pryvateer.news : Global online news portal for business success. Provides daily information on economics (and a little politics) necessary to identify and act on global business opportunities.
Our choices this week reflect issues concerning the US and Chinese economies, not much else was been reported. We have typical political blood sport going on with Rep. Foley from Florida, however this space is not dedicated to that type of political crap. Don Boudreaux's article on being free of economic ignorance and Murray N. Rothbard's analysis of von Mises reflect what we consider significant news.
Hope your upcoming business week brings success and prosperity.
Environment: The country is
drowning in wild alarums warning of impending doom due to global
warming. Yet there has risen — from the U.S. Senate, of all places — a
lone voice of rational dissent.
While Al Gore drifts into deeper darkness on the other side of the
moon, propelled by such revelations as cigarette smoking is a
"significant contributor to global warming," Sen. James Inhofe is
becoming a one-man myth-wrecking crew.
Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, took to the Senate floor two
days last week to expose the media's role in the global warming hype.
This is a man who more than three years ago called the global warming
scare "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and
has made a habit of tweaking the left-leaning environmental lobby.
This past week has told us more than we wanted to know about ourselves and about our enemies.
There was far more controversy over remarks made by the Pope
than over the violence unleashed by Muslims against people who had
nothing to do with what the Pope said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in
Washington, in this Thursday, Sept. 14, 2006 file photo. Graham cannot
serve as a member of Congress and as a military judge at the same time
because it violates the separation of powers spelled out in the
Constitution, a military court ruled Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006. (AP
Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)
That our enemies do not understand the significance of free speech
in a free society, where things that offend us can be denounced without
indiscriminate violence, is bad enough. But that we ourselves seem
headed further down the slippery slope of self-censorship is chilling.
Tolerance has been one of the virtues of western
civilization. But virtues can be carried to extremes that turn them
into vices. Toleration of intolerance is a particularly dangerous vice
to which western nations are succumbing, both within their own
countries and internationally.
Double standards are being wrapped in the mantle of morality.
The drive to extend Geneva convention protection to terrorists who are
not covered under the Geneva convention is one of a number of dangerous
self-indulgences by people who seem to think that being morally one-up
is the ultimate and survival is secondary.
During the last presidential election in the United States, both
candidates commissioned opinion polls on the question of "safety."
Voters were asked to say which of the two made them "feel safer." Not,
mark you, whether they made them actually safer. Only whether they made
them "feel safer." Obviously, nobody is really qualified to say whether
they are more secure or less secure under the presidency of one or the
other nominee. So, they had to be content with registering what is
known in the trade as their "perception." It all worked out fine and
was soon played back into the political process. You saw people
on-screen, expressing their own opinions. "I'm a Kerry voter," they
would say, or a Bush voter, according to taste. "Because he makes me
feel safer." If it had gone on much longer, there would have been
bumper stickers saying "Feel Safer With Dubya." Or even: "John Kerry.
Safely Reporting for Duty."
Or would that have been too
ridiculous and pathetic? It's hard to be sure. The last time in history
that "safety" was a political slogan was—as far as I know—when Stanley
Baldwin led the Conservative campaign in the 1929 general election on
the watchword "Safety First." This mantra, which is said to have been
taken from a contemporary road-safety campaign, is agreed by most
historians to have kept the British people in a fool's paradise for a
few extra years while the European dictatorships made ready for a war
that would have made the world safe for fascism. (To make the world
"safe for democracy" had been the earlier ambition of President Woodrow
Wilson, in his "war to end all wars." That didn't work out too well,
either.)
Today's New York Times has several letters-to-the-editor expressing inanely quixotic notions about health care. For example, Professor of Psychology Marcus Tye writes that
We should stop thinking
of health care as a benefit to be earned from work and bought through
middlemen (private insurers), and start treating it as a human right
and a universal entitlement.
Sounds nice. Rights are good, right? So if some rights are good, more rights are better.
They
correctly point out that the Dow Jones stock average, which is right on
the edge of setting an all-time high, is reflecting solid growth with
mild inflation. There’s no bubble.
The money quote is, “We are enjoying a goldilocks economy, not too hot and not too cold.”
Recent
economic reports confirm this. The Chicago and Richmond Fed indexes of
factory production came in strong, much better than the much smaller
Philly Fed report.
Core inflation settled down to only 2.3
percent at an annual rate over the past three months. Excluding energy,
the consumer price deflator hasn’t really moved in three years,
hovering just above 2 percent.
In the third quarter, real
consumer spending is running 3.2 percent at an annual rate ahead of the
second quarter average. In addition, non-defense capital goods
shipments excluding aircraft are 7.6 percent ahead of the second
quarter.
Meanwhile, after-tax real disposable income is 5.4
percent ahead of last year. State budgets across the country are
reporting record revenue collections. And over the September 15th tax
date, the U.S. Treasury reported its highest revenue collection in the
nation’s history.
Politically speaking, this powerful
combination of rising stocks, falling gasoline prices and the
Goldilocks economy are powerful plusses for election year Republicans.
The Dems aren’t even talking about the economy any more.
11:29:42 PM comment []
"The purpose of this essay is to discuss and celebrate the life and work of one of the great creative minds of our century."
Murray N. Rothbard
The purpose of this essay is to discuss and celebrate the life and
work of one of the great creative minds of our century. Ludwig von
Mises was born on September 29, 1881, in the city of Lemberg (now
Lvov), in Galicia, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His father, Arthur
Edler von Mises, a Viennese construction engineer working for the
Austrian railroads, was stationed in Lemberg at the time. Ludwig's
mother, Adele Landau, also came from a prominent family in Vienna: her
uncle, Dr. Joachim Landau, was a deputy from the Liberal Party in the
Austrian Parliament.
The Young Scholar
Though the pre-eminent theorist of our time, Mises's interest, as a
teenager, centered in history, particularly economic and administrative
history. But even while still in high school, he reacted against the
relativism and historicism rampant in the German-speaking countries,
dominated by the Historical School. In his early historical work, he
was frustrated to find historical studies virtually consisting of
paraphrases from official government reports. Instead, he yearned to
write genuine economic history. He early disliked the State orientation
of historical studies. Thus, in his memoirs, Mises writes:
It was my intense interest in historical knowledge that
enabled me to perceive readily the inadequacy of German historicism. It
did not deal with scientific problems, but with the glorification and
justification of Prussian policies and Prussian authoritarian
government. The German universities were state institutions and the
instructors were civil servants. The professors were aware of this
civil-service status, that is, they saw themselves as servants of the
Prussian king.[1]
A schism is opening up in the political
landscape in our country that should be healed before it spurs growing
bitterness and a possible constitutional crisis, such as the
re-emergence of separatist movement in Alberta.
Statistics Canada reports that for the first time, Alberta and B.C. together have a higher population than Quebec.
As of July, Alberta had 3.38 million residents and B.C. 4.3 million
for a combined total of 7.68 million. Quebec’s population as of July
was 7.65 million.
Yet the two western provinces have fewer seats in the 308-seat
House of Commons than Quebec — a situation that isn’t likely to be
rectified until at least 2013.
Quebec has 75 seats, while Alberta and B.C. combined have 64 MPs.
Using the basic formula based on population redistribution of
federal seats would give Alberta 32 MPs and B.C. 40 MPs, for a combined
total of 72 MPs. Quebec would theoretically lose three to 72.
Since representation by population is the rule of law in our
nation, the current allocation of seats is not only unfair, but
intolerable.
11:24:49 PM comment []
China wants to wear the white hat in global affairs. It is already trying on the hat for size, and feels that it fits.
It has watched the USA don the black hat -- in the views of the
opinion leaders in most of Europe and the developing world -- and has
consequently started to act in a solicitous rather than censorious way
towards the Americans, hoping to look like the wise uncle.
This recipe is being pursued, too, in the currently chaotic world of trade.
China talks the talk in a way calculated to win it the respect of
all sides, while pursuing its interests rigorously. Or that's the
theory. But in reality, and despite its diplomatic vitality, it may be
trying to juggle too much at once.
In the world of international diplomacy, while constantly deploying
rhetoric to back multilateralism, it also frequently throws wrenches in
the global gears in order to protect the fast growing number of
developing world dictatorships whose resources it has tied up.
And in trade, the picture is hardly any clearer. Beijing seems to
agree with every important visitor and with every host of a visit by
one of its own leaders.
The Sword of Islam may not take on the form of war and or terrorism,
but take the form of political action, bloodless coups, finance and
media propaganda. The actions are to achieve the same goal--the
establishment of the Islamic Kingdom of God on Earth and implementation
of Shariah law. In the case of Thailand it was a 'bloodless' coup led
by Muslim Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin ostensibly to remove a corrupt
democratically elected government. As Time Magazine (Asia) on September 25
reported Gen. Sonthi was born near Bangkok, he's the first Muslim in
this predominantly Buddhist nation to hold the position. Sonthi is a
descendant of Thailand's first Islamic spiritual leader, and his mother
was a lady-in-waiting at the royal court. Whether this will lead to an
Islamic government is unknown.
11:15:13 PM comment []
The Berlin opera house, Deutsche Oper, has called off a production
of Mozart's "Idomeneo" for fear that a scene featuring the severed head
of Islam's prophet might lead to violence. This confirms the warnings,
made by defenders of free speech during the Danish cartoon crisis, that
the failure of Western governments to respond decisively to the death
threats from offended Muslims could lead to self-censorship in the
West.
"This decision demonstrates the disgraceful failure of Western
governments to defend our right to free speech," said Yaron Brook,
executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
"In 1989, when the Iranian Mullahs issued a fatwa calling for
Muslims to murder Salman Rushdie and attack his publisher, Western
governments did nothing. Last year, when violent mobs threatened the
lives of the Danish cartoonists, Western governments did nothing. If a
government does not ensure its citizens are able to express their views
without fear of violent reprisals, free speech is dead.
"Western governments must reverse their trend of appeasement and
declare their commitment to ruthlessly punish anyone who attempts to
violate their citizens' right to freedom of speech."
Whether conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, few can
argue with a straight face that there isn't massive waste when it comes
to the federal government spending our taxpayer dollars.
But as we've noted on several occasions, the ability for voters to
track how and where their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent is
almost as difficult as a politician's ability to practice fiscal
restraint. (We said almost.)
For example, did you know that according to the General Services
Administration, the federal government subsidizes $300 billion in
grants to some 30,000 organizations? As we pointed out
last month, public data on those grants "is scattered across
innumerable sources," making it difficult, if not impossible, to
obtain.
Such lack of transparency often results in zero accountability for
Congressional appropriators and the bureaucratic agencies that
ultimately cut the checks.
Fortunately, taxpayers just scored a significant victory that will help to address this problem.
This week, President Bush signed into law the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Unlike too many
euphemistically-titled Acts of Congress, the substance of which usually
result in more harm than good, this is one of those rare pieces of
legislation that will actually accomplish, well, federal funding accountability and transparency.
