2007 has come to a close, and as this video shows, the growing economic crisis has created a ticking time bomb on the life of the USA. This year not only when looking at your presidential candidates, but also in congress you need to make sure the candidates address this economic crisis.
Our Job in the Crisis of 2008
- Return to sound money and put an end to the inflation that is eating away at the savings of the middle class and the poor, preventing them from even attempting to catch up with the upper class.
- Restore our civil liberties that has been loss due to the rise in executive power and the abuse of that power.
- Restore a balanced budget that will aid in our mission to curve inflation.
- Save American and foreign lives and restore a diplomatic foreign policy of commerce and friendship and end the war in Iraq.
I advise people to vote Ron Paul for president as the most knowledgeable and passionate candidate on these issues. I ask that even if you can't support Ron Paul for whatever reason to learn about these issues and help the Freedom Movement do battle with the economic and political forces that are slowly killing out nation.
Learn. Educate. Change the World.
Monday, December 31, 2007
#70 - Corporatism vs. Free Markets
In a comment on my newest video blog someone asked me to dismiss the myth that Corporatism and the Free Market are one and the same. People make this association feeling that a free market will create lower wages and poverty when it's quite the opposite. Right now what's hurting our country is Corporatism not a Free Market, the US hasn't seen a Free Market in almost a century at least.
We see Corporatism when legislation gets passed that benefits the Lobbyists, or Regulations that reduce competition to these large corporations in the name of protecting the consumer such as the FDA and the FCC. These undermine the most important aspects of a free market, low barriers to entry and competition which is what drives all the positive effects of a free market, leaving only the negative when Corporatism arrives.
A free market with low/no barriers to entry doesn't have the issue of Corporations with to much power, cause it's easy for everyone to create a competing firm. While one competing firm creates no threat, many will wear away at the larger corporations which prevent things like monopolys from happening while creating jobs. Monopolys only happen when the barriers to entry are raised which can only happen from government intervention. The other effect is when this competition comes into play it brings down prices and higher quality and naturally raises wages.
To restore of a free market we need to do the following:
- Abolish the welfare state (minimum wage)
- Get rid of regulatory bodies/laws (FDA, FCC)
- remove/reduce tariffs on imports/exports
- reduce taxes across the board so firms can compete, and the middle class can create new firms
- Strengthen the dollar
- Shrink the government
Even if you against a free market
WE MUST SAVE THE US DOLLAR
We see Corporatism when legislation gets passed that benefits the Lobbyists, or Regulations that reduce competition to these large corporations in the name of protecting the consumer such as the FDA and the FCC. These undermine the most important aspects of a free market, low barriers to entry and competition which is what drives all the positive effects of a free market, leaving only the negative when Corporatism arrives.
A free market with low/no barriers to entry doesn't have the issue of Corporations with to much power, cause it's easy for everyone to create a competing firm. While one competing firm creates no threat, many will wear away at the larger corporations which prevent things like monopolys from happening while creating jobs. Monopolys only happen when the barriers to entry are raised which can only happen from government intervention. The other effect is when this competition comes into play it brings down prices and higher quality and naturally raises wages.
To restore of a free market we need to do the following:
- Abolish the welfare state (minimum wage)
- Get rid of regulatory bodies/laws (FDA, FCC)
- remove/reduce tariffs on imports/exports
- reduce taxes across the board so firms can compete, and the middle class can create new firms
- Strengthen the dollar
- Shrink the government
Even if you against a free market
WE MUST SAVE THE US DOLLAR
Sunday, December 30, 2007
#69 - "Ron Paul - House of Cards" NAILS IT ON THE HEAD
I'm Surprised I never bothered to watch this video before. No matter where you stand on any issue this nails on the head the impending collapse of our country and our only option of turning things around. To ignore these economic issues and not vote Ron Paul is to seal the fate of our Nations existence.
#68 - The Bottom Line About Executive Power
You have two kinds of people:
Group A: These people believe that executive power is a good and that problems aren't a cause of allowing executive power but cause of people who use it. The problem with this position is that there is no way to truly determine what's "good" use of executive power if it's in the hand of those that wield. Power Corrupts.
Group B: These people think executive power unchecked is dangerous no matter what the intentions or actions that are being taken unilaterally. People have issue with these people cause they worry about rare circumstances in which they would justify unilateral action.
I belong to group B, most of the time there is no reason for executive unchecked power like signing statements and the patriot act and those rare occasions people fear don't seem dire enough to me to justify such dangerous power being wielded.
Sometimes I feel like I'm watching Lord of the Rings, and the one ring is executive power which everyone wants to wield and Ron Paul is the innocent hobbit with a pure heart that can fight off the temptation of power in his quest to destroy it.
So Where do the candidates stand on executive power:
Group A: These people believe that executive power is a good and that problems aren't a cause of allowing executive power but cause of people who use it. The problem with this position is that there is no way to truly determine what's "good" use of executive power if it's in the hand of those that wield. Power Corrupts.
Group B: These people think executive power unchecked is dangerous no matter what the intentions or actions that are being taken unilaterally. People have issue with these people cause they worry about rare circumstances in which they would justify unilateral action.
I belong to group B, most of the time there is no reason for executive unchecked power like signing statements and the patriot act and those rare occasions people fear don't seem dire enough to me to justify such dangerous power being wielded.
Sometimes I feel like I'm watching Lord of the Rings, and the one ring is executive power which everyone wants to wield and Ron Paul is the innocent hobbit with a pure heart that can fight off the temptation of power in his quest to destroy it.
So Where do the candidates stand on executive power:
"And while all the Democrats condemned Bush's use of signing statements, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama each said that they would use them too - just less aggressively. Obama said the problem with Bush's signing statements is not the device itself, but rather that Bush has invoked legal theories that most constitutional scholars consider "dubious" when reserving his alleged right to bypass certain laws.
"No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush administration has gone much further than that," Obama said.
By contrast, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson called for an end to signing statements altogether.
Among the Republicans, their stance was echoed by McCain and Paul, both of whom said they would never issue a signing statement. Romney, by contrast, praised signing statements as "an important presidential practice.""Friday, December 28, 2007
#67 - Boycott FOXnews... UNTIL IT'S OFF THE AIR
Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Park, Muhammad Ali, all people who practiced civil disobedience in times when oppression reared it's ugly head. While each a symbol of a movement, they did not stand alone. It was the actions of many individuals that made these symbols resonate so much in the history of the united states.
For no justifiable reason the promoter of Liberty and Civil Disobedience, Ron Paul, has been excluded from the FOXnews forum in New Hampshire with the other presidential candidates. This isn't an isolated instance and Ron Paul isn't the only one who's been slighted in FOXnews oppressive collectivist propaganda. Now there is no redemption for FOXnews, there is only one way to hold them accountable through civil disobedience, BOYCOTT FOX NEWS.
How Long should we boycott FOXnews?
UNTIL THEY ARE OFF THE AIR
Why? FOXnews is not the only news channel or media outlet that has shown it's propagandist colors this election season, but it surely is the worst offender and must no be made an example. An example to media outlets and journalists everywhere that the citizens of the US will not lay silent to problems at home and abroad and demand truly "fair and balanced" coverage of what's going on. When it comes to something as important as the President of the United States, the citizens must be aware of their every option. Not only should Ron Paul be at the presidential forum, but third parties across the nation should be taken seriously and treated as voices of the people by the media.
1. Join the RonPaulForums.com and find the list of FOXnews Sponsers and call them to tell them you are boycotting their products until they stop sponsering FOXnews
2. Tell your local businesses the same
3. Boycott FOXnews itself
It's time to take back the lines of communication in this country back! This is our stand, this is our opportunity to fight for Liberty the way the greatest in history have through civility and pride in our Country and the constitution which holds it together. Don't let your country down and fight this battle to very end.
There is No Victory until FOXnews is off the Air
Check Youtube Tomrrow for a Video Response from Myself
For no justifiable reason the promoter of Liberty and Civil Disobedience, Ron Paul, has been excluded from the FOXnews forum in New Hampshire with the other presidential candidates. This isn't an isolated instance and Ron Paul isn't the only one who's been slighted in FOXnews oppressive collectivist propaganda. Now there is no redemption for FOXnews, there is only one way to hold them accountable through civil disobedience, BOYCOTT FOX NEWS.
How Long should we boycott FOXnews?
UNTIL THEY ARE OFF THE AIR
Why? FOXnews is not the only news channel or media outlet that has shown it's propagandist colors this election season, but it surely is the worst offender and must no be made an example. An example to media outlets and journalists everywhere that the citizens of the US will not lay silent to problems at home and abroad and demand truly "fair and balanced" coverage of what's going on. When it comes to something as important as the President of the United States, the citizens must be aware of their every option. Not only should Ron Paul be at the presidential forum, but third parties across the nation should be taken seriously and treated as voices of the people by the media.
1. Join the RonPaulForums.com and find the list of FOXnews Sponsers and call them to tell them you are boycotting their products until they stop sponsering FOXnews
2. Tell your local businesses the same
3. Boycott FOXnews itself
It's time to take back the lines of communication in this country back! This is our stand, this is our opportunity to fight for Liberty the way the greatest in history have through civility and pride in our Country and the constitution which holds it together. Don't let your country down and fight this battle to very end.
There is No Victory until FOXnews is off the Air
Check Youtube Tomrrow for a Video Response from Myself
#66 - Freedoms Greatest Hits
Hey Guys,
I thought I'd take a moment take a moment to bring up some of the most informative posts here on Cause of Freedom. Again, this blog is about the Freedom Movement and the fight for liberty, so please join the Liberty Independence Alliance to be informed and organize in this fight against tyranny and oppression and effort to preserve the constitution.
ALSO CHECK THE LIA VIDEO SECTION FOR ALL THE BEST VIDEOS
The true path to freedom from slavery is knowledge
PHILOSOPHY
#22 - Collectivism vs. Individualism
#35 - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick
#36 - Friedrich Hayek and Ron Paul
#47 - Ron Pauls Views on Austrian Economics
THE ISSUES
#1 - Introduction and Monetary Policy
#3 - Civil Liberties and the Free Market
OTHER
#6 - The Free Market and the Value of Individuality
#17 - A Parable of Foreign Policies
#23 - The 10th Amendmant
#46 - The Carter and Wolfowitz Doctrines, Interventionist Doctrines
I thought I'd take a moment take a moment to bring up some of the most informative posts here on Cause of Freedom. Again, this blog is about the Freedom Movement and the fight for liberty, so please join the Liberty Independence Alliance to be informed and organize in this fight against tyranny and oppression and effort to preserve the constitution.
ALSO CHECK THE LIA VIDEO SECTION FOR ALL THE BEST VIDEOS
The true path to freedom from slavery is knowledge
PHILOSOPHY
#22 - Collectivism vs. Individualism
#35 - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick
#36 - Friedrich Hayek and Ron Paul
#47 - Ron Pauls Views on Austrian Economics
#48 - Isaiah Berlin and Positive/Negative Liberty
THE ISSUES
#1 - Introduction and Monetary Policy
#2 - Carbon Tax just Further Intervention
#3 - Civil Liberties and the Free Market
#12 - Immigration and the Language Barrier
OTHER
#5 - Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionism
#6 - The Free Market and the Value of Individuality
#17 - A Parable of Foreign Policies
#23 - The 10th Amendmant
#46 - The Carter and Wolfowitz Doctrines, Interventionist Doctrines
#54 - Why Fight for the Constitution?
#65 - How the Welfare State HURTS the poor (Ron Paul 08)
Hello,
As a former democrat creating mandates for a minimum standard of living seemed like a very reasonable and humanitarian thing to do, now that I know more about economics and have some regard for the notion property rights I think otherwise. Besides, much of the welfare legislation hurts the poor and middle class it intends to aid in the first place.
The Minimum Wage - While the cost of living has been going up, that is partly due to the welfare state. By forcing higher wages and increasing costs of imports you raise the costs of living (loss of purchasing power), especially these days when most of our goods are imports. When a minimum wage exists a few things happen.
- A firm can only afford to hire less employees, thus we have fewer jobs and people get laid off, which lowers productivity which means more jobs are lost as the company has to downsize or go out of business. With less firms, competition goes down, which lower quality and raises prices.
- In a truly global world, other nations firms are much more competitive wage wise, and so domestic firms face the decision of being put out of business by their competition or outsourcing their work, either way those jobs will be lost.
(NOTE: Ron Paul isn't planning on sending anyone out on the street. He has transitional programs for Social Security and Medicare that would cover those who need it without burdening the younger generation)
Medicare/Medicade - The statistics show more people were covered by health insurance before these programs existed. Without these programs and without all the federal agencies and mandates that favor pharmaceutical companies you'd have an increase demand of health care which expands the market for health insurance which will have the following consequences:
- More health insurance firms will be made to meet demand, creating jobs with benefits.
- Being able to buy insurance across state lines will give people more affordable options, plus increase competition which will lower prices and higher quality cause of competitions agencies
- eventually with all the new agencies a huge spike of the supply and alternatives in health insurance options will create a dip in prices (this wouldn't happen right away, but eventually).
- It also removes the barriers from non-profit and humanitarian groups from providing low cost/free health care to the poor on a local level
Public Schools - First off, Public Schools are mostly run and funded by the states, getting rid of the Department of education would only get rid of the Bureaucracy's and standardized testing that's lower the standard of education. Once the states are able to make decision about their schools you'll see some things happen.
- Different states will try different curriculum's/plans out and some will work better than others, when one state sees another state having a high level of education they will to attract new residents adopt the same system slowly creating a superior and affordable system.
- Some states might privatize schools, this would create huge demand for private schools which would create better paying teaching jobs and low cost schooling cause so many schools will open and begin competing over the new demand.
- Non-profit and Humanitarian organizations will again make sure the poor and needy will be educated without being restricted by the federal government in doing so.
This is the kind of change Ron Paul wants to bring to the US, but of course the congress is a huge barrier in doing so. While Ron Paul is strong on immigration, he ran on open borders in 1988, and still believes in a world with open borders but due to all these social programs hurting our job market and education it's impossible to do so until that has changed. So a world without the welfare state that has better education and more jobs would welcome immigrants with wide open arms.
As a former democrat creating mandates for a minimum standard of living seemed like a very reasonable and humanitarian thing to do, now that I know more about economics and have some regard for the notion property rights I think otherwise. Besides, much of the welfare legislation hurts the poor and middle class it intends to aid in the first place.
The Minimum Wage - While the cost of living has been going up, that is partly due to the welfare state. By forcing higher wages and increasing costs of imports you raise the costs of living (loss of purchasing power), especially these days when most of our goods are imports. When a minimum wage exists a few things happen.
- A firm can only afford to hire less employees, thus we have fewer jobs and people get laid off, which lowers productivity which means more jobs are lost as the company has to downsize or go out of business. With less firms, competition goes down, which lower quality and raises prices.
- In a truly global world, other nations firms are much more competitive wage wise, and so domestic firms face the decision of being put out of business by their competition or outsourcing their work, either way those jobs will be lost.
(NOTE: Ron Paul isn't planning on sending anyone out on the street. He has transitional programs for Social Security and Medicare that would cover those who need it without burdening the younger generation)
Medicare/Medicade - The statistics show more people were covered by health insurance before these programs existed. Without these programs and without all the federal agencies and mandates that favor pharmaceutical companies you'd have an increase demand of health care which expands the market for health insurance which will have the following consequences:
- More health insurance firms will be made to meet demand, creating jobs with benefits.
- Being able to buy insurance across state lines will give people more affordable options, plus increase competition which will lower prices and higher quality cause of competitions agencies
- eventually with all the new agencies a huge spike of the supply and alternatives in health insurance options will create a dip in prices (this wouldn't happen right away, but eventually).
- It also removes the barriers from non-profit and humanitarian groups from providing low cost/free health care to the poor on a local level
Public Schools - First off, Public Schools are mostly run and funded by the states, getting rid of the Department of education would only get rid of the Bureaucracy's and standardized testing that's lower the standard of education. Once the states are able to make decision about their schools you'll see some things happen.
- Different states will try different curriculum's/plans out and some will work better than others, when one state sees another state having a high level of education they will to attract new residents adopt the same system slowly creating a superior and affordable system.
- Some states might privatize schools, this would create huge demand for private schools which would create better paying teaching jobs and low cost schooling cause so many schools will open and begin competing over the new demand.
- Non-profit and Humanitarian organizations will again make sure the poor and needy will be educated without being restricted by the federal government in doing so.
This is the kind of change Ron Paul wants to bring to the US, but of course the congress is a huge barrier in doing so. While Ron Paul is strong on immigration, he ran on open borders in 1988, and still believes in a world with open borders but due to all these social programs hurting our job market and education it's impossible to do so until that has changed. So a world without the welfare state that has better education and more jobs would welcome immigrants with wide open arms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)