Prepping/Food Storage

Prepping for natural or man made disasters should be common practice for most people but, unfortunately it is not.  In fact, the people that need to take simple steps to prepare themselves in case of a natural disaster are usually the least prepared.  For example, in rural areas, most people have a decent amount of extra food stored compared to those who live in urban areas even though people that live in urban areas will be the most threatened in any kind of disaster scenario.  I think that their are a number of reasons for this.  People that live in cities have much shorter time preferences in general compared to people who live in rural areas.   People living in urban areas are used to having stores with fully stocked shelves and think that these will always be there.  This is not always true as we have seen when natural disaster strikes in the form of hurricanes whether in New Orleans or other areas.  Shelves of all grocery stores are cleaned out in a manner of hours with massive amounts of people all rushing to get supplies.  We might not have hurricanes in the Midwest but there is nothing to say that a tornado might not take out the local power plant.

Man made disasters are even more dangerous as we have seen with the breaking of a major water main in Boston that left millions without water.  We have also seen how one guy accidentally shut down the power grid to millions of people in Southern California.  This power outage also led to multiple sewage plants all over southern California going down making much of the water unsafe to drink (authorities told people to boil water before drinking, hopefully they did not have electric stoves!).   Luckily, these events were repaired rather quickly but, what would happen if this went on for a week?   Or a month?  These cities would have completely broken down and would have made the looting and violence in New Orleans look mild in comparison. Having a well stocked pantry that can last you a month or more could mean the difference between living comfortably or being in a very dangerous situation.

A final Note:  Whenever these events have happened, the local and national authorities have done the completely wrong thing.  They immediately institute price controls because they do not want “price gougers” to take advantage of people during a crisis.  This guarantees empty storeroom shelves and shortages of life’s most essential items.  The very people that are willing to pay extra money because they need life saving items are bared, by law, from doing so.  The price system is thrown into chaos and the market is not allowed to provide resources to people that need them most.  This is very well understood by economists from every different spectrum. Price controls always lead to shortages because the market is not allowed to clear as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.   Unfortunately politicians never listen and institute price controls every single time. Remember, price gouging saves lives contrary to what most people believe.  This is why politicians don’t care what every economist from all corners of the earth say.  Simply put, they don’t have the votes.

Also, when we look at Katrina, the government was totally unable to provide basic necessities while at the same time preventing private firms from bringing in needed supplies.   FEMA turned away Wal-Mart trucks bringing in thousands of gallons of water while the people in the Super Dome had none for days.  Another man was arrested for trying to sell generators after Hurricane Katrina.   FEMA often makes a moderate crisis into a life and death situation. Let us not forget how local police became looters and killers themselves after Katrina, all the while harassing citizens and confiscating legal firearms.

In conclusion you should take moderate steps to prepare yourself for a potential disaster, natural or otherwise.  Remember, you can not depend on the government agencies in a crisis.  The government’s own agencies admit this.

The Assination Anwar al-Awlaki

I wanted to take some time and consider this event and all of its implications.  September 30th 2011 is a unique day in the history of America and Western Civilization as a whole.  What was done on this day is completely without precedent in American history.  Whether you agree with the action or not, an American citizen was assassinated without trial.  Many people reading this might think “well yeah, so what, the guy was a terrorist.”  This might be true (we don’t know for sure because no evidence has been presented to the public) but, its implications are vast.  Let us look at them in order.

1.  The Rule of Law:  Western Civilization has rested on the idea that no one is above the law. This is where the famous phrase “we are a country of laws, not of men” came from.  This is not just a slogan, it means that no man can execute another man, only the law can.  This is why in firing squads one man always has a blank, so that no one man is the executioner, the law is the executioner. During the Middle Ages, monarchs were considered the law incarnate by divine right.  This meant that a monarch could execute anyone and be perfectly within his right because he had the power of life and death over everyone within his domain.  This ended with the writing of the Magna Carta where limits were placed on the King in 1215 AD. Specifically the Magna Carta stated “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or dissented [seized] or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” (Magna Carta, sec. 39).  Ever since the writing of the Magna Carta, there has always been a court to stand between the state and its citizens but, no more.  This action by our chief executive has in effect uprooted 800 years of legal precedent by placing all power of judge, jury, and executioner in one human being.

2.  The Constitution:  Our President swears an oath to uphold the constitution which clearly states in the 5th amendment: “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”.  Once again this long held tradition has been completely violated.

3. The Tradition of American Virtue:  The United Sates has always been committed to due process with even the most evil of enemies because we are a nation of virtue.  In 1945 we tried the most genocidal of Nazi SS war criminals at Nuremberg because “Though we had fought a brutal war, we were determined to act generously to the vanquished.  That even applied to the Nazi brass who committed reprehensible crimes against humanity.”  We could have taken the Nazi SS officers and had them shot and thrown into the mass graves they made for their victims but, America was committed to doing what was morally right even with the most wicked of human beings.

4.  Legal Precedent:  The law has everything do with legal precedent. What was done in the past can now be done in the future.  Legally speaking, the President has no obligation to present evidence to anybody when killing American citizens abroad or at home.  He does not have to present evidence to the media, congress, any court, or even the Intelligence Committee in congress designed to oversee clandestine operations. According to legal precedent, the president can kill anyone as long he has “secret evidence” that only he is privy too.

5.  Passion for Liberty: For a republic to survive, its people must have a passion for liberty.  Our founding generation would look at allowing the state to violate the most fundamental legal protections as the most disgusting and evil of sins. Patrick Henry once said “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know what course others may take but, as for me; give me liberty or give me death!” Such passion forged our country but, seems disturbingly subdued today. If a despotism ever does come to the United States, it will not come in violence or uprisings in the streets like in Europe.  It will come wrapped in the American flag carrying an apple pie.  It will whisper ever so sweetly the age old lie that has been said time and time again for thousands of years, “Give me a little liberty and I will protect you”

6.  Why we fight:  Every solider that has ever fought has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.  Every American soldier’s first loyalty is to the constitution and the natural rights that the constitution was built upon.  We fought two world wars to preserve liberty, not to trample over it.  To ignore this, is to make our military a tool of the state apparatus, just like the Kings and Emperors of old.  I for one like to think that we fight for ideals, not a modern Xerxes.

Parting thoughts:

The real question it seems is why? Why was this done in the way it was? At least when the CIA killed foreign enemies (non-American citizens) in the past they lied about it because they knew it was against the law. Why not even make the attempt to make it seem legal?  Why not strip Anwar al-Awlaki of his citizenship before killing him?  Why not present evidence to the secret FISA courts set up in the 70s to deal with foreign spies and terrorists? Why not tell select members of congress with top secret security clearances? Why not have a  military tribunal?  Why not give some evidence, any evidence what so ever, to somebody… anybody?  Lastly… why tell us at all?  They could have killed him secretly and kept it classified as has been done with countless other military/CIA operations before but, instead they chose to announce it… why?  The answers to these questions might be more disturbing than the assassination itself.  Maybe it was done the way it was because there was no evidence to present?  Maybe it was done because the chief executive arrogantly knew that he could get away with it with no protest from the public?  Maybe it was done precisely to set future legal precedent?  I know one thing… this is a bad omen for liberty.

History will remember September 30th 2011.  The Rubicon has been crossed.

Hey Warren Buffet,

Why don’t you help Omaha out instead of hobnobbing with politicians in D.C.?

As a resident of Omaha Nebraska, and a kind of sort of neighbor of Warren Buffet (isn’t living a mile away pretty close to being a neighbor?). I don’t have any idea what the guy is thinking most of the time.  I mean this guy’s mind is completely baffling to me.  I guess Warren has been telling the media and every politician that will listen about the glorious idea of raising capital gains taxes.  I guess this will “level” the playing field and make old Warren feel less guilty about being rich.  Personally, I think Warren should start feeling good about being rich and start spending money to enjoy it.  After all, what would be of better use to the economy, Warren droning on and on about how his secretary pays less taxes or Warren blowing tons of money in Omaha’s local economy to boost the local GDP?  Hell, if I was as rich as old Warren, I would buy way more than just a big yacht like your small time rich guy, I would build a castle!  I’m not talking in Hollywood type jest here either. Like a really, really big house or something.  I’m talking about a freaking huge Medieval castle with ramparts, a moat, huge feasts every day, and people hired on to act as the local medieval population.  I will have people play knights, surfs, counts, and barons. This will be like government stimulus on super steroids and a lot more bad ass than namby pamby community reinvestment nonsense. It will likely add more value as well, I mean what would you rather have, a road repaved for the sixth time this year clogging up traffic or a big huge castle right outside of town. I will hire all unemployed people too and reduce Omaha’s unemployment rate to zero.

Unfortunately for all the citizens of Omaha, Warren is a guilty, guilty man for being so rich. So instead of enjoying a lavish lifestyle, he lives so humbly it could make a priest blush for living so lavishly. So not only does Warren not buy a Huge Freaking Cool Castle (HFCC) he does not even buy that big of a house.  You can almost feel his guilt while driving by it.  Think of all those jobs that he could have created if he’d just spend a little more on himself, but nooooo, he keeps all of that money to himself, permanently sealed up. He is some kind of Walking Keynsian Liquidity Trap (WKLT).

So Warren feels guilty about spending money on himself.  Well, why doesn’t he do what every other Billionaire does?  Invest huge amounts of money in his home town!  Hell, we just built a new stadium so we could keep the college world series in quaint little Omaha, but, where was Warren to help out with that?  Hell, Mr. “Badass” T. Boone dropped tons of money on his alma mater’s stadium, why can’t he be the local rich guy?  But no, we got dreary old Warren.  Speaking of T. Boone, at least he had some REALLY crazy, REALLY big schemes like millions of windmills going from Canada all the way down to the tip of Argentina or something.  What do we get from old Warren?  The same dreary old stuff we have been hearing since the New Deal.  There has to be something that Warren will spend money on in Omaha.  Wait a second, the food banks in Omaha are really low… how about pitching in there Warren?  Well, guess not, Warren has to go get some medals from some shifty politicians.

Well, I guess old Warren wants to be remembered by some dull old tax increase that reminds me of his drab old house.  Personally, I would want to be remembered as that “crazy rich guy that built that freaking huge castle right outside of town”. I would even settle for the guy that chips into the local food banks but, not old Warren. I would like to tell Warren to live it up, and that what he does adds value to society so stopping feeling so guilty. Alas, I guess Omaha is just a little too small for big hearted Warren Buffet to spend money on.

The Chicago School vs the Austrian Perspective Continued

I wanted to do a follow up argument on the article about Milton Friedman to make some things clear.  I think that overall, Milton Friedman was a positive influence on American economic policy.  The Chicago School’s influence has been a net positive for the country. The Chicago School and the Austrian school agree on many things but, the differences are critical to economic understanding; they are not just some obscure disagreements by academia.  I want to address these issues in order.

 

  1. The Chicago School has no concept of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory nor does it have any understanding of how booms and busts happen.  In fact, according to the Chicago School, booms and busts should not happen at all because markets always level out naturally(which would likely be true if it was not for the Fed) according to their theory of “efficient market hypothesis” as can be seen here, here, and here.  This is why all the Austrian Economists were able to see the bust of 2008 coming from miles away while the Chicago School economists did not have a clue even while it was happening.  This can be seen in the first video in the previous article where the famous “Supply Sider”, Art Laffer, says that “no way a bust is coming”, the economy is good and monetary policy has been “great”.  If Art Laffer’s statement does not make you question the Chicago School’s way of thinking then something is very wrong.

 

  1. The Chicago School’s cure for a depression is the exact same as that which the Keynesians’ and Ben Bernanke would come up with.  Milton Friedman wrote that the problem during the Great Depression was that the Federal Reserve did not inflate enough.  Well, Ben Bernanke has taken Milton Friedman’s message to heart and has put the printing presses into overdrive.  Thank goodness we have such wise leaders running things or we would be in real trouble!  Only recently have Chicago School economists started to question Ben Bernanke about low interest rates, not because they are inflationary but, because the inflation is extended for too long a time period, “mitigating its positive effects”.

 

  1. The Chicago School are inflationists to the very core and think that central banks should inflate at a steady rate  of about 2% to 4% per annum.  Not only are there many economic problems associated with this, such as a misallocation of resources but there are moral and practical implications as well.  The moral implication is that inflation, even at 2%, redistributes wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich.  The practical implication is that trusting politicians and bankers with the moral fortitude to keep inflation at 2% is completely naive.  Simply put, the short term political advantages to inflation are too tempting to pass up.  This can be seen time and time again, especially in the last thirty years, where Greenspan inflated bubble after bubble because it was politically expedient.

 

  1. Lastly, the Chicago School is pretty much OK with central planning in a philosophical sense.  Remember, their objections to government intervention into the free market are not out of a deep understanding of property rights, natural law, individual sovereignty or hostility to command and control economies but, because they generally think that most market intervention does not make the economy more efficient.  The Chicago School’s obsession with “market efficiency” can be seen in all the other areas where they do support government involvement (like monopoly laws).   This article expands upon it more but, basically if communist societies were more economically efficient, then the Chicago School economists would be theoretically in favor of them. Whether the idea of market efficiency is valid at all theoretically is a whole other question but, I think that Mises put that idea into the grave with his book Human Action.

 

Although the Chicago School has some positive influence in reducing regulation and promoting free trade, its deficiencies are now too glaring to ignore.  It is also important to understand that the Chicago School rose to prominence not because of its intellectual merits but, because of the Keynesians’ complete inability to explain the stagflation of the 1970s.  Long story short, the Chicago School was the only other game in town (the Austrian School was still obscure at the time).

In conclusion, I think that we are all very blessed to be living during a new revival of the Austrian School.  So, if you liked reading Milton Friedman, you will love reading Mises, Hayek, and especially Rothbard.

 

 

Milton Friedman vs the Austrian Perspective

So you are a good free market Chicago School guy.  You have rejected Keynesian economics in favor of the free market Chicago school.  You have read Milton Friedman’s “Right to Choose” and you are convinced that the free market is the way to go.

Well, maybe he is not such a free market guy.  He is, in fact, in favor of compulsory taxation, monopoly, price controls, and the welfare state.  Milton Friedman proposed the tyrannical payroll deduction in the United Sates during WW2 and it has stuck with us like a curse ever since.  He is against cartels in most areas except for money.  Though Chicago School has done many positive things in promoting liberty, its faults are glaring and can no longer be ignored after September 2008. The Chicago School was fundamental in popularizing the idea that almost all government regulations are actually lobbied for and constructed by the industries that are to be regulated to push out competition and raise costs for new competitors entering the sector.  This allows large firms to absorb regulatory costs while pushing out small businesses and new upstart companies.  The term popularized by many from the Chicago school is “Cui Bono” or who benefits?.  The Chicago School realized that in almost all cases, the big players in the industries being regulated are almost always the same beneficiaries of such regulations and are also the biggest pushers of regulation (just like today’s health care legislation and insurance companies.)  Chicago School has written hundreds of books on almost every industry when making their case but have somehow missed the elephant in the room, the Federal Reserve. So the largest monopoly of all escapes all scrutiny from the Chicago School.  Chicago School refuses to use this same method of “Cui Bono?” on the banking cartels that exist around the world in the form of Central Banks.  This seems absurd when considering that all the shareholders of central banks are private and have enormous leverage in setting the price for money (the interest rate).  So the Chicago School and Milton are completely inconsistent in their theories when it comes to money.  They are for free competition in all fields except for banking, where the Chicago school supports government sponsered monopoly.

When it comes to methodology, the Chicago School is as bad if not worse than the Keynesians.  The Chicago School and every other school of economic thought besides the Austrian School since the 1930s have viewed human beings as mathematical aggregates.  That is to say, human beings are simply numbers to be put in mathematical formulas.  The Austrian School completely rejects this because human beings are conscious actors that change their behaviors based on conditions. For example if you raise the income tax, some people will likely find other ways to generate income through investment or some other method.  Therefore, human behavior and concious actors will change how much revenue will be brought in.  All other schools of thought pretend that human behavior is for the most part unchanging and can be constructed as part of a mathematical formula. For example, if government action A is taken than B will be the result.  Ludwig Von Mises established in “Human Action” that human behavior cannot be predicted and observed in the same way that hard sciences make predictions. All particles in the universe act in the same predictable way when a force is applied to them. This is not true with human behavior.  When a new variable is applied to human interaction, humans will react in multiple different ways, each to achieve their own desired goals. Since economists can’t possibly know the goals and motives of every single person, it makes human beings almost impossible to predict the same way that chemists or other scientists make predictions with their respective studies.  This puts economics closer to the field of sociology rather than a hard science, i.e. physics, that mainstream economists’ fantasize about making economics into.  Human beings are conscious actors but the Chicago School’s methodology leads to many conclusions that are not logical because they often do not take this into account. Murray Rothbard gives the example of Milton Friedman’s negative income tax or guaranteed annual income.  Rothbard argues that it is precisely because the welfare bureaucracy is so inefficient that the United Sates is not more bankrupt than it is.  Friedman’s plan to make it more efficient by automatically sending out checks to anyone making below a certain income creates a hugely distorted incentive structure that is logically obvious but which Chicago School’s methodology seems unable to grasp.

Lastly if you still think that the Chicago School is free market consider this; Ben Bernanke is a student of the Chicago School, specifically Milton Friedman’s book on the Great Depression. Everything that Ben Bernanke has done has been lock step with what Milton Friedman had suggested should have been done during the Great Depression. Not one major economist from the Chicago School publicly protested against TARP or the mind boggling expansion of the money supply.  The Chicago School has completely capitulated to the Keynesian world view and have shown their true colors. The only school of thought that has not been toppled in the wake of September 2008 has been the Austrian School.

Here Gary North goes into some of the intellectual history of economics. Additionally, Gary North makes the argument that the intervention of 2008 was so massive that it was arguably taken even further than anything that Milton Friedman would have suggested thirty years ago.

Here is another lecture comparing Milton Friedman to the Keynesian paradigm.

Here is an article about how mainstream conservatives and supply siders are Keynesian.

 

How Inflation Destroyed the Roman Empire

There were many reasons the Roman Empire fell but, inflation and government spending were huge parts.  Government stimulus programs and public works became common then as they are today.  People today underestimate the complexity of the Roman Empire but, their bureaucracy was almost as large as ours today.  Aqueducts were often created to give people employment just like “The Community Reinvestment Act” seeks to do today.  I find this interesting on many different levels.  For one, Rome’s policies were very similar to ours today.  They even had similar names like jobs bill and community reinvestment act.    There is a book written in the 1940s called the “New Deal in Old Rome” that compares Roman governance in the later Empire to New Deal programs.  The parallels are almost bizarre.

Then, just like today, government bureaucracy and spending were only part of the problem, the much bigger problem was inflation.  Inflation was rampant and brought the Empire to its knees.  The rates of inflation increased over time at a similar rate to that at which the United States is currently.

 

What is really staggering is that the Roman Empire’s fiscal transgressions are nothing compared to the modern United States’.  Rome had to dilute its coins by recalling them every few years and watering them down with other metals, while the U.S. can simply print bills of credit to infinity with no checks in place at all.  Nero would be envious indeed of the American State’s monetary power.  Rome also centralized everything into its capital city and attempted to regulate its provinces from afar but, again this is nothing compared to the centralization that Washington DC has been able to accomplish.  For all the corruption that infected the Roman government, it is tame compared to the corruption of the American Political Class. Here is a brief presentation on Roman Inflation.

This one is a bit longer.

 

 

Big Silver Drop, Great Time to Buy!

Silver just took a huge drop, this is a great time to get in if you have not already.  Silver touched fifty dollars an ounce this spring and now has dropped down to thirty dollars today from around forty last week.  This is significantly lower than its high this year and many multitudes lower than its inflation adjusted high of 1980.  Many people may think that this is a bad signal for the metals market but, they are completely wrong.  The silver market naturally has huge swings because it is such a small market.  Pullbacks, even large ones, are a healthy sign for a bull market.   It is when bull markets turn into a parabolic increase that they reach bubble levels.  We are still a long ways away from silver or gold being a bubble.

Remember that silver is not just a precious metal, it is an industrial metal as well.  Even if the economy comes back strong, silver should do well in a boom just like oil or copper.  It is the greatest conductor of heat and electricity that occurs naturally in the universe.  This means we use it for everything, especially in the modern electronic age. There are literally hundreds of uses that you can find here.

We are in a totally unprecedented time in history when all the countries in the world have fiat currency.  Every single fiat currency in history has collapsed.  This has happened hundreds of times throughout the world as we look through time.  Hell, hyperinflation occurs in South America every decade or so! Even if you don’t buy everything I have been selling you about silver, you should at least protect yourself and buy a smaller amount of it just in case.  If you think that massive inflation or hyperinflation is a low probability scenario you should still have some capital invested into precious metals because it is such a high impact scenario.  Personally, I am confident this is a high probability, high impact scenario.  Consequently, I’m making a large portion of my portfolio out of silver.  Also, invest in physical metals to start out, don’t have all your gold and silver in paper stocks or shares.

Here is a movie on silver and gold investing by Michael Maloney.

 

Here is an article with more technical analysis.