Category: Federal Government

Federal Government

Taught To Reveal

economiccommanderLeave a comment

Growing up in the early 2000s, I was naturally privy to the tide of screeching concern over mass surveillance and the Bush-approved “police state.” Being at least nominally Republican, I felt predisposed to the apologetics typical of the time. We needed these tools to defeat the terrorists, even if those stopped were seldom ever showcased to the public. Opposition to them was suspect, indicating potential sympathies with the vile forces aligned against American democratic freedom, and “all that stuff.”

With age I outgrew those assumptions, perhaps sooner than others who were plugged into the happy ecstasy as Obama entered office, when liberals suddenly believed fighting terrorism was a glorious cause. Nevertheless, it has stuck in my mind to this day that we are in small ways encouraged to extend compliance towards such policies from a young age. If you came from a family like mine, there was precious little room for privacy, regardless of its desirous status. What you did, who you spoke with, where you went, every last bit would be relayed back to the head honchos, and only after an upward dissemination to each branch. The same was true regardless of how clearly something was designated as private. Journals or diaries were all fair game, because family.

That lack of genuine refuge can certainly lead a person to become insular, trying to preserve what limited autonomy they possess before it is grab-bagged away. On the flip side, it may merely create a conditioning where one feels almost obligated to report broad swaths of their life in order to stay within the bounds of “appropriate” behavior. Failing to do so feels almost criminal, and unless you’re a rap fan, probably not ideal.

Rather than being restricted to youth however, it begins to metastasize outwards into everyday life. Social media shifts from a silly hobby to a duty of sorts, reminding whatever handful of denizens are viewing the profile that you exist, and are acting accordingly. After all, one cannot fulfill his expected objectives as a human being by showing life to random strangers in the park, or whichever acquaintances he comes across on an average day. The internet must be informed, or else it’s somehow less legitimate.

The State is quite plainly the culmination of this youthful trend. If the family, the community, the church, coworkers, and social media sycophants are all definite targets for news delivery, then how can good behavior not also be transmitted to the government authorities? No doubt they will appreciate seeing proud citizens observing their gallant goober role in the open realm. A spirit doing it in private is likely anti-social, with secrets that are lies. Likely to be guilty of untoward attitudes regarding the democratic-mandating syndicate in Washington, D.C., London, or Beijing. Worthy of skepticism and close study.

But the programmed revealers? They aren’t worried, because they, “have nothing to hide.” Nothing. Not a scratch or second-guess. Only the sounding signal of an honest life.

crypto · Economic History · Federal Government

Deficits and Myth

economiccommanderLeave a comment

Economic orthodoxy has a habit of permeating. Whether Left or Right, the political spectrum generally falls around some common first principles regarding how folks perceive public money and its relation to the taxpayer. As conventional wisdom holds it, we taxpayers fund the government, which then goes about its business in a variety of convoluted (and often reckless ways). Dissenters complain about how funds are spent, but they typically fall in line to avoid IRS sanction. The process continues from time immemorial until the state collapses, or otherwise changes shape.

Some would beg to differ, however. A strident example is Stephanie Kelton, author of the fascinating and eminently controversial Deficit Myth book. Kelton prevails as a stalwart promoter of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which manages to simultaneously irritate both conservative economists and their compatriots in the Keynesian column. At stake is MMT’s core implication that the state is not in fact reliant on our tax dollars, but rather independent of the stereotypical “family budget” analogy pushed by politicians. In reality, the government simply wills itself into existence by virtue of an inherent capacity to print money.

Now, some might pose an immediate counterpoint: will this not lead to runaway inflation? Well, MMT proponents have a rather clever way of squirreling out of the problem: they make a distinction between weaker economies deprived of reserve currency status and even Euro-utilizing nations tied to the European Central Bank, which prohibits them from deficit spending (borrowing and printing) their way out of the hole using former national currencies. The United States need not worry about this concern, or at least not to the same restrictive degree.

The purpose of citizen revenue is notably separate from the traditional view as well. According to Kelton, the reason why the Uncle Sam collects taxes involves three separate logical angles. First, it provides something of a check on inflation. Money taken out of circulation based upon paycheck confiscation or other state-mandated fees prevents an overabundance of cash in the system and limits the serenade hysteria of those on the Plural Right, or at least appears to do so. As to what level taxes must be, or what point spending may indeed be excessive, the MMT brigade is not terribly specific.

A following dynamic to taxation is its role in giving the dollar more value by creating a sense of scarcity among the citizenry. Consider the implications if people received their entire compensation without any current or future deductions; would there not be a potential motivation to work less, due to the availability of that additional dough? Over the course of a consumer-worker’s lifespan, it’s a lot of lost productivity on the overall market front. Many people would forgo second jobs, overtime hours, and bridging loans to simply enjoy the freedom of being off. True, there is the possibility of them becoming greater consumers with the extra funds, but whether it would make up the difference is questionable. Such conditions would also lend themselves to individuals having more time to educate themselves and question the state, hardly a positive aspect from the standpoint of the watchers.

This brings us to a third factor relating to legitimacy of the state. By collecting taxes under threat of serious penalties for failure to pay, the government puts up a credible stance versus the liberty-minded activist who conjures some idealistic claim that income tax is unconstitutional. Sure, you can hold that opinion, but the courts will see otherwise. This helps explain why even the most ardent libertarians are sure to file away by April 15th, conscious of their futility in resistance to a behemoth of entrenched administrative power.

Naturally following is the reality that tax protests would be unlikely to effect any major change on the government. The HHS and DHS will not cease to exist simply because a few hundred thousand refuse to pay into the IRS what they are expected to surrender. For one, monies are already deducted automatically from a paycheck if you are not self-employed, and even so, the government would just print or borrow more dollars. We already see this in the aftermath of major tax cuts like Trump’s TCJA; the federal state did indeed lose revenue and expand the deficit, but no crushing blow brought the Treasury to its knees. Business merely continued as usual, albeit with grimmer figures on the leader board.

Does this make us all conservative and libertarian coping clowns? Perhaps, unless the collapse becomes realer than your friendly neighborhood podcast suggests.

Economic History · Federal Government

Compulsory Liberalism

economiccommanderLeave a comment

Over the last several years, as COVID lockdowns, mandates, and forced injections became the rage, there was an accompanying (and loud) blaring of voices calling out the “hypocrisy of the Left.” These banshees fixated on the tactic perhaps because they felt it would go a long way in de-legitimizing the standing of opponents as defenders of freedom, though in fact little more than randomized ranting ever occurred. Their failure can be ascribed to a fundamental understanding of liberalism itself, and what measures are sustained to preserve it.

For starters, the issue is not one of liberalism gone awry. It is common for Intellectual Dark Web types to present such narratives, lamenting the distraction from a genuine freedom order wherein differences might be hashed out using the court of public opinion or through elections. Truthfully, a system built almost entirely on enfranchising and uplifting the commoner’s aspirations without any serious application of responsibility is bound for swift degeneration. Even if certain values are upheld or safeguarded, they are unlikely to stand much chance against the churning and insatiable drive of each generation’s ego and inability to check personal impulses over the short run. This was ably described in The Conservative Mind as follows:

“There is no perversion of liberalism, but simply its natural progression. Liberalism (fortunately) has always been a secondary state, living on like a saprophyte on the tissue of the previous age, inheriting its monuments, feelings, and social hierarchy.”

The reference to subsisting on the grounds of predecessors helps explain the muscular liberalism of Macron, Trudeau, and Biden. As stewards of a schizophrenic and paranoid ideology, said public actors cannot afford to actually endorse a continuation or renewal of liberty and freedom for the masses; to do so might call out liberalism’s own internal contradictions and flaws, perhaps leading to another philosophy gaining appeal. The central belief and all associated indoctrination efforts must be kept outside the cold, and only forceful demands on the populace at-large will be acceptable. Of course the consequence might still be steering folks towards alternative ideas, but at least liberalism can die with dignity as that process unfolds.

Let us recognize that there can be no correction of the problem under existing terms. The Rand Pauls of our world frequently offer up amendments and speeches imploring for government officials to “give back” their power and “restore the Constitution.” To do these things would mean undermining the very essence of liberalism’s primacy, which dictates its moral justification in utilizing tyrannical means to protect legitimacy and the system as a whole vis-à-vis other tyrannical elements. Any significant lessening of effective state abilities is therefore counterproductive, and not credible suggestion to a liberal actor. All the dissident can do is sneer and outflank liberals verbally, while being thoroughly ignored when actual policy questions arise.

So, rather than indicting liberalism for the crime of useful hypocrisies, it may be time to go out and create your own.   

Economic History · Federal Government · investing · Uncategorized

Good Books On The 2008 Crash

economiccommanderLeave a comment

There seems to be an endless supply of firm opinions on why the economy collapsed in 2008. Conservatives blame lending to poor people, and liberals claim it was a lack of federal regulation. I tend to lean towards the latter column, but rather than taking my word for it, here are a list of good books that analyze precisely how things went south those long years ago. They may not aid us in preventing a future hit, but at least the effort is commendable.

In Bed with Wall Street: How Bankers, Regulators and Politicians Conspire to Cripple Our Global Economy

The Global Minotaur: America, Europe and the Future of the World Economy (Economic Controversies)

Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World

The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine

Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History

Economic History · Federal Government · Personal Finance

The Ministry of Normal Existence

economiccommander2 Comments

I’ve spoken before on the trend of the government and corporations essentially becoming one and the same. This is not “corporatism,” as many lolbertarians will smugly insist. It does however spell disaster for the future, and most especially in the short-term. The difficult part is ascertaining what precisely individuals can do in a strategic manner to protect themselves from this great scourge.

First on the list of grim tidings is the story emerging about Bank of America. The company, which currently occupies a position as the second-largest bank in our country, has been caught serving as a dutiful underling for the State. According to Tucker Carlson, BOA reviewed the private transactions and records of customers to determine if they had taken part in the DC events last month. What’s more, they were casting a wide net, going after people who had no indications of involvement with that scenario.

Even the greatest liberal humanitarians should find fault with this behavior. Corporations that rhapsodize about protecting customer data from breaches or marketing can simply turn around and hand it over to the powers that be, all in the name of security policy. There is no bar or threshold requirement, only the shrill declarations of politicians who lie frequently to generate hyperbolic sympathies. Not to mention what throngs of young fools will buy it all absent questions.

But problems fail to end there. Various airlines have already moved to ban passengers affiliated with the controversial protest, effectively crafting their own no-fly lists out of thin air. Bear in mind that these people have not been convicted of any crime; they simply hold a political opinion now considered to be toxic. Yet the desperate calls for regulating out-of-control corporations seem strikingly quiet, largely because people stand to benefit politically from such disenfranchisement.

So what is the proper solution? One might point to the notion of a protective rights bill, though this will require passage through the upper house, where finance and tech lobbying has no limit. Alternatively, a push for nationalization and redistribution of profits to the poor could feasibly scare the larger firms into better guarding individual liberties, though I certainly think they will fight on all fronts to defend the sniveling worship of power.

After all, it is a tremendous drug.

crypto · Culturalism · Economic History · Federal Government · investing · Uncategorized

Are We Wrong About Welfare?

economiccommander1 Comment

An especially frightful bogeyman mustered by folks on the Plural Right to win elections is the idea of the welfare queen. This horrendous creature oozes about in life, deviously attempting to confiscate as much from the public dole as possible, and using taxpayer dollars to fund her luxurious lifestyle. She is often paired with her live-in boyfriend, a clownish drug dealer who uses his perch in a Section 8 housing complex to make tax-free money by selling controlled substances. Topping off the vignette are their countless children, who assist in generating those lovable food stamp checks which are annihilating the economy.

Effective as the idea may be for politicians, it betrays a fundamental unwillingness to understand the nature of the public support system, along with the actual status of people involved. Thus we must provide an overview of precisely what is available to welfare dependents, and for how long. Hopefully, a measure of clarity can help eliminate the misconceptions that inevitably fuel terrible corrective policy on the part of the State.

The first salvo ought to involve a popular 2012 study from Wisconsin distributed inside conservative circles. According to the authors, a family on welfare in the Badger State can rake in $35,000 annually post-taxes by yukking it up with a variety of government programs and not working. A similar 50-state analysis by the Cato Institute confirms such alarmism, noting how places like Hawaii grant payments of almost $50,000 a year to government dependents.

There is no doubt the proponents of such studies have justifiable concern about the nature of welfare. Unfortunately, they rely on rather self-serving conclusions to fit the bill of lolbertarian ideology. For one, the Wisconsin study relies upon an assumption that eligibility automatically equates to acceptance. In reality, analysts have concluded that less than 300 Wisconsinites would be able to draw the $35,000 amount of income, this in a state of almost 6 million people. Further complicating the matter is how most welfare programs require participants to be seeking a job or working, stipulations which undermine the suggestion they are simply mooching because they can.

Perhaps more critical to mention are the limitations on welfare programs themselves. In the case of SNAP benefits (food stamps), users without children are limited to 90 days in the service within a 36-month period by a federal law enacted in 2008, unless they can meet certain work requirements. When paid out, benefits average about $256.00 per month for a household or $127.00 a person, and come to around $1.40 for each meal. Higher payments materialize in the event of a household being extremely low income or with many kids, so not everyone receives the same amount of money.  It is worth noting that the Obama Administration promulgated an $8.7 billion cut to SNAP, despite its supposedly progressive credentials.

Section 8 housing also gets a bad rap due to the poor reputation of such communities, yet it too has strict standards for access, cutting out sizable swaths of the general population based on income and family status.  Quite crucially, the voucher system does not cater to illegal immigrants, as applicants must be citizens or possess eligibility for citizenship. The closely-associated LIHEAP program gives recipients help with heating and cooling bills providing they meet certain requirements. Strangely enough, President Obama also made repeated requests for Congress to cut funding to LIHEAP, instigating a move by the late Hugo Chavez to donate heating oil to Americans.  

Some critics will aim their guns at the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash support program to satisfy notions of dependency. Here again the issue is complex. TANF operates not as a long-term solution to poverty, but merely the helping hand to bring people back on their feet during hard times. Benefit checks in July 2020 ranged from just over $300.00 in Texas to $1,086 in New Hampshire, reflecting cost of living and state government decisions. The final point is important because individual states control the destiny of TANF money block-granted by the Fed, and are not obliged to offer a large (or elevated) amount. Furthermore, recipients are limited to 5 years on the TANF dole throughout their entire life, so it is hardly a career dependency model.

Welfare alarmism also flies in the face of the historical record. The 1996 welfare reform bill signed by Bill Clinton had the effect of eliminating the “entitlement” concept behind such programs by instituting stricter work requirements. Since 1997, spending on TANF has remained largely unchanged at $16.5 billion, and broader welfare caseloads have increased to 15 percent, while the assistance rolls remain down by 68 percent from the pre-reform highs, this even with the effects of the recession and Corona. As a percentage of the total federal budget, the programs amount to $361 billion, or 8 percent.

One final point to acknowledge regarding the 1996 reform lies with the impact on child support enforcement. Prior to the legislation’s passage, the State’s involvement in collection and insistence on men paying was decidedly more limited. Clinton’s bill changed that by requiring state authorities to more aggressively pursue orders on child support, and encouraging women to pursue it. So in a sense men replaced the State for a portion of the payments, arguably leading to the disaster of family courts today.

At the end of the day, I can appreciate the rage against welfare. Those of us who work feel indignant about folks who simply take checks and live on the dole. Of course the truth is that many of the “takers” are actually employed, yet simply do not make enough to survive. Perhaps our bigger focus should be on the creatures and organizations regularly taking trillions from the government to bail them out whenever the economy turns south.

Culturalism · Economic History · Federal Government

What The State Could Do

economiccommanderLeave a comment

If one thing is consistent, it would be the general atmosphere of dislike for the State in circles of the Right. One could spend hours parsing up the backstory and justifications, but such a practice fails to crystallize exactly what the future holds. Our reasonable guarantee holds that governments will continue to exist, and thus financial corruption shall abound. All else is fantasy.

With said negativity considered, we might consider exactly how the State might alleviate the suffering of countless Americans with a handful of small moves. Healthcare has already been discussed, although the government-run model falls under harsh modes of criticism. Federalized educational payments are similarly fraught with peril, at least insofar as they become breeding grounds of progressive lunacy and degree value inflation. So what else can we hope for? Government-funded groceries?

Not so much, but has anyone considered the question of usury? The term is controversial in modern days due to our obsession with debt-financed economics, but would it really be so bad to leave that category to the rich and empowered? After all we’ve heard about how “every man can be a king” with deregulatory policies, the powers that be still go about trying to blame poor people for financial collapses which their own foolish behaviors instigated.  If we take them seriously for a second, how could this downside be avoided in the future?

Simple, by smashing the concept of interest on home loans. A certain figure who will go unmentioned launched his very successful program on these terms decades ago, specifically oriented around building up the family. The program he promulgated allowed couples to attain interest-free loans which could go towards the purchase of a new house, along with furnishings. Instead of being mortgaged to interest payments, the newlyweds had merely to repay the principal, giving them a massive shelter against debt slavery in a world where the percentage charges often eclipse what has been borrowed.

When we account for the reality of Adjustable (Variable) mortgages, and how they threw countless Americans to the curb during the 2007-2008 collapse, the aforementioned plan sounds intriguing. Even a non-gambler would be inclined to wager that families who only had to pay their principle back without interest might well have avoided losing their homes when things went belly up, even if a job loss occurred. Furthermore, nothing prevents the State from extending grace periods in case the person is unemployed so they do not immediately fall into destitution due to vibrations beyond their control.

Obviously such a proposal must be crafted to avoid exploitation by real estate investors. Consequently, the applicants would need to prove they are in a committed marriage with intentions of having children. Allowing only one application per family would also stand to cut down on fraud, as might requiring them to live in the house for a certain number of years. The latter component has the potential to preserve communities as well, which is attractive.

Maybe the hammer to usury would backfire, turning into another predictable creation of the federal behemoth and pushing us closer to fiscal insanity. At the same time, it could be the solution to most national problems, and those facing the children of tomorrow. Debt is a scourge which conquers nations, so why not set our people free?

crypto · Economic History · Federal Government

They’re Getting Fearful

economiccommanderLeave a comment

Today as I was browsing Twitter the following article popped up:

Imagine that. UBS is warning people that the major threat to cryptocurrency as a dominant means of exchange lies with the inability of central banks to control it by limiting total money supply. This honestly sounds like the product of some bizarro alternate reality. Such organizations have (at least in recent history) printed money and flooded the market with extra cash, not restricted the amount available. Do I sense a desire to manipulate the market and maybe snag some cheaper BTC for late-arriving buyers at UBS?

Time will tell. It’s no secret however that UBS has been on the warpath with their fear predictions, as seen just a week prior:

Of course if they do manage to drive the price down, smart folks will pick up a little more. The big shots will catch up, eventually.

Culturalism · Economic History · Federal Government

Walled Off

economiccommanderLeave a comment

There’s an older meme of Congressman Ron Paul smiling or waving his arms with the caption “It’s Happening!” The image is meant to imply that Paul was right, and simply got ignored by the broader masses of sheep who continue voting for establishment Democrats and Republicans. Most people throw it around sarcastically, and even less probably recognize Ron Paul anymore.

Except it’s not really a meme. According to reports from congressional testimony, incoming DHS head Alejandro Mayorkas will not commit to tearing down Trump’s spooky fence wall on the southern border region. This seems completely out of character for someone like him, who is only in power due to a political party which spent the last several years lamenting over immigrant detainment and access control. Are the Dems having some magical wake up call regarding border security?

Absolutely not. After all, Biden has encouraged the approaching wave of migrants to enter in the future, regardless of the damage such a move is bound to cause. Instead, the development from Mayorkas made me think back to an old debate from 2011, when Ron Paul answered a question on the long-legislated idea of immigration control:

What a fascinating idea: instead of the wall being used to keep terrorists and immigrants out, it is actually designed to prevent people who wish to leave. From a traditional conservative standpoint this sounds absurd, as who would really want to depart the United States? As it turns out, more than we might realize. The next couple years will begin to show people how all the security apparatus which they endorsed happily as a weapon against terror is going to be used against them. We already have folks getting kicked off platforms and denied flight access because they expressed views which are seen as toxic to the mainstream. How far are we from passport revocation on the same basis?

Not far at all. The IRS already possesses the ability to snatch a person’s passport on the basis of tax issues, so only an upgrade to “problematic political ideas” is needed for us to come full circle. After all, we can’t be exporting extremism and terror to other countries…that would be unacceptable.

This too shall be forgotten by next election.

Culturalism · Economic History · Federal Government

Strange Rebels

economiccommander2 Comments

Will the Left ever be consistent? Yes, I accept this post is one of many preaching to an exasperated choir, but it feels important when we consider the method being employed. Social media snitching has been a regular part of our existence for years now, but there still seemed to be a fragile line blocking off certain realms from encroachment – at least until now. The last gates of respect have been battered through.

Reports are emerging of liberal women who labeled themselves as conservatives on popular dating apps such as Bumble in order to draw in men who might have attended the January 7th protest in D.C. Upon gaining photographic proof, they proceeded to forward the information to federal authorities. Here is a celebratory internet cackle:

Bear in mind that these were the same type of creatures castigating Jim Comey and the FBI for supposedly helping Donald Trump win election in 2016 by his reopening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Many leftists at the time called for Comey’s removal, and decided the law enforcement agency he headed was compromised. Yet here they are, happily going from “La Resistance” to loyal information brokers for the Feds.

Is there no contradiction visible? What if the ill-termed “rioters” were actually AntiFa, albeit raging against Joe Biden’s Corporate Democrat appointments…would they also happily provide details to help the men in black?  Would these pleasant faces bother taking time out of their boring lives to draw in some Anarcho-Communist activist with their deep knowledge of Das Kapital before springing Wray’s Army on that delusional revolutionary?

I reckon not, but who knows? Social credit is a lovely thing.