End Manipulation, Let the Markets Clear!

Dees Illustration

Ron Paul

French businessman and economist Jean-Baptiste Say is credited with identifying the fundamental economic principle that aggregate demand for goods in an economy will equal the aggregate supply of goods when markets are permitted to operate. Or in Say’s words, “products are paid for with products.”

English classical economist David Ricardo, among others, more fully developed this principle into what has become known as “Say’s Law.” Say’s Law, according to Ricardo, leads us to understand that market equilibrium for goods is constant. This simply means that markets, when left alone by government planners or other fraudulent actors, inexorably tend toward an “equilibrium price” which eventually balances supply and demand for any particular good. Thus markets will clear themselves of any surpluses or shortages in the form of excess supply and demand. 

Alternative Markets, Barter Systems, and Local Co-ops are the Lifeboats That Will Save Us

Interview with Brandon Smith, founder of Alt-Market.com

Eric Blair

More and more people are becoming aware of the complete system failure we're experiencing in the United States and around the globe. As the true nature of the control system is revealed, people tend to feel as Howard Beale did in Network when he said, "first, you've got to get mad...and scream, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" 

But once that anger at being lied to for so long subsides, then we must get on with the business of taking action to make the world more just and hopeful for our children.  Many people will take to the streets to protest certain aspects of the current system. Others will do everything in their power to inform or warn their peers of the coming iceberg. Those are good and necessary functions, but they won't stop the Titanic from sinking.

It seems the broken system will continue to take on water despite the best efforts to affect change within it.  That's why some are suggesting to jump ship now before they run out of lifeboats.  By jump ship, I mean function outside of the system as much as possible.  The faulty economic system is only propped up by our belief and support of it.  When we operate outside of it using alternative markets, barter systems, local cooperatives, and competing currencies, we not only provide a lifeboat to many frightened passengers, but the paddles as well.

Below is my email interview with alternative market activist and founder of Alt-Market.com, Brandon Smith.  He explains the need and benefits of using alternative markets as a form of protest and survival:

EB:  What was your motivation for starting Alt-Market?

The Surprising Moral Case for Free Enterprise (Video)

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below. Sharing on Reddit and Newsvine will help the most.

Fascinating Philosophy Discussion: Molyneux Talks with Zeitgeist (Video)

Freedomain Radio

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

8 Easy Steps to Building Your Barter Network

Barter economy - Wikimedia image

Brandon Smith
Alt-Market

The trading of goods without the use of paper currency is not a difficult concept. People all across the country do it everyday. Barter, in its simplest sense, is not dead, and never will be. However, the organized use of barter as an alternative to the mainstream economy; THAT is something America has all but forgotten. One serious problem that I consistently seem to run into is the assumption that barter needs “backers”, meaning, many people believe the existing methodology of business must be the driver for barter to become “big” again. For decades, barter organizations of every shape and size have been so focused on pursuing a centralized corporate profit model that they forget the foundation of success in barter is the strength of the individual participants. This is why we have seen so many false starts and failures in localized commerce initiatives. It is the same reason why many existing barter groups remain in a sort of stasis, unable to grow, frustrating organizers and members alike. Liberty Dollar, for instance, was so centralized that a single federal raid was all that was needed to dismantle Bernard von NotHaus’ accomplishments and his years of effort.

Bitcoin Triples Again

Image Source: Bitcoinme.com

Jack Hough
Smart Money

The online currency has minted off-line millionaires. But for how long?

The world's fastest-gaining currency has tripled in price again. Last week, SmartMoney reported that the Bitcoin had exploded from an exchange rate near zero to more than $10 in about a year, making it one of the top-returning assets of any kind. On Wednesday the currency topped $30.

If returns like those seem otherworldly, perhaps its because Bitcoin is a world unto itself. To recap, it's is a purely online currency with no intrinsic value; its worth is based solely on the willingness of holders and merchants to accept it in trade. In that respect, it's not so different from fiat currencies like the dollar or Euro, but whereas governments back such money, Bitcoins lack central control.

In another way, the appeal of the Bitcoin echoes the appeal of gold. Instead of a central bank, a computer algorithm dictates their supply. Today there are six million Bitcoins, a number that will grow at a steadily slowing rate until it approaches 21 million, but no more. As with gold, some see such limited supply as built-in protection against inflation that could result from runaway government budget deficits. Gold, of course, has been a store of value for thousands of years and has at least some industrial use, whereas Bitcoins are brand new and exist only on the Internet.

For some early adopters, Bitcoins have turned from a hobby into a windfall. MtGox.com, the main exchange for users swapping Bitcoins for dollars and other currencies, charges buyers and sellers a fee of 0.65% for its brokerage service. (The name stands for Magic the Gathering Online Exchange, but the Bitcoin dabbler who bought the domain didn't bother to change it.) As recently as a few months ago, the site generated just pennies a day in income. By Wednesday it was making more than $40,000 a day.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Bitcoin: Decentralized Underground Barter Economy

RELATED VIDEO:
Max Keiser: Bitcoin is the Resistance Currency


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Hemp, The Great Green Hope

Wiki Commons

Rand Clifford 

Activist Post

“It has something to do with something called marijuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.”

So said congressman Rayburn to congressman Snell’s question: “What is this bill about?”

That was way back in the summer of 1937, when Congress was being asked to essentially outlaw a drug they knew nothing about, marijuana. But realistically, marijuana had little to do with it. The real issue was non-drug industrial hemp.

Industrialists were like scarab beetles, rolling around this giant ball of profit protection, and they ran right over the domestic hemp industry. Hemp presented way too much competition, too much threat to entrenched and entrenching profits. Took a pretty big ball of dung, but the scarabs rolled it expertly, professionals. Except for several years of heavy production during WWII, under the feds’ “Hemp for Victory” campaign -- which told the truth about hemp and helped us win the war -- not a single acre of hemp has been legally grown in America since 1937. Seventy-four years and counting. That was one enormous ball of dung. The entire hemp-prohibition infamy could be called a dung deal, especially as related to the commonwealth.

When Money Dies: The Dollar Vigilante Interviewed on Freedomain Radio (Video)

YouTube -- freedomainradio

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

When Money Dies: The Dollar Vigilante Interviewed on Freedomain Radio (Video)

YouTube -- freedomainradio

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio Discusses Economics and Philosophy on the Max Keiser TV Show (Video)

YouTube -- Freedomainradio


'Economics and Philosophy' - A tour through historical and contemporary economic issues through the lens of rational philosophy - Max Keiser interviews Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio on television.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

The Google Pharm Case

Corporate-government restricts free market in drugs

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Lew Rockwell

The American pharmaceutical system is a highly controlled apparatus for restricting access to much-needed drugs and violating the rights of those who want to purchase them. This has long been true.

Vast amounts of drugs that people should be permitted to purchase of their own free will are withheld from the market (of course, many others are outlawed). Instead, people who know what they need are forced first to fork over their money to a physician – who then gets overpaid by insurance – then part of the buck is passed to the over-trained checkout clerks at the pharmacy. We are all treated like babies in order to sustain and fund an industry filled with bamboozlers in white coats.

Free Markets and Socialism: An Alternative View

Transitioning from socialism to pragmatic, technological solutions.

Building things, making things, technological and scientific 
progress moves forward the frontier of human knowledge
and makes all that follows in its wake more accessible and 
affordable to the average person.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Bangkok, Thailand April 29, 2011 - Why is medical care subsidized by insurance schemes and socialism? The answer is quite obvious in that medical care requires highly trained practitioners and state-of-the-art technology to provide the absolute best care. Such trained practitioners and technology is of limited supply, in great demand and thus incredibly expensive to procure for the average person without financial assistance, be it from insurance schemes or socialist handouts.

However, perpetually subsidizing medical care will never address the underlying cause of its scarcity and in turn, its incredible price. Subsidizing is also unsustainable economically. It requires rationing and difficult "moral" decisions to be made regarding who receives what treatment. Such scenarios belittle both human dignity and the full potential of humanity in general.

Of course no one could seriously suggest people deserve to be denied medical care for the simple fact that they cannot afford it. The sad reality is that many people do not receive the best treatment available, subsidized or not, because neither they nor the state can afford it. So what is the answer? When is it ok to subsidize political solutions and what can be done to find permanent, pragmatic, technical solutions?

A Tariff Would, Too, Fix Our Trade Mess

Ian Fletcher 

Activist Post

I and my employer, the Coalition for a Prosperous America, are unabashed protectionists.  I have written previously about how, for example, a flat tariff on all U.S. imports may well be the key to solving the ongoing trade crisis that is depleting our national wealth and gutting our industries. 

We at CPA believe that a genuine national debate on trade issues will eventually draw public opinion our way.  So it is only fair to answer some of the reasonable-but-mistaken objections raised to our position.

One obvious objection is simply that a tariff is a tax increase. So it is. But it does not have to be a net tax increase if the revenue it generates is used to fund cuts in other taxes. So in order to obtain a “clean” policy debate, in which the tariff is debated purely on its merits as a trade policy, unmuddied by partisan opinions about the total level of taxation, any tariff proposal should be packaged with precisely compensating cuts in other taxes. 

A related concern is that a tariff is a tax on consumption. This is generally better than a tax on income because it rewards saving and avoids penalizing work. Unfortunately, consumption taxes also reduce the progressivity of the tax system because the poor consume, rather than save, a higher percentage of their incomes. So any tax rebate financed by the tariff should also be designed to leave the overall progressivity of the tax system unchanged. 

Nuclear Power Exposed as a Product of the State (Video)

Freedomain Radio

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Why Public Support for Free Trade Will Collapse Soon

Ian Fletcher

Activist Post

For once, some good news: public support for free trade will almost certainly collapse over the next few years.  On this issue, the public is way ahead of the political class in the quality of its thinking, and the average hardware store owner in Nebraska understands the real economics involved better than the average U.S. Senator.

Public opinion certainly continues to turn against free trade: an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll in September 2010 found 53% of Americans believing free trade agreements hurt the U.S., with only 17% believing them beneficial.  (The split had been 30%  vs. 39% in the dot-com boom year of 1999.)  86%  named outsourcing to low-wage nations the key cause of America’s failure to emerge fully from recession and create jobs, significantly outranking choices like the federal deficit. The turn against free trade was sharpest among the affluent and cut across boundaries of class, region, and political affiliation.

As of early 2011, there are four missing prerequisites for free trade to explode as an issue and collapse as a policy:

1.    Everyone is still preoccupied with the financial crisis, its aftermath, and recovery from recession, especially job recovery.

2.    There remains a residual sense in the minds of the public and the lawmakers that somehow free trade, despite all its problems, is still sound economics, and that perhaps we should just keep on eating our spinach because it will be good for us in the end.

3.    There is no obvious alternative policy on the table. There is instead a grab bag of issues, ranging from Chinese currency manipulation to the proposed Korea, Colombia, and Panama free trade agreements. This paucity of credible alternatives feeds the defeatist attitude that nothing fundamental can be done, which feeds apathy.

4.    A specific crisis has not happened to force the system out of its old way of doing things as the debacle in subprime mortgages upended our financial system in 2008 and made continuation of prior policy impossible whether anyone wanted it or not.

Economists Are Hopelessly Naïve About International Trade

Ian Fletcher

Activist Post

The economics profession, or well over 90 percent of it according to polls, continues to support free trade. Above all, most economists remain stuck in a cheery “win-win” fantasy of how trade works and are unable to see the brutally adversarial dynamics of trade in the real world.

The basic justification for their delusion, of course, is David Ricardo’s venerable 1817 theory of comparative advantage.  However, economists do not consider free trade justified today simply on the strength of the original 1817 theory alone. Ricardo’s ideas have been considerably elaborated since then, and they generally use sophisticated “computable general equilibrium” (CGE) computer models, built upon his work as the foundation, to assign actual dollar amounts to the purported benefits of free trade. 

As a result, it’s well worth looking at problems with these models a bit in order to understand why economists remain so confused. 

Economic Nationalism: Fair or Foul?

Ian Fletcher

Activist Post

Because we have a national government, because Americans care about what hap­pens to their economy, and because it is the national debate on the question that will bring changes or fail to, our trade problems will be fixed in Washington or not at all.  As economist Herman Daly of the University of Maryland, best known for his work on ecological economics, puts it, “Free trade makes it very hard to deal with these root causes at a national level, which is the only level at which effective social controls over the economy exist.” 

Unfortunately, critics of America’s trade mess are often confronted with the idea that caring about the well-being of other Americans more than foreigners is either a) irrational or b) downright evil.

It’s the latter category that concerns me here.  

Holy Cow! A Real Debate About Free Trade

Ian Fletcher

Activist Post

Despite being one of the most pressing policy choices facing America, and despite having been one of the biggest controversies in the last, oh, 400 years of economic history, free trade rarely gets a real debate in this country.  For the most part, its superiority is just assumed, and the word “protectionist” is treated like, say, “fascist”:  something just obviously, axiomatically bad and requiring no serious thought.  

So it is gratifying to see economist Uwe Reinhardt of the New York Timesand Princeton University attempt to engage in a real debate on the issue.

Is it America vs. Poor Nations in Trade? No.

Ian Fletcher

Activist Post

Question: is there a fundamental us vs. them dynamic in America’s trade with the developing world? Is a sound trade policy for ourselves ultimately about nothing better than grabbing an economic advantage at the expense of other nations, especially poorer ones? 

Some people certainly seem to think so.  To them, ending free trade sounds like a mere invitation for America to become a global economic bully boy.

But they’re wrong. The serious economic rivals of the U.S. and other developed nations are “big boys” whom nobody needs to cry over. We need not have ethical qualms about taking industries away from Japan. 

More Free Trade Agreements? When NAFTA Failed?

Ian Fletcher

Activist Post

With the Republicans and the Obama administration attempting to rush headlong into a new trade agreements with Korea, and possibly also with Panama and Colombia, it is incumbent on Americans to apply a bit of empiricism.  How have our past trade agreements worked out?  Above all, how’s the grand-daddy of them all, NAFTA, doing?

Unfortunately, NAFTA is a veritable case study in failure. 

This is all the more damning because this treaty was created, and is administered, by the very Washington elite that is loudest in proclaiming free trade’s virtues. So there is no room for excuses about incompetent implementation, the standard alibi for free trade’s failures in the developing world.
So if free trade was going to work anywhere, it should have been here. 

Instead, what happened? NAFTA was sold as a policy that would reduce America’s trade deficit. But our trade balance actually worsened against both Canada and Mexico.