taxpayers in the first place. The statement that transparency may cause the citizens to lose confidence in the aided institutions unnecessarily struck me as odd; should we not be concerned that our tax dollars are being handed over to failing corporate giants, barely able to stand under the weight of their own malinvestments? FED independence is not being questioned by S604; this is a simple matter of concerned citizens wanting to know where their tax dollars are being spent, or risked. Also of import is the fact that the passing around of many hundreds of billions or perhaps even trillions of dollars where the taxpayer assumes the risk but where private owners reap the profits is the very definition of economic Fascism (government/corporate partnership) according to 1930's thought. Any right to privacy should be lost the instant a company accepts bailout or financial "aid" money that puts the taxpayers at risk.

The American people are not some nameless, faceless, bottomless pit of labor to be wrung dry and replaced. When our dollars are risked, we have a right to know where, and for what reason. By its very design, a bailout with the shroud of secrecy you support places funds into the coffers of companies who are not doing well economically, due to a lack of efficiency or competitiveness in the marketplace, or in some cases due to outright mismanagement of capital.

In conclusion, I say again it is time for this redistribution of wealth from the working class to the politically-connected elite to see the light of day. I would appreciate a serious response which addresses the issue of secrecy with something other than the non sequitur of "independence". In reality, I’d love to have the chance to speak with you personally regarding this matter. It is a fascinating topic and I am willing to believe (at least for now) you truly wish to represent the people of Arizona. After all, does it not strike you as odd and worthy of further study that the Federal Reserve act was introduced by the father-in-law of one of the most powerful bankers and businessmen of the early 1900's (Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller)? It is time for the secrecy to end.

Sincerely,

Matt Novak, Ph.D.

-------------------------------------
If you (the one or two people who may have read this blog post in total!) are serious about wanting change in America, learn about the Federal Reserve System. Learn about it, and ask yourself why so many powerful people and well-paid academic economists with Ph.D. written behind their names are interested in protecting the secrecy of this government-granted monopoly in banking. Ask yourself why the dollar measured in 1971 purchasing power can only obtain 19 cents worth of goods in 2009. Then, start asking your friends those very same questions.

I believe the answers to these questions are the key to so many other issues - jobs, infrastructure, conservation of both the environment and natural resources, price inflation, safety and national security (which only come through liberty), and so much more. In a battle of ideas, it helps to read and learn many sides of an issue in order that you can share ideas to add to the discussion, rather than tagging people as "populist panderers" or the like!

Temperance, anyone? Not on the government's watch!

2009-11-28T06:43:00.000-08:00

It seems odd to me that fiscal and monetary policy are designed to encourage spending at every turn. There is something like $50 trillion in credit debt outstanding right now in America. Are we to believe that the way to prosperity for the masses is to spend even more money from an empty Treasury vault?

I would love to see a true accounting of the Federal Reserve System actions of the past and all future actions as well. Not just the already GAO-approved audit of the checking receipts - I would like to know which foreign central banks and other entities are the beneficiaries of the largess; details of the Open Market Committee operations which serve to inject 'liquidity' into the fractional reserve system by purchasing bonds, mortgages, commercial paper, etc., at the whim of a few very powerful people. All these actions are geared toward creating more credit (that is, more debt on top of the $50 trillion outstanding debt already on the economy).

I would also like to see the over 260 million ounces of gold that are supposedly on hand according to the FED balance sheet ($11 billion gold stock at a severely under-market valuation of $42.20/oz). If our dollars were once again backed by gold (there are over $2 trillion in circulation), a sound money value of dollars to gold would be somewhere around $7000/oz or $8000/oz. The market has it now at nearly $1200/oz. A thought question: Why does our government insist on valuing gold at $42.20/oz when the whole world is purchasing it at a higher price measured in dollars?

Along these lines, I would like to know what Mr. Bernanke's exit plan is to get out of the trap of 0.00% to 0.25 % federal funds rates for the foreseeable future. This low rate influences market interest rates and forces them to artificially lower levels. This stimulates yet more debt! The only thing keeping housing prices up and consumers making purchases right now is the relentless stream of this nearly free credit (at such low rates, the real rate of interest is negative) and myriad giveaways such as the recently extended $8000 (and $6500) tax credits for home buyers, cash for clunkers, energy efficient window credits, appliance stimulus and the like.

If interest rates rise and giveaways cease, the flow of consumerism will stop. All the purchases of homes in the last quarter that drove the GDP up a few percent were based on the housing tax credit; when that credit expires (it has been extended into early next year) , the consumerism goes away and we are right back where the government does not want us (with inventories on hand that cannot be sold for the inflated prices which have been attained).

A clear example of this was the development of a major spike in car buying as a result of the cash for clunkers giveaway. See for yourself:

Does it not seem odd that there was a precipitous spike in purchasing which bumped vehicle sales up corresponding to the timing of the cash for clunkers stimulus? The "accomplishment" was short-lived; the boon for dealers and manufacturers was a bust for a working person who wanted to buy a functioning $3000 to $5000 automobile. Those went to the scrapyard with an engine block full of molten glass. The previous owners "bought" new vehicles on credit with $4500 in pseudo-free money and when the program stopped, the purchases went right back down to where they were previously. Instead of automatically assuming that demand must be stimulated, why is it so hard to contemplate that demand was artificially high to begin with and that the new (albeit lower) level was more indicative of the true nature of the market?

It seems that the government thinks of the economy as a binge-drinker in need of protection from a nasty hangover. So, instead of allowing some temperance, the magnanimous government tips a glass permanently to the lips of the drunk in the form of nearly-free credit and various giveaway schemes. Continually drinking that glass will bring about a painful end to the overindulged economy.

Healthcare is also a good, subject to the tenets of supply and demand

2009-08-18T09:32:00.000-07:00

In the previous several weeks, there has been a lot of commentary and argument between so-called liberal and conservative groups regarding health care reform, specifically HR3200 and the inclusion of a public option for those unable to afford health insurance.

Allusions to racism, the Nazis or other scary associations are made many times when a group or individual protests the issue of a public option for health care. Recently, an individual with a swastika clearly painted with a line through it in a circle (a fairly universal symbol meaning "NO"), was described in a derogatory way by Nancy Pelosi. Interestingly enough, the person was protesting against National Socialism, not for it. The health care plan with a public option such as that set forth in HR3200 is another step down the path towards socialism in America.

From a somewhat different point of view, rising costs or the inability to afford insurance for some does not mean that it is time to relieve that burden and place it by point of force on the shoulders of other hard-working citizens. How is it ever morally right to take by point of force from some, to provide to others?

Health care, like any other good or service that answers the wants and needs of a citizenry, is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Nowhere have I seen a rational discussion in the mainstream media explaining the economic fact that when prices are set artificially low (in this case, FREE), demand correspondingly rises dramatically. This will cause a shortage of supply (doctors, clinics, hospitals) and therefore a form of rationing where people will wait a very long time for care or pay for it out of their own pockets, at a higher price than was previously available due to the increased demand. The latter happens in places like Canada and England quite regularly; people pay out of pocket for care because their health will not allow them to wait.

Incidentally, I am not a "right wing nut", or a "conservative mob member." These ad hominems are trotted out when people are afraid to think about the facts at hand and let their choices and opinions be governed by emotion instead. I have spent literally thousands of hours studying economics and U.S. history on my own time, in order to understand and make better choices regarding issues such as that which we currently face with HR3200 and health care reform. There is no logic that I have seen presented for how a free public option will not cause the same problems that any other form of price fixing has always done (gas shortages in the 70's, or wheat crop surpluses in the 30's dustbowl years, etc.). And finally, when private companies can no longer compete with the lower "priced" public option, they will slowly fall by the wayside until there is no choice left. The system which need not bother with concerns over profit and loss will be left standing to fill the needs of everyone. When it comes up short, there will always be more taxes and/or inflation of the money supply. We have a long way to fall, mind you. Many people who are considred poor in America still have cell phones and cable TV. Here in America, our taxes are less than in the many European socialistic countries but our rates (and prices of goods) are destined to rise as the American State grows continually larger and more powerful, sapping vitality and power from society and the private economy.

It is time for real, rational debate. Stop the ad hominem attacks, stop the yelling and begin the discussion with honest, sound economics. There are so many arguments why government should not be doing what it is doing (constitutionally, economically, and morally I see no basis for the actions). It is time either for a real argument based in logic to come forward for health care "reform", or more appropriately, for the centrally planned economic state to fall by the wayside for good.

Wisdom of Sound Economics

2009-07-28T20:41:00.000-07:00

I was re-reading the first economics book I ever read this evening, and I came across a particularly insightful paragraph that I want to share, if for no other reason than to marvel at the beauty of sound logic and sound economic reasoning. Notice, I say sound economic reasoning instead of sound economic calculation or prediction; I am not a believer that a system of literally hundreds of billions of independent actions carried out by billions of actors can be modeled via any extensive calculus.

So, without delay here is the insightful paragraph I mentioned for your amazement and enjoyment!

"Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans than otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief, in the long run they do not increase overall national production but encourage malinvestment."

- Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, 1946, Chapter VI, Credit Diverts Production.

Notice, Hazlitt's paragraph could easily have been written today to describe exactly what would happen say, after the Federal Reserve sets the federal funds rate to 1.0%, then Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide (mandated by law) loans in large amounts to people who might have had some difficulty qualifying for a traditional private mortgage. The loans would possibly take the form of Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) with little or no down payment required, among other forms. The ARM rates were derived directly from the federal funds rate, and consequently would be awfully low because of this fact.

This type of mortgage (ARM with little or no down payment) has been implicated as a prominent factor in our recent housing boom and bust. Amazing how sound economics can generally get the story straight, eh? And from 60 years before hand, no less. The paragraph describes very well the upshot of the current situation (where we have many millions of unsold homes on the market in America, and prices still artificially high in many areas as people caught up in the malinvestment are trying to sell at an acceptable level before losing all the capital they have invested). It should sound about right to anyone who bought a house over the last few years in many places, faced with out-sized pricing for even the most modest dwelling, and potential large losses if they have been forced to sell due to unexpected circumstances such as a job loss or relocation.

In the meantime, the taxpayers are forced via taxation to pay for this in the form of subsidized low interest mortgages, tax incentives for home buyers based on the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and as well the implicit guarantee of nearly 65% of all mortgages through GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, I will only briefly mention that the FED also works to keep interest rates artificially low through its purchase of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs) - packages of bad loans on banks' books which the FED is now buying to the tune of $500 billion to help clear the way for more new low-interest loans!

This short quoted paragraph is so surprising to me because with simple deductive reasoning Hazlitt explains in a nutshell the economic debacle we currently face in America, in clear language that mostly anyone could understand with some thought, including many children I know. This simple eloquence is not something we will likely ever hear from the likes of Ben Bernanke as he tries to defend his actions as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Hazlitt was a student of the Austrian School of Economics, and refuted in a weighty tome the writings of John Maynard Keynes - the fellow who provided the groundbreaking intellectual patchwork and background in favor of heavy public deficit spending as a replacement for so-called inadequate demand from the private sector around the world in his treatise 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" (1936).

Keynes' writing was not meant to be understood by the layman and indeed was written with the intent to convince the economists of the day. Keynes himself noted this in the preface to his famous book. I would welcome a description of the fundamentals of Keynesian doctrine that can be put forth in as simple and eloquent a manner as Hazlitt's remarks on the effects of government-sponsored mortgages, that were as convincing. It seems in order to reach the maximum number of individuals and also groups in society this would be a worthy goal. Sadly, I've looked very hard for such a description and have yet to find it. I am a logical person, and the appeal of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory and of economists such as Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises is that the thought processes prescribed simply make sense in a logical way. I must admit, I have decided that I cannot and do not believe in the system Keynes prescribes, since it makes no logical sense to me whatsoever. But, I can be hopeful for the most concise and well-stated version of those ideas in order that I more and more fully understand the position I have taken, as well as that of the alternate viewpoint.

I will close with the thought that it is also simply impossible for me to take seriously a man who thought it would be reasonable for people to have a job digging up bank notes buried in bottles by the government. Don't believe me? Look it up. Keynes thought that it wouldn't be best, but it would be better than nothing in the face of political or practical pressures. To me, that is just so much nonsense.

Free and independent

2009-03-02T19:16:00.000-08:00

This is the inaugural entry to a collection of thoughts and writing constructed to help bridge what I perceive to be a widening gap in America. That gap, in a nutshell, is widening due to an ideological war between the political left and right. Everywhere - in the news, radio talk shows, newsprint, blogs - we see arguments full of anger and combativeness. There are divisive comments made by high ranking politicians. There are hysteric rants made by talk show hosts. Interviewers talk over their guests and ridicule them for speaking in favor of a different philosophy. Name calling is common; in fact it seems as if it is expected.

I think there is a better way to interact with one another, and I intend for these writings to help describe and illuminate a path to this end.

The ideas here will focus on economics, political policy, and social interactions. The basis for the thoughts presented here grows from the fact that at heart, we are all individuals. Society is moved by people pursuing their own individual interests. Most people want to work for the improvement and betterment of their own lives. When people treat others with respect, society benefits as a supplemental consequence. There are of course deviants, criminals, thieves, and dishonest people. But they are not the majority. The majority are working and striving in general for the great ideals of life and liberty, friendships and family, freedom and prosperity.

It is my intention to persuade, with clear writing and thoughts, that we as a people in America would benefit from a sea change in thinking. This change would require the courage to stop thinking about left and right, and to realize the truth about our government and political two-party system. Ultimately, I hope to raise questions for thoughtful people, liberal and conservative alike, which are pointed enough to enable that sea change in thinking to take place. If I can convince even one other person to see things in a different light, I will consider this blog a resounding success.