Peter Foster in the National Post follows up with "Multiplication fables"

Definitely have to start reading more National Post. We have a national news publication which quotes Henry Hazlitt and attacks Keynes? I never knew.

One must read this follow up to Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam's Full Comment.

Here's an excerpt:

One name that didn’t crop up in the critique was that of the father of stimulus, John Maynard Keynes, who manufactured the theory that is still embraced by the activist wing of the economics profession: that is, those who promote programs that fly in the face of economics.

What is truly astonishing about the resurrection of Keynesianism from the policy crypt is that this grab-bag of dodgy concepts — from “the multiplier” (spend yourself rich!) to the “paradox of thrift” (saving is bad for the economy!) — were long ago demolished both in theory and practice. Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, among others, had put the intellectual boots to Keynesianism before 1970s stagflation confirmed its long-term unworkability. In Canada, it took until the mid 1990s for Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin to slay the debt beast unleashed by the Trudeau administration’s embrace of Lord Keynes.

One of the most devastating critiques of Keynes — which requires no grasp of abstruse econometrics — came from the great economic journalist, Henry Hazlitt. In his 1959 book, The Failure of the “New Economics,” Hazlitt poured scorn on Keynes’ anti-business sentiment and fantasy that government investment was equivalent to that by the private sector.

And then Hazlitt's quote:

“So there you have it,” wrote Hazlitt. “The people who have earned money are too shortsighted, hysterical, rapacious and idiotic to be trusted to invest it themselves. The money must be seized from them by politicians, who will invest it with almost perfect foresight and complete disinterestedness (as illustrated, for example, by the economic planners of Soviet Russia). For people who are risking their own money will of course risk it foolishly and recklessly, whereas politicians and bureaucrats who are risking other people’s money will do so only with the greatest care and after long and profound study. Naturally the businessmen who have earned money have shown that they have no foresight; but the politicians who haven’t earned the money will exhibit almost perfect foresight. The businessmen who are seeking to make cheaper and better than their competitors the goods that consumers wish, and whose success depends upon the degree to which they satisfy consumers, will of course have no concern for ‘the general social advantage’; but the politicians who keep themselves in power by conciliating pressure groups will of course have only concern for ‘the general social advantage.’”

Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam From the National Post on "Harpernomics"

I should start reading the National Post more. This Full Comment completely destroys the theory that $47.2 billion Harper's government borrowed on our behalf will do (and has done) anything to boost our economy.

Here's an excerpt:

A vast body of academic research casts serious doubt on the ability of government stimulus spending to boost economic activity. Worse still, our government’s estimates of the impact of the Economic Action Plan on employment and economic growth are based on discredited assumptions that have no empirical basis.

Let’s first review some recent and important independent academic studies on the effects of government stimulus.

Last October, internationally renowned fiscal policy expert and Harvard University professor Alberto Alesina and his colleague Silvia Ardagna conducted a comprehensive analysis of stimulus initiatives in Canada and 20 other industrialized countries from 1970 to 2007. Their study “Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending” identified 91 instances where governments tried to stimulate the economy and found that unsuccessful stimulus initiatives relied on government spending. Alesina noted that “a one percentage point higher increase in the current [government] spending to GDP ratio is associated with a 0.75 percentage point lower growth.” In plain English, increased government spending reduces, not increases, economic growth.

Professor Alesina’s study also found that successful stimulus initiatives — those that increase economic growth — focus on tax cuts. However, only 13% of the federal government’s $47.2-billion Economic Action Plan was dedicated to tax relief.

In another 2009 study published in the prestigious American Economic Review, Stanford University professor John Taylor reviewed the evidence over the past decade on fiscal stimulus and concluded “there is little reliable empirical evidence that government spending is a way to end a recession or accelerate a recovery.”

A 2008 study, “What are the Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?” by University of London professor Andrew Mountford and University of Chicago professor Harald Uhlig, assessed and compared the economic impact of various cases of deficit-financed spending, deficit-financed tax cuts and tax-financed spending from 1955 to 2000. They found that spending related measures are the weakest ways to stimulate the economy and that both deficit-financed and tax-financed spending have the effect of discouraging private investment.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which Prime Minister Harper has cited as an authority, recently surveyed fiscal stimulus initiatives in advanced and emerging economies and concluded that the average effect of discretionary fiscal policy “does not provide strong evidence of countercyclical effects.” Simply put, the IMF concluded that fiscal stimulus is generally not an effective way to combat recessions.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s Office and Department of Finance are not aware, or worse still, chose to ignore these and dozens of other reputable studies that contradict their rhetoric.

Ron Paul @ Boise State

Ron Paul attracts a full house @ Boise State (and every other university he visits).

Bitter Laugh

Naomi Wolf: A Liberal I Can Respect

There's a fantastic interview with Naomi Wolf on Alternet. Here's an excerpt:

JS: Well, more generally, you talk about the possibility of concentration camps and martial law.

NW: I think we have gone very far down that road. I met Muslim immigrants in Brooklyn who were swept up in 9-11 raids, held in abusive conditions, beaten, denied rights. That’s how things started in Germany. Guantanamo was modeled after what Stalin developed for the Gulag. Why are we engaged in psychological denial that it’s not a concentration camp? In terms of martial law, my god. Since the book came out they deployed a brigade in the U.S. and suspended the Posse Comitatus Act. There is no question that it’s something to take seriously. People have a histrionic view of what martial law will look like.

I’m not worried that tomorrow there will be a battalion outside your Greenwich Village apartment. I’m worried about things like the McCain Liberman bill that would define enemy belligerents so loosely it would include Americans, which is just like Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini. If Obama tries people with military tribunals, setting that precedent, that is what a military state does. That is what martial law looks like. From a constitutional point of view Bush passing through the Patriot Act is no worse than Obama renewing it.

Best Of Peter Schiff's Town Hall Meetings

Lew Rockwell on the Suicide Bombers in Moscow

From LewRockwell.com:

We are hearing much about the bombings in the Moscow subways, where suicide bombers murdered dozens of people. These are called “Islamic terrorists,” but while the people of Chechnya are Muslim, that is not the source of their response. They want their freedom from colonial domination. Russia conquered this people in the 18th century. They have been oppressed by tsars and commissars. Stalin murdered them by the trainload, ethnically cleansing them because the communists could not control them. The Chechens want self-determination, and that is their right. It was not, of course, called terrorism when the post-communist Russians destroyed the entire capital of Grozny, and murdered many thousands of civilians, with non-suicide bombers. The Chechens are wrong to respond in a governmental fashion. But Russians have been wrong for more than two centuries to occupy and murder these people, who have never accepted the foreign slave collar. Stop the governmental and private terrorism. Russia out of Chechnya!

Chris Martenson - Crash Course

Chris Martenson put this series of videos together to connect the coming collapse of our monetary system, peak oil, and our environmental challenges. It is very educational, very interesting, and is a MUST watch for anyone that wishes to understand better the turmoil we are living through now and will live through in the near future. So if you have a rainy afternoon and wish to kill a couple of hours, I recommend clicking this link and educate yourself.

Here's Part 1:



The risk of not understanding the coming lowering the standard of living we will all suffer through due to these three variables is large. Not only for our own preparation, but because in times of crisis, our governments will use the crisis to push through policies we would otherwise reject.

Organic Eating, Monsanto Hating, Raw Milk Drinking, Back-Yard Chicken Wanting Idahoan In Love With Ron Paul

This is a letter to the editor from Jen Pitino in the Idaho Press-Tribune:

I have a crush, though it is not your typical love affair, it is all swooning without any romantic designs. Despite not actually being in a relationship with the object of my affection, I have given him more time, energy and adoration than most of my past, real-life boyfriends. I am in love with Ron Paul.

Being in love with Ron Paul often feels like dating the high school rebel. It is difficult to neatly explain to my friends who can’t understand the attraction and demand to know “why am I with him?” There is no single reason, rather it is the sum total of his traits that make him irresistible.

My heart swells at his honesty and boldness. He has consistently spoken out against America ’s seemingly endless wars in the Middle East and was one of only six House Republican votes against the Iraqi war. The American people, he stoutly argues, were misled into a preemptive strike in Iraq based on false reports of WMDs. The results ever since have been devastating in the cost of human lives, the weakening of our national defense and the tremendous drain on our already compromised economy.

Tirelessly he warns Americans of the growing destruction of our Constitution through the false promises of homeland security. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act are all direct attacks on constitutionally protected rights of privacy, habeas corpus and search and seizure. Ron Paul has fervently fought against all of these legislative attacks on our individual freedoms.

I like that he stands up to bullies. He strongly opposes the fundamentally undemocratic World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. He criticizes both of these secretive bureaucratic bodies that are intolerant to public opposition and act to the detriment of human rights, global justice and the environment, but to the advantage of transnational corporations. Ron Paul insists, “For the United States to give up any bit of its sovereignty to these unelected and unaccountable organizations is economic suicide.” He has described the WTO as a “meddling middleman” causing “serious harm to our economy and our sovereignty.”

Like any great date, he is a good listener. When nine out of 10 Americans who were contacting their legislators opposed the bailout bills, many congressmen weren’t such good listeners. Take Idaho, for example. Two out of the four Republicans in the Idaho congressional delegation (Larry Craig and Mike Simpson) voted against the will of Idahoans and for the banker bailout in 2008. Ron Paul listened and consistently voted against all of the bailout bills.

Furthermore, he isn’t a quitter. Twenty-six years ago, Ron Paul was a lone voice calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Today he has 318 co-sponsors for H.R. 1207, which would conduct that audit of the Fed. With the recent announcement of the 27th bank failure this year, Americans are rightfully questioning the wisdom of a system which has placed them on the hook for an estimated $5 trillion in banker bailouts. Serious scrutiny of the Federal Reserve is long overdue, and Ron Paul has never given up on this goal of transparency and accountability.

It makes me giddy that he and I share the same quirky passions. Unlike my friends whose eyes glaze over when I babble on about eating local organic foods or complain about agribusiness genetically modifying our food sources, Ron Paul understands me. Like me, he opposes the Monsanto-backed Food Safety Enhancement Act that puts the integrity of organic food production at risk. He introduced legislation to kill the federal NAIS program which would make it onerous, if not near impossible, for individuals to keep a few farm animals — like my dream of having backyard chickens. He also shares my belief that individuals, not a heavy-handed nanny-style government, should decide for themselves whether to drink raw milk. As a result, he sponsored H.R. 778 to remove the ban on allowing the interstate sale of raw milk.

Lastly, Ron Paul is no cheater. Other congressional members tell you that they are working hard to trim back government pork and wasteful spending, but do they really mean it? Ron Paul actually delivers on his promise to do all he can to save the taxpayers money. Last year, Ron Paul returned $100,000 to the Treasury from his allotted Congressional office budget by running his office in a prudent manner. He also refuses to accept the overly generous congressional pension benefit. He argues that the pension benefit is so lucrative compared to the private sector plans that it encourages careerism in congressional politicians.

In a nutshell, I am in love with Ron Paul because he allowed me to trust again. Too many times I had been two-timed and lied to by other D.C. politicians. A girl can only take so much disappointment. Ron Paul showed me that a Congressman can say what he means and mean what he says.

Ron Paul is the best faux-boyfriend that I’ve ever had.

Heated Discussion In Regard to Israel on MSNBC

The Southern Avenger - Nullify Obamacare

Victoria Police Kicking Unarmed Civilians

Sheriff Richard Mack On How A Constitutional Sheriff Would Have Handled Rosa Parks

Southern Avenger: Why "The Hurt Locker" Hurts

Quote - Khalil Gibran

“Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love.” — Khalil Gibran (1883–1931)

Interesting Video Of Obama

While its obvious government has a monopoly over violence, its interesting to hear the president, or any democrat, say these words out loud.

Best Ron Paul Video since 2008

Southern Avenger - Gunning Down The Constitution

Southern Avenger - Extremism In The Defense Of Liberty

Jordan Page - Liberty

Schiff Won His Debate

Stimulus Explained

Found here.