The Self-Referential Awakening – Heeding the Warrior’s Call

submitted by jwithrow.
Click here to get the Journal of a Wayward Philosopher by Email

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
The Self-Referential Awakening – Heeding the Warrior’s Call

January 4, 2016
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P closed out Friday at $2,044. Gold closed at $1,060 per ounce. Crude Oil closed at $37.07 per barrel, and the 10-year Treasury rate closed at 2.27%. Bitcoin is trading around $431 per BTC today.

Dear Journal,

Happy New Year! As I touched on in my last journal entry, I expect 2016 to be a very interesting year in the financial markets. Credit has been expanding and interest rates have been falling for more than three decades now, but 2016 may be the year those trends reverse.

The “authorities” will fight such a trend reversal with everything they have, but Mr. Market will eventually assert himself. Trees don’t grow to the sky, as they say. For a more detailed look at the prominent macroeconomic trends of our time, as well as how to position your finances accordingly, please see our online course Finance for Freedom: Master Your Finances in 30 Days.

Moving from finance to philosophy…

Socrates: Everyone wants to tell you what to do and what’s good for you. They don’t want you to find your own answers, they want you to believe theirs.

Dan: Let me guess, and you want me to believe yours.

Socrates: No, I want you to stop gathering information from the outside and start gathering it from the inside.

Continue reading “The Self-Referential Awakening – Heeding the Warrior’s Call”

Individualist Capitalism

submitted by jwithrow.individualist capitalism

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Individualist Capitalism

December 14, 2015
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P closed out Friday at $2,012. Gold closed at $1,074 per ounce. Oil closed at $35.35 per barrel, and the 10-year Treasury rate closed at 2.14%. Bitcoin is trading around $443 per BTC today.

Dear Journal,

The U.S. equity markets plummeted by nearly 2% on Friday. Searching for a specific explanation, the financial press blamed the big drop in the equity markets on oil falling in price to multi-year lows. Of course just a few months ago the financial press was hailing falling oil prices as a great economic stimulus. So which is it?

The truth is markets are a confluence of many individual actors, each operating in his or her perceived best interests. Markets go up and markets go down according to individual human action. There can never be a single simple explanation for market activity because there can never be a single explanation for the actions of millions of people. Continue reading “Individualist Capitalism”

Peak Collectivism

submitted by jwithrow.Peak Collectivism

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
Peak Collectivism

August 7, 2015
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P closed out Thursday at $2,079. Gold closed at $1,090 per ounce. Oil checked out just above $45 per barrel, and the 10-year Treasury rate closed at 2.27%. Bitcoin is trading around $281 per BTC today.

Dear Journal,

The Musings of a Wayward Philosopher launch has gone fairly well this week. The ebook is currently ranked #1 in Economics>Commerce and #1 in Education&Reference in Amazon’s Kindle store. The paperback ranked as high as #50 in Economics>Commerce but has faded back a bit since. I noticed a big spike in interest while it was ranked top-50. This trial-and-error learning process has been exciting!

What’s even more exciting is the fact that this wasn’t even possible just twenty short years ago. The gatekeepers have fallen!

The publishing arena was heavily guarded prior to the rise of the internet. The only way to publish a book and get it circulating beyond your immediate network was to work with a large publishing company. This meant that your book had to conform to their ideas, requirements, and biases. The dynamic was the exact same in the broadcast media realm. Apart from local newspapers you were only going to get “news” that had been sifted through a major media company’s filter. Continue reading “Peak Collectivism”

Private Enterprise versus Free Enterprise

by Logan Albright– Mises Daily:free enterprise

The United States Export-Import Bank is scheduled to expire at the end of June 2015, and the elected representatives of both parties are tripping over themselves to reauthorize it, citing the importance of exports and strong private enterprise to the American economy.

“I’m a very strong supporter of the Ex-Im Bank, because it is a tool for us to be competitive in order to support our businesses exporting,” said Hillary Clinton. “[F]ailure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to unilateral disarmament and cost tens of thousands of American jobs,” commented Harry Reid. It would seem that Democrats are eager to claim the mantle traditionally applied to Republicans of “The Party of Business.” But there is a difference between being pro-business and being pro-markets.

In his book, Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, libertarian attorney and historian John V. Denson observes, “Many businessmen and bankers believe in private enterprise but do not believe in free enterprise” (emphasis in the original).

It’s an important distinction to make. Free enterprise is the laissez-faire, free-market ideal, with the peaceful interactions between individuals being wholly unregulated by government. Under free enterprise, anyone can trade with anyone else on mutually agreeable terms. Since all interactions are voluntary, all traders necessarily benefit, and both wealth and welfare are free to increase without the imposition of artificial limits.

Private enterprise, in contrast, means merely that business and the means of production are held in private hands, although the government may make any number of demands on how these individuals go about their business. The fascist governments of Europe in the past century maintained a system of private enterprise, while simultaneously exercising near complete control over business operations. Similarly, the Roosevelt economy during World War II was marked by extensive private enterprise serving at the pleasure of government.

This is not to say that private enterprise is bad — it isn’t — but merely that it is insufficient for economic liberty, and prone to be corrupted by the political process. At first glance, one would think that business owners would favor free enterprise. After all, who wants to be pushed around by the government? But in fact, we see just the opposite. James Buchanan, founder of the Public Choice school of economics, was famous for exposing the incentives for private companies to attempt to manipulate government into playing favorites in the marketplace. A free enterprise system benefits everyone who is willing to be productive. Government controls on business, on the other hand, benefit the few at the expense of the many, which means the few who benefit have every incentive to lobby for, and support such a system. Thus, we see everywhere lip service being paid to free enterprise, but an actual promotion of private, unfree enterprise.

The U.S. Ex-Im Bank is a perfect example of this. Founded as part of FDR’s New Deal eighty years ago, the Bank has been providing taxpayer-backed loans to private companies. We are told by supposedly pro-business politicians that the program is needed to stimulate exports, even though competition unhindered by corporate cronyism has always proved a superior economic stimulant. Especially egregious is the fact that most of the money the Bank hands out goes to huge corporations that certainly do not need the government’s help to export their goods.

While defenders of the Bank like to claim most of the Bank’s activity is devoted to helping small business, in fact, 97 percent of the Bank’s loan guarantees go to just ten corporations, with the top two being Boeing and General Electric — hardly mom and pop enterprises that need handouts to keep running. While these companies are not owned by the government, the fact that they are private entities does not justify this kind of interventionism, which stifles competition and creates perverse incentives.

If it is reauthorized, the Ex-Im Bank is estimated to cost taxpayers $2 billion over the next decade. It wastes millions on self-promotion and PR, and, due to specific mandates handed down from the Obama administration, it disproportionately rewards political interests, such as the green energy boondoggle known as Solyndra and foreign companies mired in corruption like Abengoa. It would be hard to imagine a less free market approach toward supporting business. Meanwhile, government guarantees of loans to companies that could not secure them on the open market ensures that the money will be poorly invested, serving special interests rather than sound economics.

This sort of protectionism is perhaps the most seductive and insidious example of the lure of private enterprise at the expense of free enterprise. Despite being thoroughly debunked as effective or wise by virtually all credible economists, protectionist policies have been among the most entrenched and difficult to dismantle. The Ex-Im Bank remains a drop in the bucket compared to other protectionist policies, such as the mammoth farm subsidies Congress cheerfully votes for every few years. But even this relatively small program has proven remarkably hard to kill. Part of the reason for this is that Republicans and Democrats alike can vote for protectionist measures while simultaneously claiming to be “pro-business.” The distinction between supporting business freedom and supporting business directly through government action is rarely made.

Private enterprise is a subset of free enterprise; All free enterprise is private, but not all private enterprise is free. The failure to bear this distinction in mind is what leads to public support of indefensible programs like the Ex-Im Bank. The support of private enterprise at the expense of free markets results merely in corporatism, where business becomes an extension of government instead of the agents of competition and choice.

Article originally posted at Mises.org.

The Economy Can Never Fully Recover as Long as This Remains…

By Paul Rosenberg,

government regulations and business

When I was a young man, the older men I admired were the independent businessmen. Being a corporate suit issuing orders to underlings never appealed to me, but being a successful man who controlled his own life and business… that did.

Perhaps as a result, most of my friends are independent business people of one sort or another. Not long ago, I had a notable conversation with one of them, during which he said:

You know, Paul, business used to be fun. I’d take my children around and show them what we were doing, and explain the differences we’d make.

I waited just a beat as he winced and then continued:

Now, I don’t want to drag my kids into my business. Every time I move, there are regulations, permissions, forms to file. It takes up most of my time, for nothing. Business isn’t fun anymore. If I could find something else, I’d get out.

And this is a man who has been in his business since childhood, who loves to tell stories about it, and who used to enjoy his work immensely. If this guy is looking for the exit, the problem is dire.

It’s pretty obvious why

I have limited faith in government statistics, but there are a few informative ones on this subject:

The US Small Business Administration (SBA) recently reported that the annual cost of complying with government regulations is more than one trillion dollars per year and has been since 2005.

It goes on to report that big businesses (500+ employees), pay about $7,550 per employee to comply with the regulations. Small businesses, on the other hand (up to 20 employees) pay about $10,600 for every person they employ. And this is just one reason why small, independent businesses are being swallowed up by giant corporations.

Also bear in mind that this is just the cost of compliance with federal regulations. States also impose regulations on businesses. So do most of the county and city governments, especially large city governments.

New rules are produced constantly, and the cost of compliance rises constantly. In the US (and many other places), the cost of doing business has long since become prohibitive.

The Work-Arounds

Clever folks always find ways to get around this insanity, of course. But those ways are extra work and probably help relatively few people.

#1: They get rid of their employees

They find niches in their fields that allow them to escape the endless paperwork, penalties, and senselessly wasted time that comes with being an employer. (If you’ve ever had employees, you know what I mean.)

And what of the workers? Well, some get hired by the few related-industry employers that remain, while others have to take a mind-numbing mid-level corporate job just to pay the bills or get insurance. The rest are living on food stamps, disability, or a dozen other welfare programs.

#2: They go offshore

If your business is not resident where the regulators are, they usually can’t say anything about it.

Not many business people have moved abroad, but lots of them have set up offshore companies and are conducting business on the Internet. These people get their lives back… if they can find a way to make it work.

That is the dirty little secret of offshore companies, by the way: It’s not about escaping taxes; it’s about escaping all that ridiculous, insulting, pointless paperwork. No more spending days crunching numbers at tax time, no filing new reports every time you do something. You just take care of your customers and deliver good product. (Which ought to be enough.)

#3: They pay politicians for protection

Why would anyone donate thousands of dollars to a politician unless they expected to get something in return?

Big businesses pay politicians so that they can make a phone call to get problems that arise fixed. Small businesses can’t afford that, and most small business owners have moral problems with bribery.

Legit Is Dead

Unfortunately, the old “American way” of working hard, conducting honest business, and succeeding is gone, dead, and buried. It may still happen from time to time, but infrequently and off the beaten path.

Not long ago, I found this sign posted on a streetlight in Chicago:

business and government regulations

The sign is right – the old “legit” way of doing business is dead. If you want to get ahead these days, you either try to play a game that is rigged against you, you pay politicians to bend the rules for you, or you avoid the situation entirely.

It seems that the best and brightest – the would-be drivers of the economy – are choosing the last option.

What does that say about where things are going?

Paul Rosenberg

[Editor’s Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of FreemansPerspective.com, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]

A Frank Letter to the Homeless Man Under the Bridge

By: Paul Rosenberg,

letter-to-homeless

I see you standing here, asking for help, about once a week. You are always polite, and I respect that. I’d like to do something for you… something that would matter long-term. Giving you a few notes or coins now and then may be fine, but I’d really like to improve your situation more permanently.

In other words, I’d like to give you a job.

I used to hire people, and I especially liked hiring people who had been denied breaks. I did that whenever I could. If you and I could be transported back in time, I’d hire you. And I’d feel good about it, because I think having a job would do you a lot of good.

That fact is, however, that I can’t hire you, and I’d like you to know why.

I used to run my own contracting firm. I enjoyed the work and I liked being able to drive past a building and say, “I made that.” Having employees, however, was torture. I liked having them in some ways, of course – I liked the guys and it made me happy to see them take care of their families with paychecks that I signed. That was very gratifying. But it wasn’t enough, and there are three reasons why:

#1: Making Payroll

My first problem was simply cash flow. I was solely responsible for having enough money in the bank every week, and that could be nerve-wracking, especially when customers weren’t paying their bills on time. It’s not fun to think that a family won’t be able to buy groceries if you can’t collect your invoices.

Still, that part didn’t cause me to give up on employees. It was hard, but so long as my employees were working, we were making money, so there was always something coming in at some point. Somehow, I was able to pull it off.

#2: Being Hated

Over time, some of my employees became jerks. This seemed to grow from envy and from stupid ideas about labor versus management. These guys decided that I was getting rich off of them, and demanded I pay them more – more than they deserved and more than the company could afford.

And the really nasty part was this: It was always the guys I had done the most for who hated me most. And as soon as I sat down with them and explained why I couldn’t pay them more, they started stealing from me.

I fired the thieves, of course, but these experiences really soured me on employees. I had not only given these guys a job, but I had legitimately felt good about helping to feed their families. In return, they hated me, called me names, and stole from me.

By itself, that was almost enough to make me swear off employing people, but not quite.

#3: The IRS

What really drove me over the edge was dealing with the government and the IRS in particular. They were abominable.

I had to file forms with every payroll, and if anything on them was wrong, they penalized me – heavily. And if I paid them a single day late, they penalized me – heavily. And if they said I did something wrong – even if I didn’t – there was no way to change their verdict. Reason and evidence simply didn’t matter.

I eventually talked to a tax lawyer who explained the situation to me. He said:

Forget about fighting, Paul. There is no ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in tax court. You’re automatically guilty, and you have to try to prove yourself innocent… which is very hard and very expensive. Just pay them. I know you hate that, but you have no other choice. Fighting them would ruin you.

It wasn’t just the money that got me about this – it was that they were nasty, arrogant, heartless tyrants. Having the facts on my side didn’t matter. Intelligent arguments didn’t matter. Either I paid what they demanded or they would hurt me worse.

In many ways, it wasn’t much different than the local gang of street thugs demanding protection money.

So, that’s why I can’t hire you: Having employees locked me into a single role in life, that of a despised slave. When I finally realized that, I walked away.

I was lucky that I had the ability to move into specialties and to thrive in difficult niches; other guys probably couldn’t have.

So…

What I really want you to know is this:

I’d like to help you. You deserve a chance at a decent job. I’d like to be the guy who gave it to you, but the system demands that I must live as a slave in order to do so. And I won’t do that.

I very much wish that things were different, and I feel sorry every time I drive by that I can’t hire you. But I would never ask anyone to live as a slave, and I won’t live that way myself.

I wish you well, and if life in these parts should ever pull back from the present reign of oppression, I hope to run into you. And on that day, I hope to either hire you or do business with you.

We would both have much to gain from it.

Paul Rosenberg

[Editor’s Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of FreemansPerspective.com, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]