Obamacare Not Enough, Now Progressives Want Your Retirement

Image: Google Images

Now that Progressives have control over our healthcare, they want our retirement accounts as well.  Using what Linda Gorman calls the “health care playbook,” progressives are aiming their snare guns at one of the final untouched frontiers in American individualism, the retirement account.

“Progressive activists are in the early stages of attempting to create a retirement security crisis. Using the health care playbook, they claim that people lack access to ‘adequate retirement security’.  The lack of access is said to impose large costs on everyone else because people without ‘retirement security’ consume more public assistance payments. Government must ‘solve’ the problem because only government can provide secure retirement investment options for all by mandating that people purchase them.”

Under the guise of “security” and led by the false identification of a “public good,” the Left will tout any retirement reform much the same way Obama and the Left sold Obamacare to the public.  The “public good” is in danger because a lack of coverage by too many will drive up costs.  Meanwhile, this ignores the economic reality that universal access destroys market access, which drives up costs while greatly diminishing quality.  More importantly is that the notion of a “public good” is not definable.  Rather, it is merely clever jargon to disguise the coercive nature of wealth redistribution schemes.  In the words of Ayn Rand, “since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that ‘the public interest’ supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.” (my emphasis)  The Left has used this jargon as their rallying cry since before LBJ’s Great Society experiment began, and whether accepted or rejected, the “public good” provided the largest of Obama’s soap boxes when campaigning his healthcare reform.  They will assuredly use it here if such legislation makes its way out of Colorado onto the national political scene.

Before you write this off as a close call and go about your day, keep a couple of things in mind.  First, passage of House Bill 1377 in Colorado failed by only 1 Senate vote.  And second, Colorado was also the staging ground for many aspects included in Obamacare.  Ari Armstrong over at The Objective Standard Blog says this:

“Three years before the 2010 passage of the national ObamaCare law, a “blue ribbon” commission in Colorado explored—at the behest of the state legislature—ways to expand government involvement in health care. Among other proposals, the commission recommended forcing ‘all legal residents of Colorado to have minimum insurance coverage’, ‘providing sliding-scale subsidies for low-income workers to purchase private coverage’, and creating a government ‘Connector’ to assist individuals and small employers to understand and choose among insurance options.”

In true statist fashion, the government claims the rights of some to fix problems itself creates.  From the Great Recession to the entitlement crisis, government solutions for government-created problems are becoming the hallmark of U.S government.

 

Advertisements

Should Obesity be a Government-Protected Disability?

Dan Mitchell from the Cato Institute shows yet another example of over-reaching government intervention.  According to a BBC report, European leaders are debating the merits of classifying obesity as a protected disability.

“The EU’s top court is considering a test case which could oblige employers to treat obesity as a disability.  Denmark has asked the European Court of Justice to rule on the case of a male childminder who says he was sacked for being too fat….The court’s final ruling will be binding across the EU….Audrey Williams, an employment discrimination expert at Eversheds law firm, said the judges would have to decide ‘whether obesity itself should trigger preferential rights, or should only impact where an individual, due to obesity, has other recognised medical issues’.  If the judges decide it is a disability then employers could face new obligations, she told the BBC.  Employers might in future have a duty to create reserved car parking spaces for obese staff, or adjust the office furniture for them, she said.

The issue at hand here is choice. Do I have the choice to eat anything I want and as much as I want?  Sure, but does my choice place an obligation on employers to treat me as a part of a “preferential” class?  Absolutely not!  If the EU rules in favor of this approach to obesity, many employers will incur greater costs.  This is yet another step away from freedom toward the bureaucratization of our generation.

The obesity issue is not confined to Europe.  Rates in the U.S. have never been higher than they are today.  According to a nice graphic published by the Wall Street Journal, Americans are leading the way with 1 out of 3 classified as obese.  Consequently, Americans are familiar with politicians legislating lifestyle choices.  President Obama campaigned his health care reform partly on rising obesity rates contributing to higher health costs.  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempted ban on giant size sodas is another example.  

What should one take from this?  According to those in Washington and some municipal governments, rising obesity rates justify the use of prescriptive behavioral controls.  Broken down a bit further, lifestyle choices made by free individuals, if deemed undesirable by some, justify the use of force.  Once our government classifies a condition as a “disability,” it will likely grant itself de facto powers to legislate.

 

 

Laissez Faire Links: Minimum Wage, Rational Patriotism, Equality, and Obamacare

Government rights-violating policies take on many forms these days.  Below are a few issues circulating throughout Washington, the press, and the blogosphere.

The first piece is a wonderfully impassioned lashing against the Left and their refusal to acknowledge the economic reality that a minimum wage imposes on unskilled workers.  Yaron Brook, Director of the Ayn Rand Institute attacks the false logic behind a minimum wage raise, and it has nothing to do with economics.  Rather, it is coated with a thick malaise of altruistic do-goodedness.  He hits the nail on the head:

“The economic case against the minimum wage is easy to grasp. When the government artificially raises the price of something, the demand for it goes down. Raising the minimum wage decreases the demand for unskilled labor (usually the young).

Raising the minimum wage feels good because it appeals to the prevailing altruism in the culture.

Many people understand that the minimum wage defies economic reality. What we need are more people to understand that the morality of altruism defies reality. Human life and happiness require freedom, including the freedom to compete on the labor market with lower wages — yet this is the very reality the altruists want us to ignore in the name of the “poor.” That’s why it’s impractical — and any policy based on it will be destructive.

To move toward freedom — to defeat the senseless and immoral absurdity that the minimum wage represents — it is altruism that must be defeated.”

Full Article here: The Minimum Wage vs. Reality

 

Michael A. Laferrara, writing for The Objective Standard Blog uses government taxation of American corporations overseas to define patriotism in terms of what is rational for a better America, not a more intrusive American government.  “Rational patriotism does not mean throttling productive citizens for the sake of politicians and bureaucrats. Rational patriotism in America means loyalty to what America stands for: the inalienable rights of individuals to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Citizens for Tax Justice versus Rational Patriotism

 

Next is a rebuttal of Thomas Picketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.  Picketty argues that income inequality has increased because investments grow faster than wages.  His solution?  Legislate an 80 percent wealth tax on the rich.  John Stossel at Reason counters that despite the Left’s concern over income inequality, income mobility in America is still very much alive.  More importantly, economic mobility is a result of the free market, and thus, logically, cannot be legislated.  It continues in spite of a natural inequality in living standards. The issue is then one of liberty rather than equality.

Debunking Popular Nonsense About Income Mobility in America

For a strictly Objectivist take on Picketty’s argument in Capital, see Yaron Brook’s response here.

 

Just as the government would like to legislate economic equality, the urge to legislate a nation’s collective living standard is akin to Obama legislating better healthcare.  Don Boudreaux, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, brings this flaw of logic to light.  Legislating universal access to a scarce item certainly does not guarantee any degree of quality.  In fact, basic economics tells you that mandating a minimal quantity of any commodity will lower the quality of that item due to the basic law of scarcity.

Dear Mr. Krugman

 

Let us summarize these four issues and the government’s position on them.  Let us mandate that employers pay wages higher than they would normally pay for a given skill set, forcefully redistributing wealth to less productive avenues.  Let us tax successful corporations for being successful, forcefully taking and redistributing capital to less productive avenues such as the welfare state.  Let us ignore income mobility, the manifestation of which is hope, focussing only on income inequality and turning what is a natural occurrence of diversity and freedom into a scapegoat for more taxation, spending programs, and laws.  So we have forced redistribution of wealth, forced redistribution of capital, and a blatant denial of natural facts for smoke-and-mirror rationalization.  Oh and let us not forget the Obama administration’s false equation of quantity of healthcare received to quality of healthcare produced.

Does this sound like a rights-respecting or rights-violating government?

 

GAO Audit of Federal Reserve Reveals Over $16 Trillion in Bailout Loans

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted its first comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve, revealing some startling facts concerning the lending practices of America’s central bank.  Here are just a few highlightsas pointed out by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

  • Provision of over $16 trillion in financial assistance in the form of bailouts to domestic and foreign banks and businesses
  • Inability or refusal to adequately deal with and mitigate conflicts of interest:

“For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed‘s board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed’s emergency lending programs.”

  • Outsourcing of loan operations to private, third-party vendors who were themselves recipients of special low-interest-rate loans:

“The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.”

To read the full report, click here.  Also, a more comprehensive report is due in October of this year.

The Truth Concerning Quantitative Easing, Inflation, and the Federal Reserve

What in the World is Quantitative Easing?

The Federal Reserve’s second round of quantitative easing (QE) begun last November is scheduled to end this month and inject another $600 billion into the economy.  According to Bernanke and most high-profile economists, the effect of QE is stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. But what exactly is QE?  It is no surprise that Federal Reserve policy is cloaked in technical jargon, and this is just one more example. To clear things up a bit, QE is simply an economic euphemism for printing money. Think of the economy as a watch. While the gears are all the different markets, policies, and institutions (monetary and fiscal policies, interest groups, political parties, etc.) that make up an economy, money is simply the oil (no pun intended) that keeps the gears from binding.  The Federal Reserve System – against the better judgment of economists and elected officials of the early twentieth century – has become the watchmaker.

Recall the primary issue of 2008 was a liquidity crisis, which was essentially the unwillingness of banks to lend.  The result was a complete international market seizure, whereby cash was no longer circulating to keep the gears lubricated.  Once cash-flow stopped, the watchmaker knew he had only one option to save face.  He claims now, as he did in 2008, that injecting money into the economy will jump-start lending, reduce excess industrial capacity, and lead to more hiring and an eventual return to the natural rate of unemployment (4-5%).  Keynesian economics, particularly deficit financing, is the name of game here.  Keynes saw the inherent benefit of deficit spending as a tool of monetary theory, and consequently, was largely responsible for gaining the necessary acceptance for inflationary monetary policy as such.

Monty Pelerin (pen-name) translates this idea well to highlight what inflation means for the average worker and consumer.  “In his General Theory, Keynes advocated solving unemployment problems by “fooling” workers with higher nominal wages.  He assumed workers were too obtuse to differentiate between nominal and real wages.”  Keynes also recognized inflation for what it truly was.  That is, he was well aware that “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.  By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”  This is the hidden tax we call inflation, and its primary avenue of realization is the Federal Reserve system.  By using fiat money instead of pegging the dollar to a tangible commodity such as gold or silver, central banking is able to manipulate the value of our monetary unit, thereby controlling the future of its purchasing power.  The implication of this for us all is staggering.  QE, then, is just an additional mechanism the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury is currently employing to devalue our currency and diminish the purchasing power of our paycheck.

But there is, of course, a political agenda hidden beneath the surface of Keynesian theory.  The ability to directly control the money supply places the reigns of everyday life in the hand of our bureaucrats.  Statism is the name of the game here.  As Pelerin states, Keynesian economics (deficit financing)  “is not economics, but political manipulation of an economy. Politicians love it because its underlying thesis is that the economy, left alone, would stagnate at some level below full employment. This false claim is the basis for Statist government enabling government to grow bigger, take more from its citizens and involve itself into all aspects of peoples’ lives.”  I believe reference back to Alexander Hamilton, our nation’s first Treasury Secretary under President Washington, will make a sufficient point.  When debating with Jefferson the matter of a national (central) bank to consolidate the debt of the thirteen colonies, his position was strongly in favor, for to take on such a magnitude of debt would bring with it the power of a strong centralized government.

A Bit of History

A bit of history is needed in order to understand how exactly Keynesian economics was able to grab hold of the brighter minds of America.  Proponents of Keynesian doctrine often cite the Great Depression and the booming years afterward as proof that, indeed, Keynesian monetary theory is sound and advantageous to America.  However, despite the conventional wisdom – written largely by unconventional individuals with equally unconventional agendas – some credit U.S. entrance into WWII as the primary impetus of America’s return to economic growth.  This may seem trivial, but is quite important because our high schools, community colleges, and universities are teaching our children a watered-down version of American history.  This is just another example.  In fact, well-renowned historian Howard Zinn says,

“[T]he war economy created millions of new jobs at higher wages.  The New Deal had succeeded only in reducing unemployment from 13 million to 9 million.  It was the war that put almost everyone to work,  and the war did something else: patriotism, the push for unity of all classes against enemies overseas, made it harder to mobilize anger against the corporations….The war not only put the United States in a position to dominate much of the world; it created conditions for effective control at home.  The unemployment, the economic distress, and consequent turmoil that had marked the thirties, only partly relieved by the New Deal measures, had been pacified, overcome by the greater turmoil of the war.”

A People’s History of the United States, pp. 402, 425

Therefore,  as WWII created a tremendous expansion in wartime production, it spurred enough demand to absorb increases in the money supply that are today associated with monetarism.  In short, demand created by the newly evolving military-industrial complex furnished the necessary goods and services to keep prices and inflation steady. After WWII passed, Washington created an atmosphere of fear among the public – very much similar to today’s war on terrorism – and a general consensus for a “permanent war economy” throughout Congress that allowed the Cold War to continue to fill this role.  This is known officially as the “warfare state.”  It seems, then, Washington has turned its fear mongering toward the war on terrorism to justify its increased military spending.

A Snapshot of the Federal Reserve System

In order to understand this, let us first examine a bit of Federal Reserve history.  Much of this is summation from G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.  Contrary to conventional wisdom of our central banking system – that it uses interest rates to control the money supply in an effort to keep prices and growth stable, namely to avoid economic crises – Griffin’s view holds the Federal Reserve itself responsible for economic crises and the massive depreciation of the dollar we have seen over the past century.  But how does an institution achieve such destructive agendas?  It helps, Griffin says, that the Federal Reserve is cloaked in ambiguity.  It is neither a private nor a public bank.  Although claiming to be politically independent, it is neither a political unit of our government nor a private bank as we typically think of the idea. Rather, the Federal Reserve System is a cartel that is partnered with our government, but not a part of it like the the House, Senate, or Supreme Court.  Most important to realize are its five primary objectives:

(1) limit competition within the banking industry as a whole,

(2) to obtain the rights – which were granted by our government, whence the partnership – to create money out of nothing (fiat money),

(3) isolate smaller banks from banks runs by gaining control over banks’ reserves,

(4) convince Congress to bailout insolvent banks with taxpayer money, and

(5) also convince Congress that the purpose of the Federal Reserve System and bailouts is to protect the public from economic crises (boom and bust cycles).

These, of course, were their unstated goals when the Federal Reserve Act passed in 1913, and the watchmaker has achieved all five. To our central bankers, there have no interest in economic stability (only control), nor on reestablishing it. We are taught in college that its purpose is to mitigate the negative effects of the free-market’s natural tendency of boom and bust. What we were not taught, but becomes prevalent to those who study history, is the Federal Reserve actually facilitates the business cycle.  And with each major crisis, they are able to limit competition even more and concentrate even more wealth.  This is the purpose of our and all other central banks in the world.  That said, any banking system connected to a central government is likely to fall into this trap as history has shown.  Believe it or not, the Federal Reserve System is actually the fourth central bank of the U.S., all others having resulted in the same scenario we see now.  The printing of fiat money and massive inflation to the point that a gold standard is reestablished has been done numerous times throughout history. What makes today’s problem so different is the degree to which globalization has linked the world’s economies. Consequently, when the dollar falls, so too will many other currencies. It is at this point that the idea of a world currency may be introduced to the public under the same guise as the origin of the Federal Reserve – to create stable prices with moderate inflation, which will translate into a stable global economy. It is not to be believed!

But Isn’t Moderate Inflation Good for the Economy?

Moderate inflation, usually around 2-3%, has historically been viewed by economists as a healthy amount.  The purpose is that inflation serves to drive the economy via expanding credit to businesses and consumers.  But inflation from excess money creation without a like increase in the goods and services from which money is needed to circulate is more a political tool than an economic phenomenon.  It is a way to hide the fact that the U.S. government is insolvent.  Monty Pelerin stated, “Without QE it would likely be illiquid. It is doubtful the US could sell enough debt to arms-length buyers to sustain its current spending.  The current estimate of the deficit is $1.7 Trillion.  Without QE there would be added distress for government and the economy.  Domestic interest rates would rise to whatever level necessary to attract market funding.  Higher interest rates would provide a further drag on the economy.  They would also dramatically widen government deficits.”  This would be devastating for the credit rating of the U.S. Treasury, resulting in government expenditures of nearly three times its revenues.  Thus, in order to remain solvent, inflation has become the only monetary tool left at our government’s disposal.

Yet even as a result of economics, inflation promises no long-run tool for stable prices because in order for it to act as a stimulant to economic growth, it must increase exponentially.  Milton Friedman pointed out, “Inflation is like a drug. Its stimulating effect is temporary. Only larger and larger doses can sustain the stimulus, before the chaos of hyperinflation removes all the gains.”  One need only examine the most fundamental of economic assumption to understand why one bout of inflation must be followed by a new, larger one in order to continue the stimulus-effect.  If I believe the value of my dollar will decline in the near future, I am more likely to spend more dollars now, as they will command more goods and services.  This is simple economic incentive.  If inflation has become the only monetary tools left at our government’s disposal (the Federal Reserve exhausted its ability to lower interest rates long ago), then one sees larger and larger bouts of inflation until eventually the U.S. reaches that dreaded state economists call hyperinflation.

Related Articles

Oil Prices Mirror Fall of the Dollar

Ryan Swift highlights the often overlooked, yet strikingly poignant, data that stares all Americans in the face.  Below is a visual prepared by Mr. Swift showing that over the past year, the dollar’s decline has inversely matched rising oil prices. This is not a coincidence and the data actually make sense when one considers that our economy requires both a currency and oil.  While currency serves to circulate goods throughout the economy, oil facilitates their production. It makes sense then that the two would be inversely related.  The more goods we produce, the more oil is required and the higher its cost.  Likewise, a higher quantity of goods require more currency to move them.  The problem, however, lies in the fact that consumer demand is still very low while the Fed is printing money in record volumes.  As more dollars flood the economy, the value of each will naturally fall because production has not yet increased sufficiently.

Click for Swift’s Article →

What this means is a double-punch to the American pocket-book.  As oil climbs, prices for all other goods rise as transportation and production costs increase.  In other words, higher prices for crude is akin to inflationary pressures all its own.  Add the Fed’s so-called “needed” QE2 (and talk of QE3) and one sees the printing press running at overtime to devalue the dollar further.  The overall result is a lag in production and a delayed recovery for the economy as a whole. As oil surpassed $113 a barrel on Friday, Time reported a fall in annualized GDP growth from 3.1% in the fourth quarter 2010 to a meager 1.8% in the first quarter this year.  Moreover, rising oil prices are likely a result of unrest in the Middle East and OPEC’s mysterious tendency to cut supply while demand clearly indicates the opposite response.  This last factor, Swift points out specifically along with Obama’s declaratory announcement to go after speculators responsible for inflationary pressures.  What Obama will not do – and what the mainstream media still refuses to recognize – is to reign in the Federal Reserve System’s QE policies that are responsible for nearly $2 trillion dollars of inflationary pressures.  So once again, we see the mainstream media attacking the usual foe – the market itself – thereby initiating a call for more government intervention.   One may wonder then, at what point will government meddling in the economy effectively push us beyond the point of no return.  Or are we already there? M9EZ497NU9QH

Inflation News: Federal Reserve’s QE Policies Cause Rising Food and Oil Prices

via Google Images

The following excerpt is from Righteous Investor and discusses the out-of-control spending in Washington and what to expect when inflation hits. For instance, February’s deficit was $223 billion dollars.  That translates into $26 per person per day according to Righteous Investor.  Moreover, the government’s insatiable demand for dollars spurs on the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing (QE) programs, which does nothing more than create fiat money for government use.  This translates into more dollars being pumped into the economy and, of course, the inevitable result of inflation.

“Now here is what has been happening: (1) the US government borrows money but doesn’t find sufficient lenders whether domestic or foreign, so the Federal Reserve bank lends to them the remaining shortfall. This is called quantitative easing because the money is created out of nothing. But that is not the end of QE: for Bernanke is also buying old debt as it turns over and finds no new borrowers (see “Hyperinflation when?“). QE greatly increases the amount of greenbacks that are in the money base: view (chart below) and be afraid and weep. (2) Next, commodities go up in price because too many dollars are chasing too few goods–food riots start happening in poorer countries. (3) Then, consumer prices go up. (4) Lastly, workers will get cost of living adjustments if indeed their employer can pay them at all. In any case, the last thing to adjust to this whole mess is people’s take home pay. But unfortunately, the adjustments will be too little too late because the next round of QE has already taken place and the spiral of hyperinflation has reached the next stage even before they receive their next pay cheque.”

 

Click for Full Article→

Important to note is the Federal Reserve’s recent announcement that it may have to begin its third round of QE in response to sky-rocketing oil prices.  Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart stated at the National Association of Business Economics in Arlington that “If [the rising price of oil] plays through to the broad economy in a way that portends a recession, I would take a position we would respond with more accommodation.”  As oil increases, so too does the cost of most, if not all, goods and services. This includes anything that requires petroleum in the production process, not to mention increased transportation costs for moving the product to market.  Such is the rationale for QE3.  Add to this recent reports of record food prices and subsequent riots from increased oil prices, and one begins to see the picture. Here we have three of the four points listed above: QE2 by the Federal Reserve last November when they purchased $600 billion in Treasury bonds; increases in food prices leading to disruption in the global oil supply via riots, and thus subsequent increases in food prices; and finally talks of QE3 if and when oil hits $150 a barrel.

The question is, how much longer until the banks begin lending at a healthy rate again.  Despite the media’s on-and-off questioning of large financial institutions’ refusal to lend money, banks still hoard record levels of cash.  Why? According to Project World Awareness, a part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 encourages banks not to lend. They are not lending because the Federal Reserve is paying them interest not only on their required reserves, but also on their excess reserves.

“But as of October 9, 2008, the Fed began paying interest on all reserves, required and “excess” alike. And not just nominal interest, but interest at a rate which is higher than the “Fed Funds Rate” (the rate banks pay to each other for overnight loans), and even higher than current short-term Treasury yields. At a stroke the Fed eliminated for banks interest-rate risk, principal risk, counterparty risk, and even the capital cost of maintaining an extremely high degree of liquidity. The “cost” to banks of non-lending was driven down substantially.” (I strongly encourage those skeptics of hyperinflation to read this entire article.)

In short, the Federal Reserve is paying our banks not to lend our money to us, and this was signed into law by our government.  Furthermore, once that cash does enter circulation, despite initial feelings of a recovery, prices for all goods and services will leap to a degree that will effectively destroy the greenback’s credibility.  Despite the Fed’s notion that they will be capable of withdrawing excess funds from circulation, many believe otherwise.  According to Monty Pelerin (pen-name), withdrawing the excess funds is not feasible because that would entail selling the toxic waste they bought from insolvent institutions.  Not only did they overpay for those assets, but they have no means of establishing current values.  In this sense, the Fed is simply incapable of withdrawing billions in excess funds from the economy. Consequently, those funds will stay in circulation, continuing to drive up prices.

Additional Notes: I recommend the following article, as it ties in Fed policy to foreign markets and higher food prices around the world with a slant toward U.S. manipulation of currency…an interesting read.

Also, for those not familiar with Federal Reserve Policy, I recommend a previous post of mine written for the interested novice in Fed, money, and inflation matters.