HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY AND THE COUNTRY: WHAT THE POLITICAL RULING CLASS HOPES YOU DON’T KNOW.

Submitted for your consideration while standing by for FURIOUS FLAMES from the FRIENDS OF PAPER MONEY!

I wrote this a number of years ago when things were NOT going well with the economy. They have become ugly – VERY UGLY -- once again as man -- or certain men -- cannot resist playing god as we continue to violate the universal, immutable laws of economics.

A prime example of how men play god is this bit of madness:
FDR took the U.S. off the gold standard in April 1933, and by summer he was setting the gold price every morning from his bed. His Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, reported that at one point the president ordered the gold price up 21 cents. Why 21, Morgenthau asked? Roosevelt replied, because it’s 3 x 7, and three is a lucky number. “If anyone knew how we set the gold price,” wrote Morgenthau in his diary, “they would be frightened.”

There is STILL plenty about which to be frightened today.

History proves that EVERY house of cards eventually comes down. And the higher the card house, the harder the fall when it finally comes. And when it does, the more freedoms we will voluntarily surrender to "restore order." It was the Founders' concern about this historically valid problem that prompted their attempt -- now ignored -- to keep American "money" sound and honest. See the last section of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for details.

And I certainly recognize that NO system of commodity backed paper “money” is foolproof -- and we now seem to be led by some of history’s biggest fools. It begs the question: How’s the current UNBACKED system working for you?

When we hear that gold (or silver) is so much an ounce, we are being given a ratio expressed by the media friends of paper money the precisely reverse of how it SHOULD be expressed.
At the moment, gold is NOT, for example, $1,700 an ounce, rather, the “dollar” has been reduced to a value of 1/1,700th of an ounce of gold. If the “dollar” eventually inflates to 1/6,300th of an ounce of gold, folks will get a more meaningful picture of what the politicians and the Fed have done to the currency. Sadly, by then, it will probably be too late.

Another interesting metric is that before the vote-buying politicians and masters of the universe at the Fed pulled us off a precious metals standard back in the day, the dollar was equal to 1/35th of an ounce of gold. And it has been calculated that the “dollar” of today is equivalent to less than 1 cent when measured against the metals backed dollar of 1913 or so BEFORE the Fed and the beloved INCOME TAX.

Sadly, it will ever be thus and it seems we must relearn those painful lessons every few generations.

In case some of you hadn’t noticed, class is now in session.

Since the guano hit the air handler, I’ve been getting far, far fewer flames from the paper money lovers at sites I frequent. When, over 5 years ago, I began ranting about the incredibly stupid financial devices (derivatives, mortgage backed securities, etc.) being created to hoodwink the greater fools out there who were snapping up these things, I could count on about half the responders to tell me I was too simple-minded to understand these highly complicated financial “products.” I guess all those really bright financial guys are either living on their private islands or too busy or washing car windows at traffic lights to post rebut my posts.

And consider that when gold and silver come up in the news, the talking heads fall into the old, establishment approved method of measuring the precious metals in the rapidly failing paper when they SHOULD remark that it is the metals that are – within the narrow confines of fluctuations caused by their uses as industrial commodities – holding THEIR value and it is the paper that is INFLATING. (The classic example is that around 1900, one could buy a fine man’s suit for one ounce of gold. YOU STILL CAN!!!)

A fiat money system of the sort we are now painfully watching collapse creates a FALSE world of FALSE feelings of well being and elevated lifestyles. During the expansion phase of such a system, those living under it spend or borrow more than they should, have more children than they can afford and, at the national level, come to believe they can afford to allow a score of millions of illegals to come here for free educations, welfare payments, free medical care, etc. They reject the immutable and universal economic realities and embrace what my old friend, the late Tupper Saussy, called “the IDEASPHERE.”

Now that the inevitable economic catastrophe is upon us, how much fun is it to watch the idiots in congress who triggered this thing scramble for cover by blaming everyone else? Not much!

The only folks who feel good now are the Hank Paulsons and Obamaites of the world who are in the process of conducting what may prove to be one of the largest raids on the REAL wealth of this nation – our labor and real property – ever witnessed.

Our only choice is to return to an honest system of money the politicians and bankers cannot easily manipulate. A commodity-based system using the ultimate commodity found to be more than satisfactory by countless civilizations before this one: Precious metals – gold and silver.

And the ONLY way for THAT to come to pass is to clear out the economic ignoramuses now occupying those expensive digs on Capitol Hill and replace them with common sense CITIZENS who understand that the cost for keeping our heads in the sand will have a very high cost: The remainder of our freedoms.

It should be obvious by now that the current party system is NOT working as intended. The best way to get them into those offices is GOOOH. Visit www. GOOOH.COM and join the millions of fellow citizens who’ve had enough of this insanity masquerading as “leadership.”

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." -- Judge Learned Hand, 1944

Dick Bachert
11/15/2011

Minimum Wage does not equal Compassion

The minimum wage for years has been said to be compassionate to those who can't afford to live on a lower wage. I hope to show that this is completely false.

Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC recently railed against US Senate candidate from Connecticut Linda McMahon for a statement regarding the minimum wage and whether or not it should be increased.

If Linda actually were for lowering or eliminating the minimum wage, she'd have my vote. Problem is she lacks any kind of conviction of what she says and I just can't trust her. Besides, she recently said that she'd consider increasing the minimum wage basically contradicting what she said earlier. The other problem is Blumenthal is the same way.

Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't know how business economics works and is simply spouting rhetoric that he's been hearing for years. I'll take you through his statements that are flat out wrong and others that are true on the surface but aren't really meant in the way that is true.

"The minimum wage should not be reduced. It doesn't matter if you want to reduce it or even if you think it should be reduced. It is never going to happen because it never has happened."

Flat out bad logic. Just because something has never happened doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Everything that has happened before must have happened the first time. Let's continue...

"The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. And CT being richer than the rest of the country and more generous in spirit has a state minimum wage a buck higher: $8.25/hr."

Minimum wage has nothing to do with being generous with those making a lesser wage. It's actually quite the opposite. I'll get into that later.

"Linda, you spend more on your hair than a CT minimum wage earner makes in a year."

I thought spending was a good thing. She's spending money on workers making less than she does. Furthermore, as long as it's not illegal, what a person spends their own money on is no ones business but their own. There are plenty of US senators that spend thousands of dollars per year on their hair. In Linda's case, it's her own money (for now), but the senators are spending the money taxed from actual working Americans. That's truly blood money.

"Minimum wage jobs are not easy...There is no one in CT or anywhere else in this country living on the minimum wage that does not work much, much harder than you do."

Here I'll agree with Larry but not the way he would like. Workers who make minimum wage tend to be in jobs that are very physically demanding but are very easy on the intellect. There are a couple of reasons for this. First off, a minimum wage forces businesses to ration their wages. A business who can afford two workers at $4.00/hr can only afford one worker at $8.00/hr. This keeps the work load the same but decreases the number of workers to do the job. The other reason is physical labor doesn't take years of schooling for those jobs. A day of on-the-job training and you're ready to start.

"That's an increase of 70 cents an hour...no one, no one gets fewer wage increases than minimum wage workers. 10 years without a penny of increase."

Flat out not true. Is he saying that everyone that has worked a minimum wage job at $6.55/hr was still at $6.55/hr when D.C. decided to increase it? Sure sounds like that's what he wants you to hear. Most jobs that start at minimum wage, if you can manage to keep the job and show you are a valuable employee, will increase within 2, 6, 12 months. Statistically the number of people who started at $6.55 when that wage amount started that were still at $6.55 just before the increase is zero. The only ones that were still at minimum wage are those that cannot keep a job and are shown to not be worth $6.55/hr.

As promised, a higher minimum wage does not equal compassion or generosity. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The minimum wage increase is a large factor of inflation. In addition to that it forces those not worth the increase out of a job.

Imagine you are a high schooler looking for your first job. You apply to a number of places but without experience or a proven work ethic, very few businesses are willing to say your hour of work is worth $8.25. But you're willing to work, you want to work. But you can't find a job. So what happens? You don't get a job, you decide to live off of your parents hard earned money and eventually you may live off of the public dole: food stamps, welfare, and medicaid.

What if you already had a job before the increase at minimum wage? What if you were working at $6.55/hr and the federal government decides that your work is suddenly worth $7.25/hr. But what if your employer doesn't agree or he cannot afford to pay $7.25/hr? What happens then. You lose your job.

Solution: End the minimum wage. Repeal the state minimum and ignore the federal minimum. Allow all businesses in the state to give whatever wages they see fit. Allow all workers to decide what their labor is worth. If any federal agent tries to prosecute a citizen of Connecticut, that agent should face fines and/or jail time. We the people of Connecticut find the federal mandated minimum wage to be hereby void and of no force.

Consequence of the solution: All those that want to work will now be able to find a job. What is your labor worth? What is better for you? Would you sell your hour of labor for $5.00 or will you keep it and make $0.00 for your hour? There are only two entities that can answer what your hour is worth. You and the employer. Neither the government of this state nor of this country know your and your prospective employer's unique situation. What may be right for your neighbor may not be right for you.

Shaving on the Amazon

Shaving on the Amazon

From LewRockwell.com

Today's Bumper Sticker

"With Congress - every time they make a joke it's a law.

And every time they make a law it's a joke."

-Will Rogers

UPS Loses Billions of Dollars!

With the shipping giant losing 3.5 billion dollars in the third quarter, it's undeniable that UPS is not keeping up with its competition; consumers clearly prefer the alternatives.

They certainly can't keep up operations under such a devastating deficit, so they've determined that, in order to remain in business, they will have to be funded by direct, involuntary contributions, and also scale back service. Perhaps if customers get less of what they want, they'll value the service more and UPS can remain solvent.

What?

Wait. That's USPS, not UPS. OK, that makes sense.

UPDATE:

I may have gotten a bit carried away with my "sardonic voice" in this post. It was no real error - I was using the comparison to illustrate a point: that government "services" make use of force (especially the power to be funded through taxation and the power to outlaw competition against themselves) in order to enable them to conduct "business" in ways that would have any private enterprise closing its doors for good.
The Post Office is one example of a government "business" that consumers would never tolerate if it were up to them... and so is everything else the State "provides."

Of course a 7-year old can run a lemonade stand

...so long as she lets Uncle Sam wet his beak.

Surprise!

She "doesn't know" whether we have inalienable rights, but she'll defend her constituency (the Fed State), so she's in!

Global Robbing

The public platform of Our Environmental Betters has thoroughly dropped the phrase "Global Warming" in favor of the manipulatively vague "Climate Change," and has taken on an unapologetic push for The Power to Tax.*

"It will be extremely exciting, dynamic and productive," said British "economist" Nicholas Stern.

I would tend to describe money pouring into my pockets in a similar fashion.


*The Power to Enslave

Today's Bumper Sticker

With Democrats in power, man exploits man.

With Republicans, just the opposite.

My First Porsche Test Drive

So we purchased a new car (new-to-us car) from a dealer just over a month ago. I head down to the dealer to make our next payment. I see they have a new acquisition for sale: a 2005 Porsche Boxster S approximately $27,000. I've got some extra time and half-jokingly (ok, really only about 5% jokingly) I ask if I could take it for a test drive. The dealer himself was on vacation and his assistant said sure! She asked me a couple times if I was really serious on wanting to drive it. I'm not going to turn down the opportunity to drive a sports car, especially if it's free.

So she had someone get a dealer plate and pulled it 'round front. It's this little tiny 2-seater and I'm practically laying down. In order to even use the clutch my foot is scraping against the side of the well. But I adjust to the cramped quarters quickly.

I've never driven a sports car before. I've sat in a small handful but never driven. I pull gently out of the dealership and I'm now in 2nd gear. Now I know what Porsches are made for: speed. But never having really felt it beneath my right foot before I wasn't really prepared.

My brother told me once that a friend of his took him for a ride in a Porsche. He was told, "Just try to keep your head off of the seat." He was right. From maybe 8 mph in 2nd gear, I'm at 45 before I know it. Unfortunately, that's the posted speed limit and I'm coming up to traffic. Eventually I hit a 35 and I'm not even sure what is the best gear to be in; I've never been in a 6-speed.

Finally, I hit the highway. I slow down and let the traffic thin a bit and I floor it. By the time I looked down, I was in 3rd and doing 80 maybe 5 seconds later! Rather than get pulled over I decide to test the brakes a bit and bring it back to a reasonable 65 (the posted limit).

Now I've heard a lot of bad things about Porsche. Like how it's not really all the sports car that it could be and there's better things to buy with the same money but you know what? I don't care. These are the same people that test Bugatti's, Lambo's, & Ferarri's. I'm sure given the choice they'd look past the little Porsche. I'm also sure that if I had $27,000 of expendable cash (plus another $1 million for insurance, tires, & gas) I'd spend it on something else. But to have the experience of having 280 horses at your disposal is a wonderful thing.

Exposed

Did anyone actually believe the TSA when they claimed they couldn't or wouldn't store nude images of airline passengers? And if so, does the recent admission that this was a lie make those people any more likely to question the statements of government bureaucracies in the future?

ObamaCare = Slavery

While watching this video, all I could think of was, "Zing!"

Basic premise of the title is that if "Health Care" is a right, then someone else is forced to provide health care. Something cannot be a right if it infringes on the right of someone else. Therefore, slavery.

Today's Bumper Sticker

Don't Steal: The Government Hates Competition

Truth

As the chicken-hawks continue their calls for Julian Assange's head (literally!), the words Ron Paul originally penned regarding the Federal Reserve clearly apply here as well, and ring out with stinging accuracy: "Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

Today's bumper sticker: Killing one

Today's bumper sticker: Killing one person is murder. Killing thousands is foreign policy.

Google Earth Used to Find Unlicensed Pools

In Riverhead, NY on Long Island, the town government is using Google Earth as a tool to find dangerous criminals who failed to get permission to build a pool on their privately owned property.

The chief building inspector in Riverhead, Leroy Barnes, Jr. says, "Pool safety has always been my concern."

Well, of course, sure. That and the $75,000 the town has thus far been able to raise from fines and penalties levied on these scofflaws. But he's only thinking of the children, I'm sure.

The article makes the alternate point that this just an example of "Big Brother using satellite pictures to spy on us. I think that's missing the point. Would it be ok if a town employee drove past the house and looked over the fence to see if you had a pool? Would it be ok if they asked a Census question to see if you have a pool? The point shouldn't be how they get the information but the assumption that the government is responsible for keeping us safe.

If I own a business that installs pools, and I do a shoddy job and someone gets hurt or property gets damaged, I'm responsible. If I want my customers to know that I do good work, I can subscribe to a private third party that will inspect my work when I'm done.

But what about corruption? If the pool instillation company pays the inspector, doesn't that encourage the inspector to give a good rating? After all, that's how the inspector makes his money. However, we already see how the free market deals with these types of situations. There's the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Consumer Reports, and Underwriters Laboratories (UL). These are all private companies that will show the consumer that a product or service is good or safe. These companies have made their money by being honest and trusted. If the BBB or ISO took bribes from companies, the risk of losing the faith of the public (and therefore their business) is far greater than the money they could ever hope to make from bribes.

The government, however, has no risk. We hear about government building inspectors taking bribes all the time from contractors and yet we still trust that since the government said it's ok, it must be.

But back to responsibility. If I make a shoddy product and there is damage done, I'm responsible. That is incentive enough to do a good job. If I'm a homeowner and I want to buy a cheap pool, I understand that it may be a poor product. It could fail and injure someone or damage my, or someone else's, property. The homeowner is certainly free to hire their own inspector to see if the job was done well and take that inspection to the installer if the inspection shows problems.

It has been shown, time and again, people trust certifications. When Consumer Reports says that a car is a good one to buy or not, people believe them. They are still free to buy the bad car, but that is how the free market should work.

If we don't change the nanny-state mindset, "Big Brother" will continue to find ways to "keep us safe" at the same time they line their pockets.

Copy and Paste Kids

The soon-to-be-defunct New York Times hyperventilates: "many students simply do not grasp that using words they did not write is a serious misdeed." No discussion, naturally, of what makes it such a serious misdeed... namely, nothing!

U.S. Prepared to Strike Iran? Shocking!

From Drudge today: the U.S. has a contingency plan for a military strike on Iran.

If this news surprises you, let me clarify: by "U.S." I mean United States of America. Make sense now? I thought so.

Which country don't they have such plans for? Presumably, they have military bases in over 150 countries for some reason. Of course, this isn't just any country we're talking about; this is Iran, the rogue nation, outside of the Holy American Empire, and they've threatened to attack us!

...if we attack them first.  Much like how we've threatened to attack them if they attack us first, with the significant difference being that, by comparison with the behemoth U.S., Iran doesn't have a military!

Of course, the Crazy Conspiracy Theory view would be that this news story - whose content has probably been true for years - is only being released now as a way to gauge the people's progressing opinions as the Pentagon pushes toward its coming-soon war.

I'm going with the Crazy Conspiracy Theory on this one.  As usual.

Non-Aggression

The primary principle to which all libertarians - and, in our humble opinion, all persons - must be at all times committed is the principle of non-aggression. This is simply the conviction that all persons have rights, and that no person has the prerogative to violate the rights of anyone else. Bastiat argued that there are three fundamental human rights, from which all others derive. First and foremost is the right to life, an extension of which is the right to liberty, and the third, arising from the exercise of the first and second, is the right to property.

There is no excuse to violate another person's life, liberty, or property, ever. Self-defense, it may reasonably be argued, is not in fact a violation but an effort to prevent violation, or to restore rights once violated. In the context of this basic statement, however, let us leave aside the question of what types of actions may be justified as self-defense. It is sufficient to say that in the first place, no one ought to kill, injure, enslave, or rob from anyone else, and that this principle is the foundation of libertarianism.

Violations of people's rights come in a wide array of forms, in this dark and sinful world. Not only outright murder and slavery, but also coercion by threat of such harm, and all kinds of restrictions on the freedom of thought, word, choice and action, are so thoroughly ubiquitous that quite possibly no one has been entirely secure in his or her rights, ever!

Yet, we would like to work toward a free society. We are not Utopians, as we know our only hope for true freedom is in the Kingdom that is not of this world. Yet we do want to limit the power that people can have over each other, that is, by definition, the power to violate others' rights. This is why we are opposed to centralized, State power. It is not so much that we are anti-government, at least not as a first principle. Rather, it is that we are anti-violence, anti-force, anti-coercion, anti-theft, and anti-war. In short, we are anti- all the things the State does best, and in fact depends on for its existence. We have been accused of promoting chaos, revolution, and all manner of violence. It cannot be denied that pretenders to our philosophy have engaged in these wretched acts, but let us be clear: our first principle is non-aggression, and so we resolutely disown all aggression as patently unrelated to our cause.

Welcome to the new blog. Truth Liberty Peace. I hope we can speak the truth in love, help in a small way to advance the cause of liberty, and uphold a thoroughgoing commitment to peace.

Today's bumper sticker: It's Not

Today's bumper sticker: It's Not the Left vs. the Right; It's the State vs. YOU!

Leaking Blood

So little Liz Cheney would like to argue that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange "clearly has blood on his hands." It's a lot clearer to me that Daddy Dick has blood on his hands.

Did Assange knowingly lie to millions of people to drum up support for a military invasion? Did Assange promote and defend the use of brutal acts of torture? How about the slaughter of defenseless people as collateral damage in that invasion?

What's really clear is that Assange's "crime" consists in shining the light of truth on the blood that Cheney & Co. have on their hands. Seriously, what is clear about Julian Assange having blood on his hands? The fact that he exposed the truth and evidence of war crimes? The fact that he wants to see an end to these crimes?

In what way does the witness to a murder become a guilty party? By NOT telling about what he saw, right?

Wake up, Neo. The State has you.

The State is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work.. when you go to church.. when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth... That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

What is the State? Control. The State is a computer-generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into *this.*

The State is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters... And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

As long as the State exists, the human race will never be free.