The Private Sector and Government

Suppose we had a company that made disinfectants, floor cleaners, bleach, etc.
Suppose this company decided to water it down in order to save money, but passed it off as the pure product. Certainly the government would intervene. Certainly people would more or less call for their heads.
Well, why is the government exempt from this treatment? I'll admit, if government screws up enough, the other party may win next election (but that an be anywhere from tomorrow until 4 years from now). What if it's part of the system though? Like the federal reserve.
A company watering down it's cleaning products is like the fed printing money. They're watering down the value of the dollar. No one seems to mind though.

Heroic!

Some congressman just talked down to Bernanke and the government for bailing out Freddie/Fannie. I even think he advocated taking powers away from the Fed. Good for him! Unfortunately, he was ridiculed a little by Dodd. Ah well, that's to be expected. Rome burns as caesar...cracks jokes?

Another "stimulus" package?

Watching the most dangerous man in America, Bernanke, and it sounds like one is coming soon. Printing all that money and bailing out Bear Sterns is what caused gas to become this "high."
What's happening now? Probably another and yet another bailout. The jackals and their priests (the media) are going to tell the jackasses to believe it's the speculators' fault. They will cheer as they get their "free" money.
Unfortunately, the media always reports that pricces are rising. In reality, the dollar is plummeting.

Edit: Forgot to type this. I said that gas would hit $5 per gallon. I was half joking. But now.....

The solution to oil prices is right under your nose

The only problem is that the Fed's cheerleaders are making you look in hiding places rather than down.
On Fox a few minutes ago the panel was talking about, surprise, how to make gas more affordable. Do we attack supply or demand? Do we drill offshore? Do we drill in the shale? So we open our reserves (which is going to be the death of everthing we love. I'll explain in a later post)?
Of course, they never bring up the real problems. The main one is inflation. No one wants to entertain the idea since it's Mad Ben Bernanke's fault and there's almost nothing anyone can do. No, instead of identifying the problem, they want to be gods and be able to do something. They could, but it won't amount to much as long as the Federal Reserve is still around.
The rebate checks we all loved are a big part of the problem. We want things now, but most people didn't see what they couldn't-it fixes things now, but makes it worse in the long run.
There is a secondary problem. Our import from Canada is very impure. It takes a lot to refine it into useable fuel, which costs even more money. So Conservatives and Liberals both want more domestic and "non-terrorist" (read non ay-rab) oil. Where do they get it? Well, here, and Canada. I'm betting the government is going to give oil companies money to drill here. So no matter what, money will be wasted because we can't give those muslims our precious, sacred money.
And yet the blame is falling on speculators and the very Arabs I think we should trade with more.
Neo-Mercantilism, here we come!

Edit: The point of this post was basically "Not much can be done about inflation, so enjoy the ride and hope the government trades with 'our enemies'".

A Message to Gold Standard Crusaders

As a gold standard crusader, I'm worried about the future. As long as we stay with the fiat dollar, our money will be nearly worthless if more hyper inflationists become the Federal Reserve chairman.
However, the Gold Standard may bring more frightening problems. Populists like Lou Dobbs and the Democratic Party (of the Irony) will end up fighting for Free Silver. This will be as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than the Fiat Dollar.
If we can ever return to the gold standard, I see free silver becoming an issue within a few decades. Unfortunately, I can see McBamaton fighting for it.
And this is the problem with populism. With a gold standard, it hurts the government (causes it to bankrupt) while the fiat dollar hurts businesses. This is mainly because without the issue of free silver, the populists will turn their sights to wages and some of the more socialistic ones will tax the rich to make one class which the parasite can devour.

Things Which are Seen and Things Which are Unseen: Excise Tax

I will applaud John McCain for getting rid of the tax on gas for the summer. Would it be nicer to get rid of it altogether? You bet, but I'm for any tax cut as long as taxes on others aren't raised to compensate for it.
You bet Hillary Clinton's plan is going to eventually include a compensation to save the highway projects (or whatever they're crying about losing). I have a sick feeling that taxes on tobacco are going to be raised. Think about it. They won't suffer any monetary loss and it might encourage people to quit since they can't afford it anymore.
Let's apply Bastiat's great essay in this hypothetical case. The things that are seen are slightly lower fuel costs and a decrease in smoking. We see jobs being lost and infrastructure collapse.
Certainly collapsing bridges are tragedies. Of course it's incredibly regrettable that so many people are going to be out of work.
What is unseen though? Non-driving smokers are going to "subsidize" drivers. The infrastructure can be saved by cutting elsewhere. With fewer people on the government's payroll, the tax payers may get more money which they can use to buy goods with.
Does that seem uncaring? Sure, but they can surely get new jobs with private contractors. If they were sub-par workers, why should the taxpayers' money go to pay them? Can I not say that it seems like the objector is the uncaring one? With more taxes, wouldn't that mean less money would go to the micro economy?
Of course, the mainstream certainly does not remember Bastiat since they consider the crazed hyperinflationists at the Federal Reserve great economists.
I certainly do not claim to be a good one (I'm just a lowly armchair economist), but if Hillary Clinton actually cuts taxes, I'm sure she'll increase them elsewhere. And of course, Boobus will celebrate because she says she's for the working man even though the unseen things hurt them even more than they claim free markets do.

Rising food prices

The price of milk, corn, flour, oil, etc etc is rising steadilly. Corn's price rise is pretty obvious. The government says X amount should go to ethanol, so there's shortages. Remind you of something? Reminds me of two things-first, the 1970's oil lines. Regulation caused that. Second, FDR's New Deal which got us into this mess. Everyone curses Hoover, but the brunt came after Holy Lord Roosevelt (Exalted be His Name and His State!) implimented the New Deal.
What about the other stuff though? Is it the end result of food shortages? Sort of. Inflation has a pretty big hand in this I'd imagine. Just wait until the price of Pepsi rises. I'll be laughing while people bring up...Pepsi shortages?
So, what are some solutions to this problem? Well, I'm sure our glorious State will figure something out, right? Of course, I was testing your faith. Some of my predictions:
1. Further rationing
2. Kicking out 12,000,000 illegal immigrants because we obviously can't support more than 300,000,000 people
3. Government queues on production

So, socialism (Obama), fascism (McCain), or a mixture of both (Clinton)?
Good luck picking!

Fallen human nature and the economy

I read an article by Christopher Mannion and he mentioned fallen human nature and communism.
And then I remember the arguments from mixed economists and socialists that capitalism is bad because humans are imperfect and will eventually abuse the system.
Made me wonder, if communism or capitalism can't be implimented because of fallen human nature, how can a mixed economy be the best? Seems like the worst of both worlds.
So, it makes sense to me that capitalism is the least destructive economic system. If abuses are going to happen, at least it provides the most capital and the most in demand goods for reasonable prices.

Protectionism? Didn't we take care of this when we were little?

Remember when your mom/dad/teacher/passerby/whatever would tell you "The world doesn't revolve around you"? Remember how you shrugged it off and said "but it's not fair!" Remember when you realized that there are indeed other people you should take into consideration? Remember when you realize you deserve things because of what you've done, not because you're you?
If you're a free trader, yes you do.
If you're a protectionist, you don't. And if you do, you're disregarding something.
Does the average American boob deserve a job by birthright? No, they would deserve it because they have a skill.
"Well, Americans tend to be more skilled than poor people in South America/China."
Yes, they tend to. Doesn't this destroy my argument? No, if you continue reading.
People deserve jobs because they have a skill relating to it and are paid accordingly.
Ah, now we see clearly, yes? I did just state the obvious-jobs are going overseas because they don't have to pay them as much.
People will continue to curse the companies and corporations. They will ask the government to regulate wages even more. Ultimately, they're doing a disservice to Americans. Americans can't compete with foreign workers because their skills aren't worth minimum wage. What was intended to protect the average person now hurts them. This is nothing new; the government regulated the market to provide a higher standard of living to Americans but the opposite happened, and always will happen.
Asking the government to help and protect you is like an injured antelope asking a lion to do the same.