A Taste of the Galaxy

Gary North: It's Time to Drive a Stake through the Heart of that Keynsian Vampire (ASC 2010)

2010-03-11T16:15:00.007-05:00

Dr. Gary North gave a talk titled "Keynes and His Influence" in which he recounted the story of the series of exchanges between Hayek and Keynes regarding Keynes's Treatise on Money, which Hayek had spent much time critiquing. According to Hayek, the intellectual debate concluded in an anti-climatic fashion, with Keynes basically shrugging and telling Hayek that he didn't really believe it anyway and that he was onto something else. Thus, when Keynes published his General Theory, Hayek did not bother responding to it. This was a terrible mistake that had unfortunate consequences in the field of economics. Because academic economists expected Hayek to respond, Hayek's silence was interpreted as his inability to refute Keynes's General Theory.

Dr. North went on to say that because Austrian economists had predicted the 2008 financial crisis, they are in a unique position to dismantle the Keynsian mythology once and for all, to finally drive a stake through the heart of that vampire. He cautioned the audience (full of Austrian economists) not to have a Hayekian moment. Instead, he advised Austrians to pick some aspect of Keynes's theory and attack it, using various internet channels, such as youtube, blogs, and websites like LRC, to disseminate the information. Through this intellectual division of labor, he said, we can take down the elephant "one bite at a time."

Incidentally, Dr. North also mentioned this song by Merle Hazard -- Inflation or Deflation.

Oh, the Nobel Committee Did It Again

2009-10-09T13:10:00.009-04:00

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has a pretty bad track record. It had awarded the prize to the bully Teddy "Big Stick" Roosevelt and Henry "I-helped-put-the-Khmer-Rouge-in-power" Kissinger.

Now Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Well, let's see, since taking office, President Obama has ended the war in Iraq, right? What, no? Oh, hmmm...but he's ended U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? Oh, he escalated the war in Afghanistan. Never mind that. At the very least, Obama hasn't been belligerent towards Iran the way Bush had been. Oh wait, he threatened Iran with military action just a few weeks ago at the G20 summit. But surely he shut down Gitmo, or he's going to--before January 22nd of next year--right? Yeah, except that Eric Holder just said three days ago that it's going to be "hard" to meet the January 22nd deadline. Oh, but he meant to. It's...it's...Congress's fault! Hah! And he means to withdraw from Iraq at some indefinite point in the future too. Oh, but he means to; he really does!

And I mean to discover a cure for cancer. So what about that Nobel Prize in Medicine, eh?

This is worse than giving the prize to Al Gore. At least Gore only got half the prize, and it was a couple years after he left office so you could argue that in our world of collective amnesia, no one can remember anything that happened more than a week ago so a couple of years and people have forgotten all about Gore's role in the Clinton administration's murderous foreign escapades. The fact that the Nobel Committee awarded him the prize for that stupid piece-o-crap propaganda film he made is another topic for another day...

Don't Play the Politics Game

2009-10-01T13:54:00.006-04:00

Ryan McMaken put up an insightful post on LRC blog today. People in the freedom movement sometimes have a tendency to "project" libertarianism onto politicians (and TV talking heads) who agree with them on a few issues.

As McMaken points out,

"So, Paul knows what he’s doing, but the gullible within the freedom movement fall all over themselves making friends with any politician who isn’t 100% vile. These are usually political activist types who are always thinking in terms of alliances and strategies and elections and compromises.

But no thanks, I have no desire to play that game, and I have better things to do than pathetically try to convince myself that secret libertarians are hiding in every corner of the US Capitol."

I think this is a key point because it at least partially explains why libertarian political activism/lobbying/campaigning efforts often go awry. People have a dangerous tendency to compromise principles for the political alliances. But as Ron Paul pointed out at the C4L's Northeast Regional Conference recently (I paraphrase), if you compromise on 1% of the bill, you've compromised on 100% of the principle. The same can be said of political alliances and strategies.

God Damn the FDA

2009-09-22T22:34:00.002-04:00

And Philip Morris too. David Kramer reminded LRC readers that, as of today, it is illegal to buy or sell flavored cigarettes in the U.S. For years, Philip Morris has lobbied for this ban. Menthol cigarettes--such as the disgusting Benson & Hedges ones sold by Philip Morris--are still legal, of course. Ugh!

Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Week

2009-08-26T15:23:00.002-04:00

There are a lot of ridiculous lawsuits out there so I can't say that this is the most ridiculous one this week. But it's up there. This suit was brought up in my Torts class--a woman sued Philip Morris for damages over her mother's death. Her mother, a lifelong smoker (of Marlboros and Benson & Hedges--yuck!), died of lung cancer. The plaintiff was awarded $13.8 million in punitive damages. The jury initially awarded $28 billion! (But the judge reduced it to $28 million.) After appeal and new trial over the damages, the amount was reduced to $13.8 million.

Even if we ignore for the moment the fact that there is no way to proof that the plaintiff's mother's lung cancer was caused by the Philip Morris cigarettes she smoked (the causation is probable, even likely, but it can't be proven--non-smokers can get lung cancer too), how can any reasonable jury find Philip Morris liable for something that the plaintiff's mother clearly chose to do? Is there no concept of personal responsibility left?

Now, don't get me wrong, I hate Philip Morris--I don't enjoy their cigarettes, and I despise them for their (underhanded and recently successful) lobbying effort to get Congress to ban flavored cigarettes. I have no sympathy for companies that use State force to eliminate competition. If Winston-Salem produces these nice and exotic flavored cigarettes, then the appropriate thing for Philip Morris to do is not to get Congress to ban flavored cigarettes but to either try to compete by coming up with their own flavored cigarettes or to just do nothing and stick to making their customer base happy. After all, there are people who only like the harsh taste of Marlboro reds.

Bob Higgs on the Abolition of the State

2009-08-21T11:18:00.004-04:00

And how arguments against it are similar to arguments against the abolition of slavery. People have a tendency to resist change, especially if it involves the abolition of what appears to be a permanent institution, even if the reasons for such resistance are without substance.

Read the article.

Bloomberg Article Quotes Lew Rockwell!!

2009-08-20T13:08:00.002-04:00

Ryan McMaken blogged about it on LRC. The article itself isn't bad either. It attacks Obama's lack of economic understanding and his health care reform plan.

Orwell or Huxley...

2009-08-07T23:55:00.002-04:00

Who was right? Charles Burris posted a link to this entertaining comic on LRC blog.

I would say that it's really a mixture of both. First they try to put us in a coma with all the dumb reality TV shows, celebrity gossip, and other distractions. But for those of us who don't fall for it, there's always the Orwellian police state--the midnight knocks on the door and the bag over the head.

Choose Your Own Apocalypse

2009-08-04T11:16:00.003-04:00

In this fun game created by Josh Levin, you get to choose five scenarios of how America will end. (It's not really a game, more like a poll, but it's still fun!) Scenarios range from the absurd, e.g., "End of Home Ownership" (how could that cause an end to America?), to the silly, e.g., "Alien Invasion," and the realistic, e.g., "Hyperinflation."

You pick five scenarios, and it places you somewhere on the Apocalypse matrix (kind of like the Nolan chart), the horizontal axis of which runs from "Everybody Lives" to "Everybody Dies" and the vertical axis of which runs from "Man's Fault" to "Nature's Fault." Then it tells you what kind of person you are based on where you landed on the matrix.

I picked Hyperinflation, Nationalized Industries, Default on Debt, Deficit Spending, and Military Overstretch. I ended up as a "Humanitarian Internationalist" although I'm not sure how they came up with that label.

Others may be inclined to pick one or more of the secession scenarios, but I just think secession is too good to every come true.

(Thanks to Susannah for the link.)

Barney Frank Has Issues

2009-08-04T11:06:00.002-04:00

As Karen De Coster has pointed out on her blog, Barney Frank has issues. Glen Jacobs (a.k.a., Kane) has a funny little story about his encounter with Barney Frank at the Boston Airport. Glen Jacobs confronted Frank about Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill, and Barney Frank had another one of his outbursts at the end.

Bailouts Could Cost $24 Trillion

2009-07-22T13:18:00.005-04:00

$24 trillion!!!

(Thanks to Anthony Gregory.)

Ron Paul vs. the Fed

2009-07-21T22:48:00.005-04:00

This Wall Street Journal article contains some interesting tidbits. First of all, the authors' contempt for Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters is kind of entertaining. Take, for example, this sentence:
"[Ron Paul's] movement has a small but deeply committed following: Supporters even have a dating Web site in his name, 'Ron Paul Singles,' where users seek others displeased with the Fed."

I've never heard of "Ron Paul Singles" before. A review of the website will be forthcoming.

Another point of interest, something that I wasn't aware of at the time, is this:
"When Mr. Bernanke first met Mr. Obama last July in the Fed chairman's stately office, Mr. Obama, then a candidate, began the conversation by saying, 'The first thing I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, is I have great respect for the independence of the Federal Reserve,' according to attendees."

So I guess that candidate Obama, aside from pledging allegiance to AIPAC, also declared his commitment to the central bank. Is this something all presidential candidates have to do? Like some kind of hazing ritual?

Chinese Beef Stew

2009-07-18T01:52:00.013-04:00

This dish was surprisingly successful. The recipe was inspired by this youtube video (warning: the audio is terrible), but I modified it a bit to save time.

Ingredients:
1.5 to 2 lbs of beef cubes for stewing
4-5 inch chunk of ginger, washed and sliced
2 onions, sliced
1 head of garlic, peeled (whole cloves)
4-5 carrots, peeled and cut into pieces
12-15 (or however many you like) turnips, peeled and cut into pieces (halves or thirds, depending on how big they are)
1 can diced or whole tomatoes
Chinese cooking rice wine (see image)
soy sauce
chili sauce (the red kind with seeds in it)
Chinese spice pack (see image below--you'll have to go to a Chinese grocery store to find it. Unless you read Chinese, I suggest that you copy down the characters on the package and show it to someone who works there. That will probably be easier than trying to find it on your own. I'm telling you, it's well worth the hassle.)

Directions:
1- Saute the ginger in some oil until fragrant.
2- Add half of the sliced onions and cook until translucent.
3- Add the beef cubes and cook until browned.
4- Add the rest of the onions and the whole cloves of garlic.
5- Add a dash of soy sauce (don't add too much soy sauce, you can always add more later) and a few dashes of rice wine ("glug glug glug").
6- Add the canned tomatoes, carrots, and turnips; stir.
7- Add enough water to cover everything. (This only works if you are using a deep and large pan--I have one that's similar in shape to the one used in the youtube video but a bit bigger. If you don't have such a pan, transfer everything to a pot or, better yet, slow cooker before adding the tomatoes, carrots, and turnips.)
8- Put one bag of spice pack into the water--the spice packs look like big tea bags, and they work just like tea bags. You put them in the water and let them steep. But make sure that they are properly immersed since they have a tendency to float.
9- Bring water to a boil; cover and simmer. (I added a bit more rice wine right before I covered the pot, this time "glug glug.")
10- Taste the broth after about 30 min. If you find that one spice pack wasn't enough, you can throw another one in there. With the kind I got, one "tea bag" was enough. You can also add more soy sauce or some salt if necessary. My spice pack must have been salted or something because the broth was plenty salty and flavorful and I really didn't add much soy sauce at all.
11- Cook for another 1-2 hours or until meat is tender.

Obama at the All-Star Game

2009-07-15T11:30:00.003-04:00

When searching for footage of Obama's ceremonial first pitch (I've heard that Clinton throws like a girl and wanted to see what Obama throws like). I found this blog, which makes fun of Obama's "dad jeans."

I couldn't tell if Obama throws like a girl or not (the clip doesn't show the entire trajectory of the ball although I'm pretty sure it started to curve downwards right before it went out of view). What I found was funny was how unimpressed (and even annoyed) the driver of the golf cart looked as Obama approached to shake hands with people in the cart. See for yourself.

Lord of the Flies

2009-07-15T11:23:00.001-04:00

This is pretty funny: http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/comics/lord_of_the_flies.png

(Thanks to Anthony Gregory.)

Walter Block's Name That Depression Contest

2009-07-14T17:58:00.005-04:00

Walter Block has published the results for his "Name that Depression" contest. The last section of the article is a list of all possible names--the original entries plus the new suggestions. Boy, that is a LONG list! But it's lots of fun, and I love lists! Here are some of my favorites (in alphabetical order):

Attention Deficit Depression (for our lack of attention to history and its lessons)
Dead Banks Recession
Depression to End all Depressions
Equal Opportunity Lender Depression
Fed Depression and Irresponsibility Crisis (FDIC)
Fed’s Free Money for Friends Depression
FeD-ON-CRACK Depression
Great Anthropogenic Global Meltdown of the Economy (GAG ME)
Great Regression Depression
Greater Depression
I can’t believe there’s no butter Depression
Mainstream-Economists-On-Crack Depression
Morning After Depression
Night of the Walking Fed Depression
Peter Schiff Said So Depression
Pump and Slump Depression
Ron Paul was Right Depression
The Belt Town Meltdown (as in "Beltway")
The Boomer Boom Bust
The Bubble Bubble
The Central Bank Tank Depression
The Counterfeiters' Calamity
The Great American Crash
The Hope For Change Depression
The Keynesian Krack-up Katastrophe
Under Socialism Actuarial Reality Is Postponed (USARIP) Depression
We-Learned-Nothing-From-The-Great-Depression Depression

Like Walter Block, I, too, have a thing for alliteration and rhyme. But I also like good acronym's.

Many of the items above should have been hyphenated. For example, "Morning After Depression" should have been "Morning-After Depression" because I think the original contributor meant to use "Morning-After" as an adjective, i.e., not talking about the morning after the depression. This is because two or more words that serve as a single adjective should be hyphenated when they come before the noun they modify. See rule no. 1 here. (Sorry, grammar Nazi here!)

Benchmark Deficit Spending

2009-07-13T14:40:00.006-04:00

The budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 passed the $1 trillion mark last month. Can you even imagine what $1 trillion means? I can't. But that's how much the fed gov has overspent so far, this year. (Recall that the projected total deficit for FY 2009 is around $1.8 trillion--WAY more than twice the largest annual deficit on record, which is $454.8 billion in FY 2008, according to the article.)

Spend, government, spend!

The Real Meaning of Patriotism

2009-07-05T13:00:00.003-04:00

Bob Higgs wrote this beautiful piece on what it means to love America. Hint: It does not involve kneeling at the altar of the State or cheering as the government's fighter jets fly overhead.

Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" Bill Appears in Mainstream Media

2009-07-01T11:53:00.003-04:00

Fox News had an article yesterday about Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill. The bill, despite having 245 cosponsors in the House, has mostly been ignored by the MSM so it's refreshing to see someone report on it, even if it is the ignoble Faux News.

They're Still Talking About Mark Sanford

2009-07-01T11:15:00.003-04:00

That is, despite Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett's deaths. Now they're analyzing his marriage, the likelihood of reconciliation, and the meaning of "soul mate." Watch this video. The blond marriage therapist is a complete bitch. At -04:14 she says: "I think he's put his wife in a double bind...It's the same double bind he's put his constituents in. He says he wants to be their governor, but he really doesn't want to be responsible and have full disclosure to them."

What on earth is she talking about? I really don't think it's appropriate to compare his constituents to his wife! Why are people making it seem as if by being unfaithful to his wife, Mark Sanford has also been unfaithful to his constituents? And what does she mean by him not having "full disclosure with them"? Hasn't he disclosed more than enough already?

The male therapist says "not being in love with your spouse is part of marriage. It doesn't mean you're in a bad marriage; it means you're in a marriage." Well, that's just depressing.

House Passes Cap-and-Trade Bill

2009-06-27T12:09:00.004-04:00

Man, I'm really starting to miss Gee Dubya. As bad as he was on everything, at least he wasn't trying to push through this stupid carbon cap-and-trade thing and that stupid nationalized health care thing. Obama is bad on everything that Bush was bad on, but he's also bad on all these other things too. Is it really asking too much to wish that one president would be slightly better (or at least no worse) than the one before?

If the Senate passes this bill, and it probably will, I don't even want to know what's going to happen to the U.S. economy (which is already going to hell in a hand basket, no help required).

According to this article, "studies from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency show the costs of the legislation would be modest." But there will be hidden costs that the stupid bureaucrats did not foresee. In fact, there is no way to calculate the real cost of this kind of legislation beforehand because the passage of additional regulations/programs will initiate a chain reaction of cost adjustments that cannot be mapped out or anticipated by anyone. It's the problem of socialist calculation again. One thing is for sure: anytime new regulations are passed, small businesses are hurt the most (which is great for big businesses because it gets rid of competition), and the cost is always passed on to consumers.

The health care industry is regulated to death in the U.S., and look at how expensive health care is! Politicians and pundits talk about it as if the costs cannot possibly be lowered and that the only solution is universal health insurance. But the only reason Americans need insurance to pay for everyday medical expenses (and not just serious illnesses/accidents) is because the cost of health care (even everyday stuff) is ridiculously inflated! No one can afford to pay out-of-pocket! But this is not the case in other countries. The same pharmaceutical manufactured by the same company can be purchased for a fraction of the cost in other countries. How can this be? Why is there no arbitrage? Because regulations make any attempt at arbitrage illegal. But I digress.

The point is, if this cap-and-trade thing passes, it will make the price of pretty much everything go up. This is because energy, which is still predominantly supplied by fossil fuels, is integral to the production of everything. Even cows emit methane gas so I guess people who raise cows will have to trade carbon credits.

Why Did Mark Sanford Admit to His Argentinian Affair?

2009-06-24T17:57:00.014-04:00

I was perplexed and a bit surprised when I read that Gov. Sanford of South Carolina called a press conference in which he told everyone that he was actually in Argentina to end an affair with his mistress during those five days in which he was incommunicado. At first, he told everyone that he went hiking in the Appalachian trails, but then he calls this press conference and tells everyone that he spent the last five days crying in Argentina. I mean, why would anyone admit to something like that? Unless...unless he doesn't think he can hide it anymore.

This might sound a bit conspiratorial, and maybe it is...but I wonder if someone had found out about his affair and threatened to reveal it, someone who had a reason to destroy the career of a state governor who had not only threatened secession over the Real ID Act but also loudly opposed the stimulus bill and tried to refuse the federal money for South Carolina, taking the case all the way to the SC Supreme Court. (He also made an ad explaining to South Carolinians why he didn't want to take the stimulus money.)

I mean, let's face it. All politicians, other than Ron Paul, are despicable in one way or another (i.e., they're either terrible on economic issues, terrible on foreign policy, terrible on personal freedoms/civil liberties, or terrible all the way around). But Mark Sanford is probably one of the two less annoying state governors currently in existence (the other one being the governor of Montana). Back when he was in the House of Representatives, he would sometimes be the only person to vote with Ron Paul (usually voting against one bill or another). So the fact that this scandal suddenly occurred so soon after the stimulus fiasco is making me suspicious...A state governor who dared to stand up against the fed gov!

And why do Americans care so much about the personal lives of politicians anyway? I mean, a politician can be investigated for making backroom deals with a lobbying group that is clearly an agent of a foreign government, like Rep. Jane Harman of CA, and no one seems to notice. A politician condones torture, and no ones cares. A politician votes to bail out the big banks, against the expressed wishes of his constituency, and gets re-elected. But a politician has an extra-marital affair, oh, no, no! That's just not acceptable! Ugh!

They could have gone after Bill Clinton for a million different things, like the massacre at Waco, for example. But what did they go after him for? Monica Lewinsky. A non-event.

Update: I just read these emails, presumably between Mark Sanford and Maria, and while I think that it is kind of mean and nasty for whomever got their hands on these emails to then give them to the newspaper to be published, I have to admit that I read every single word and relished it. (Everyone loves a good real life soap opera--I do, anyway.) And I was disappointed that there wasn't more. (Yeah, yeah, I know, but hey, I'm only human.) Then I had to quickly remind myself that these are real people with real feelings and not a supermarket romance novel (although this would make a great premise for a supermarket romance novel--married, conservative Republican politician falls in love with beautiful, exotic South American woman).

Having read these emails, I really do feel bad for them (Sanford and Maria). So, people, now that you've all read these very personal emails and secretly (just admit it!) enjoyed them, can you just leave Mark Sanford alone and forgive him this very insignificant (on the grand scheme of things) transgression. You are not his wife, and therefore he did not do anything to hurt you. And reporters, please leave the poor woman alone and not go looking for her in Argentina! This must be terrible enough for her as it is.

Update 2: This timeline makes clear the answer to my question (the title of this blog post). On Tuesday night, The State gets a call from an anonymous source, telling them that Sanford will be flying to Atlanta from Buenos Aires the next day. Now, who is this anonymous caller? Could it be as simple and innocent as an airline employee who couldn't keep his mouth shut? Or is it someone with more complicated/sinister motives? After The State learned that Sanford would be returning to the U.S. from Argentina, it was pretty much over for Mark Sanford because, evidently, the paper had previously obtained (last December) the aforementioned emails between Sanford and Maria but was unable to verify their authenticity. It is not clear how The State obtained those emails.

Fred Reed Is an Awesome Writer

2009-06-23T17:19:00.003-04:00

I first came across him on LewRockwell.com. I was immediately sucked in by his witty and darkly humorous writing. His columns are well worth reading. The latest one is about "Islamo-fascism, Judaeo-fascism, Bapto-fascism, and Why We Need More Bars."

But the previous one is even better. Here's an excerpt:

"Meanwhile North Korea threatens South Korea with nuclear war, and the US pledges noisily to defend the South at all costs. Why? The South has lots more population and industry than does the North. If South Korea wants to defend itself, it can. If it doesn’t want to, I don’t care. I’m not Seoul’s mother.

When you enlist in the military you pledge to defend the Constitution. Is it in Korea? I didn’t pay much attention in high-school civics."

There Will Be Inflation

2009-06-22T13:00:00.004-04:00

Gary North's article on why the deflationists' argument holds no water--basically because even though commercial banks aren't lending right now, the Fed can always lend to the government, and the government will spend, spend, SPEND!!! And the Fed can force commercial banks to lend whenever it wants to by charging them a fee for their excess reserves.

Behold the wonders of Keynesianism!

Details of Obama's Financial Regulations Proposal---Scarier and Scarier

2009-06-17T14:27:00.012-04:00

From this NY Times article:

“A cascade of mistakes and missed opportunities” over decades led to the present problems, the president said. “It was easy money, while it lasted.” But, he added, “These schemes were built on a pile of sand.”

Yes, it was easy money, Mr. President, but where did you think the easy money came from? Could it be the very institution to which you're giving all these extra regulatory powers--the Federal Reserve?!

[T]he plan seeks to give Washington the tools to police the shadow system of finance that has grown up outside the government’s purview, and to make it easier for regulators to head off problems at large, troubled institutions or take control of them if they fail.

Yes, because regulators, none of whom foresaw the current crisis, are going to be able to head off problems.

It's funny that the article points out that it's not the first time such an "overhaul" has been attempted. The Wilson administration did the same thing when it created the Federal Reserve. And we all know where that got us...The only question is where this overhaul will get us.

Chicken and Dumplings

2009-06-16T13:22:00.004-04:00

I know I haven't been posting recipes as often as I should...But here's one. Doesn't look like much, but it tastes great! Also, this is a low carb recipe. To make the soup thick and creamy, double the amount of dumpling dough.

Ingredients:
1 lb chicken breasts
4 cups broth (I used vegetable broth because that's what I had; chicken would have probably been better. You could also use bouillon cubes and 8 cups of water.)
4 cups water
3 stalks celery, diced
1 medium onion, diced
5 cloves garlic, sliced
(I would have also added some carrots, but I didn't have any.)
2 tbs butter
3 whole cloves
8-10 peppercorns
salt and black pepper, to taste
garlic scapes (optional)

For the dumplings

(I would have used 1 cup Bisquick mix and 1/3 cup milk, but I didn't have any Bisquick mix so I made the dumpling mix from scratch. I think the Bisquick mix would have tasted better--it always does.)

1 cup flour
1/2 tsp salt
2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/2 egg, beaten (This ridiculous amount is due to the fact that I halved the recipe for the dumplings...just to reduce the amount of carbs. I just try to add roughly half of a beaten egg.)
1 tbs melted butter
1/3 cup milk

Directions:
1- Cover chicken breasts with broth and water; add cloves and peppercorns; bring to a boil.
2- Reduce heat and simmer covered for 20-25 minutes or until chicken is cooked. (The exact time will depend on how big your chicken breasts are. Boneless and skinless breast fillets will only take about 15 min.)
3- While the chicken is cooking, mix together the dry ingredients for the dumplings.
4- Add the egg, butter, and milk to the flour mixture to make the dough.
5- When the chicken is cooked, remove from soup and set aside to cool.
6- Drop spoonfuls of the dumpling dough into the soup. (The dumplings will expand and float on top of the soup, but don't worry, they will shrink and sink later on.)
7- Cover and simmer for ~20 minutes. After ~20 minutes, stir the soup to sink the dumplings.
8- While the dumplings are cooking, chop up the vegetables and cut the chicken into small pieces.
9- Saute onion in butter for 3 minutes or so.
10- Add celery and garlic and continue to cook for a few more minutes.
11- Add chicken and continue to cook for a few more minutes.
12- When the dumplings have cooked for 20 minutes and sunk to the bottom, add chicken and vegetable mixture to the soup and bring to a boil.
13- Add salt and pepper to taste. (Be careful, soup will be very hot--I burned my tongue tasting it.)
14- Chop up the garlic scapes and add to soup (after it's been removed from heat--the garlic scapes will be more flavorful if you don't cook them).

Krugman to Fed: Keep Printing

2009-06-15T16:26:00.004-04:00

I don't usually read Paul Krugman's columns because I get enough of a dose of Krugmanomics vicariously through Bill Anderson's blog posts on LRC. But I happened to see this on Reddit and couldn't resist clicking on it. In Bill Anderson's words, "Paul Krugman did not disappoint."

There he was, scoffing at concerns about inflation and massive government borrowing. He accused "inflation worriers" of "harassing the Fed."

The ghost of Keynes speaks through Krugman and tells us that it is the Fed's money-printing and the government's borrowing and spending that has saved us all from the dark and bottomless pit of economic depression. And, should the government reign in its insane money-printing, borrowing, and spending spree now, when we're only inches away from the bottomless pit, the ground beneath us would surely open up, and down we'd go.

The Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says that there's no risk of inflation therefore it must be true. Never mind that the U.S. government is using every desperate diplomatic maneuver behind the scenes to get the Japanese government to declare confidence in the dollar just days after two Japanese men were caught trying to smuggle $134 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds into Switzerland (where they would have been able to sell the bonds to Swiss banks without triggering a worldwide panic Treasury selling spree). Never mind that the Russian finance minister made a similar declaration days after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev talked about the need for a new reserve currency. Never mind that the dollar has been weakening and commodity prices have been rising. (Okay, the dollar strengthened a little and commodity prices fell in response to the aforementioned declarations, but we'll see how long this false confidence lasts.)

UPDATE: Lew Rockwell linked to this on his LRC blog post. Evidently, the aforementioned Treasury bonds are counterfeit. But I don't really buy the author's hypothesis that the incident was some other country's attempt to devalue the dollar. As was pointed out in one of the comments at the bottom, if either Japan or China wanted to cause a currency crisis in the U.S., all they had to do was sell all their Treasuries. (Besides, significant devaluation of the dollar will also wipe out the value of the Treasuries held by all creditor nations.) I think the U.S. government will destroy the dollar all on its own, no need for help.

Government Begets More Government

2009-06-12T23:19:00.002-04:00

Read my Campaign for Liberty article: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=107

The Fed needs to stop monetizing U.S. government debt

2009-06-03T14:55:00.003-04:00

The other day, I saw Peter Bookvar of Miller Tabak and Co. interviewed on Bloomberg news. Mr. Bookvar said that the recent increase in stock prices is only about 11-12% after adjusting for inflation and not > 35%, which is what most people have been saying. He also predicted more inflation unless the Fed changes its policy, and he called inflation "a hideous tax on consumers." When asked by the anchor whether or not Bernanke will be criticized for not being "pro-active enough" if he ends the Fed's Treasury-buying spree, Mr. Bookvar said that "his 'pro-active' enough has gotten us into a pickle."

Anyway, it's nice to see that some people in this world have some idea of what's going on...

Why do they keep referring to the "taxpayers"?

2009-05-14T15:47:00.003-04:00

Saw Congress grill Edward Liddy (the Paulson-appointed CEO of AIG) last night. Everyone (Congressmen and Liddy) kept referring to the American "taxpayer"--it was taxpayer this, taxpayer that, taxpayer money, blah blah blah.

I almost laughed when Liddy talked about how they were trying to repay the American taxpayers. Hah! Everyone who knows anything about how the government works knows that even if AIG does manage to repay the government, no taxpayer will ever see a penny of that money. (It's not as if the government is going to cut us all a check--whatever bailout money the government recovers will just be wasted elsewhere.)

And about five minutes later, some Congressman talked about how AIG would have failed had it not been for "the goodness of the American taxpayers." The goodness of what taxpayer? The American taxpayers never had a choice. Recall that the Fed bailed out AIG by lending it $85 billion (drawing on emergency powers granted to the central bank during the Great Depression)--i.e., the AIG bailout never even went through Congress (not that Congress gives a damn about the will of the taxpayers--just look at how swiftly they passed the bank bailout bill last October--despite the fact that there was overwhelming opposition from the American people).

Following the Money

2009-05-11T14:38:00.005-04:00

I looked at some data published by OpenSecrets.org while doing research for this article I'm writing. It's really quite interesting to see where the various Congressman's campaign contributions come from.

Rep. John Dingell, the guy who introduced H.R. 759, the "Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009" (ugh!), was an industry favorite of the Pharmaceuticals/Health Product and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing industries during the 2008 election cycle. (Of all members of the House of Representatives, he received the most PAC contributions from the latter and the third most from the former).

On the other hand, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who introduced H.R. 875, the "Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009," received substantial PAC contributions from the Crop Production and Basic Processing and Agricultural Services/Products industries. Her second largest funding source, broken down by sector, is Agribusiness (second to Labor), and the vast majority of the funds were PAC (as opposed to individual) contributions.

Looking at this, I wondered if this kind of thing were representative of the campaign financing of all members of Congress (i.e., everyone receives lots of lobbying money) so I looked up the data for Rep. Ron Paul. Lo and behold, the vast majority of his campaign funding originate from individual contributors. For all elections cycles going back to 1998 (that's as far back as the data on the website goes), no more than 6% of Dr. Paul's campaign funding originated from PACs (compared to ~50% for the other Congressmen that I've looked at). Ron Paul received ~$30,000 from PACs in all elections cycles except for the 1998 and 2000 election cycles, during which he received ~$100,000 from PACs. In those cycles, roughly 50% of the PAC contributions came from ideological/single issue PACs, e.g., conservative, gun rights.

In the 2008 election cycle, 70% of Ron Paul's campaign financing was listed under the category "Other" (see the Cycle Source of Funds pie chart). I'm guessing that individual contributions that are less than $200 fall under the "Other" category, but I emailed OpenSecrets just to make sure. Hopefully someone will get back to me sometime in the near future.

Update: Okay, I was wrong about the "Other" category. A helpful response from a very nice person over at the Center for Responsive Politics informed me that individual contributions of less than $200 still fall under the "Individual Contributions" category and that the "Other" category includes, among other things, transfers from the candidate's other campaign committees. Since I was looking at data for Ron Paul's Congressional campaign, the "Other" category is obviously mostly funds transferred from his presidential campaign.

Just finished a draft of my thesis

2009-05-11T02:33:00.001-04:00

I just finished writing the first draft of my master's thesis. I'm not completely done yet since it's only a draft. But I'm getting close. I'll probably be able to get back to keeping up with things and writing soon. =)

Textbook example of boom-phase malinvestment

2009-05-07T15:17:00.005-04:00

A bank demolishes 16 partially built houses in San Bernardino county, CA.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB124148169574985359-lMyQjAxMDI5NDAxNjQwODYxWj.html

San Bernardino county was one of those places where housing prices became ridiculously high during the boom. It's pretty much in the middle of nowhere, but it's considered a "suburb" of LA although it's a long drive from LA (~an hour and a half, if I remember correctly--85 miles according to the article). So it's of course ridiculous to live there and work in LA. Now that the boom's over, some of these partially built houses are just not worth finishing.

See, textbook example of malinvestment: long-term project was initiated during the boom period, was not completed before the bust, and once the bust hits, it is discovered that the project is not worth completing. Resources have been wasted, and people are poorer as a result.

It's amazing to me that mainstream economists and media talking heads are still ignoring the Austrian theory of the business cycle.

(Thanks to Anthony Gregory for the link.)

Free Ashton Lundeby!

2009-05-06T14:27:00.003-04:00

I'm still in the process of writing my thesis, but I just read this piece by Will Grigg and had to post it.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w93.html

A sixteen-year-old kid, who appears to have committed no crime, has been held in Federal custody for two months without any charges. This is one of the most disturbing things I've read recently, and that says A LOT since the one thing that life in the end days doesn't lack is disturbing news items.

Remember all those conservative talking heads who, in response to people's concerns about the ever expanding police/surveillance state, would say something like, "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of." Well, they're WRONG--no surprise there. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have basically destroyed due process. The Bill of Rights? Hah!

If this kind of thing can happen to an all-American teenager--white, Christian, normal in every way except for the fact that he's home-schooled (but home-schooling hasn't really been demonized, has it?)--who's late father was even a federal employee, then it can happen to anyone.

Have we buried the American Republic yet? Did I miss the funeral?

Been gone for a while...

2009-04-30T12:10:00.002-04:00

Haven't blogged for a while. I'm trying to finish my Master's thesis...so haven't really kept up with things over the past couple weeks. But I'll be back with all of my convoluted thoughts in a week and a half or so...

The Failure of Statist Economic Policies

2009-04-07T00:30:00.007-04:00

In this excellent LRC podcast, Professor Guido Hulsmann explains that the recent (and very unfortunate) revival of Keynsianism is a result of the failure of the monetarist theory that the central bank can stabilize the economy and prevent systemic economic crises. The Federal Reserve's liquidity injections have been ineffective in solving the current crisis because this crisis is an insolvency crisis and not a liquidity crisis. (Banks and other financial institutions are bankrupt, i.e., their liabilities exceed their assets, and loans from the Fed cannot magically "fix" their balance sheets.)

On the other hand, government spending can prop up companies that would otherwise be bankrupt. So people rediscovered Keynesianism. But the propping up of failed businesses occurs at the expense of the rest of the economy because these zombie businesses consume resources that could have been put to more productive use elsewhere. As Professor Hulsmann explains, the root of the current crisis is the lack of capital. Resources were misallocated and wasted during the boom, and individuals, falsely believing that they were wealthier than they actually were, consumed more than they could afford to during the boom (as exemplified by those who took out home equity loans on their artificially overpriced homes and then spent the money on consumer goods). The net effect is capital consumption during the boom. Now reality has set in, and there is an overall lack of capital (as well as a distortion in the structure of capital, which resulted from the misallocation of resources during the boom).

Because government does not produce any wealth, government spending can only occur if the government takes resources away from the private sector. Thus, government spending, contrary to Keynsian orthodoxy, cannot possibly "fix" the economy. If anything, it will only cause more capital consumption, and, as Professor Hulsmann says, impoverish all of us.

It is unfortunate (though not surprising) that people seem to have forgotten about the fact that Keynsian economics had already been discredited in the 1970s when the U.S. suffered from stagflation (simultaneous inflation and unemployment--an impossibility according to Keynsian theory).

There is only one school of economic thought that can explain all of the boom-bust cycles we have experienced--the Austrian school. Austrian economics also predicts the futility of central planning, whether it comes in the form of government spending or monetary manipulation by the central bank.

Michael Rozeff has a great article on LRC that discusses the insolvency versus liquidity issue. He cites a mainstream finance paper that has come to the Austrian conclusion (although not by employing Austrian economic analysis--the authors are non-Austrian finance professors) that, contrary to the government line, the market price of the distressed bank assets are not too low and that many banks are in fact insolvent.

A world without nukes?

2009-04-06T19:22:00.004-04:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5110918/Barack-Obama-goes-ahead-with-missile-defence-shield-despite-disarmament-pledge.html

The centrepiece of Mr Obama's speech was a declaration that because the United States had dropped two atom bombs on Japan in 1945 it had a "moral responsibility" to work towards securing "a world without nuclear weapons".

I wonder, does this "world without nuclear weapons" include the United States?

(Thanks to Anthony Gregory for posting this.)

An interesting story...

2009-04-06T18:43:00.008-04:00

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/03/banking-andy-beal-business-wall-street-beal.html

A banker who didn't contract bubble mania! Get this:

In late 2006 he sold $74 million of preferred stock although he had no immediate use for the proceeds. He says he couldn't resist the "stupidly mispriced" terms--as low as Libor plus 1.7 percentage points for 30 years. He wanted as much money available when the boom turned to bust. With the extra money the bank could pay off nearly all its depositors with capital on hand--nearly unheard of in the history of banking.

Oh, and this:

Then came a shocker: Amid one of the most reckless lending sprees in history, regulators focused on the one bank that refused to play along. Beal's moves confused and worried them, and so they began to probe him with questions. "What are you doing?" he recalls them asking. "You're shrinking yet you're raising capital?"

It's not a shocker though. Regulators are stupid.

(Thanks to Kathryn Muratore for posting this on LRC.)

Der Spiegel editorial lambasts G20 summit

2009-04-03T12:38:00.021-04:00

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,617224,00.html

Refreshing viewpoint from a mainstream news source. (It is German, of course--no American newspaper would have been capable of this kind of rational analysis.) The editorial blames the Fed's lose monetary policy under Bush II for the economic crisis and correctly points out that more of the same (i.e., pumping $5 trillion into the world economy) will only make things worse.

Excerpts:

"The summit participants took the easy way out. Their decision to pump a further $5 trillion (€3.72 trillion) into the collapsing world economy within the foreseeable future, could indeed prove to be a historical turning point -- but a turning point downwards. In combating this crisis, the international community is in fact laying the foundation for the next crisis, which will be larger. It would probably have been more honest if the summit participants had written "debt, unemployment, inflation" on the wall."

"No other president has ever printed money and expanded the money supply with such abandon as Bush. This new money -- and therein lies its danger -- was not backed by real value in the form of goods or services. The measure may have had the desired effect -- the world economy revived, at least initially. And US consumption kept the global economy going for years. But the growth rates generated in the process were illusionary. The US had begun to hallucinate.

The addiction to new cash injections was chronic. The US had allowed itself to sink into an abject lifestyle. It sold more and more billions in new government bonds in order to preserve the appearance of a prosperous nation. To make matters worse, private households copied the example of the state. The average American now lives from hand to mouth and has 15 credit cards. The savings rate is almost zero."

Saw some real, live Keynesians today

2009-03-26T23:34:00.006-04:00

I attended a very entertaining panel discussion at Temple University today--it was Austrian economist Joe Salerno (one of the best lecturers at Mises University, in my opinion) versus two Keynesians (one guy called himself a left Keynesian and referred to the other guy as a moderate Keynesian). The two Keynesians are professors at Temple. The self-styled left Keynesian is an economics professor, and the supposedly moderate Keynesian is a poli-sci professor.

Dr. Salerno talked about the Austrian theory of the business cycle, but the other two guys pretty much ignored it (i.e., they failed to address it). At one point, the moderate Keynesian actually tried to deny that the Fed prints money, and then he said something to the effect of "the Fed increases the money supply through credit expansion." Yeah, yeah, and no one meant that the Fed literally prints paper money, just that they create money out of thin air. Even Ben Bernanke said (in his don't-worry-about-deflation speech) that the government has a technology called the printing press, and I'm sure he didn't mean that in a literal sense either.

Needless to say, Dr. Salerno was right, and the other two panelists were wrong. The left Keynesian really hated the 19th century (the late 19th century was a period of economic growth and relative freedom in the U.S., but the left Keynesian viewed it with disdain because some people were unemployed and there was no social safety net), and you could tell that he thought that laissez faire capitalism was backwards and barbaric. He was very pro-union and would every once in a while lapse into a rant about "the poor and the working class." He thinks that the current crisis is a classic Keynesian crisis--one of overproduction and under-consumption. He kept talking about how important it is for workers in China to get a share of the wealth they produce so that they can start to consume more. I wanted to ask him what Americans would consume if the Chinese started to consume what they produced. Haha! But I didn't. Oh well.

The other, moderate Keynesian was not even really very coherent. He kept saying things that were either contradictory or irrelevant. He basically said that Americans will have to consume less and save more eventually in order to pay down our debt but that the thing to do now is for the government to borrow more (because, presumably, if the government didn't swiftly borrow and spend A LOT, everything will go to hell and then we will have a 15 year recession). It's funny because he acknowledges the fact that Americans have been borrowing too much and saving too little, but then he goes on to say that the thing to do is to delay the day of reckoning by borrowing even more.

At one point the moderate Keynesian, in response to something a student in the audience (who clearly understands Austrian economics) asked him, said, "We live in a world..." The student said, "Yah." And a bunch of people, myself included, laughed. I know it doesn't seem that funny, but trust me, it was funny at the time. It sort of exemplifies the kinds of irrelevant (but superficially reflective and philosophical sounding) things he said.

It was all very entertaining. On more than one occasion, the left Keynesian started ranting, and then everyone (including people in the audience) started talking at the same time. And the moderator had to yell to get things under control again. I thought he needed a gavel or something.

Quite a few students in the audience seemed to know what was going on, which is awesome, but it is a bit scary that those two Keynesians actually teach at Temple. Hah! At one point, the left Keynesian lapsed into a rant about how all the students in the audience are getting an education at Temple and how Temple is a public school and how they wouldn't have been able to get an education if they lived in the 19th century. And one guy said, "I don't get an education here. I have to education myself." How true! (Okay, it's not entirely true of math and the natural sciences--I think it is possible to get an education in the natural sciences at a good university, but the humanities and social sciences are mostly crap.)

Anyway, it was pretty entertaining. I don't think I've ever met any real, live, hardcore Keynesians before. There's a first time for everything, I guess.

Sausage Lasagna

2009-03-24T16:16:00.007-04:00

Ingredients:
1 package of dried lasagna noodles
2 8 oz. packages of Mozzarella cheese
1/4 cup grated Parmesan

For the sauce
3 jars of pasta sauce (I used Wegmans chunky marinara)
pure olive oil
high smoke point oil of your choice (e.g., vegetable, sunflower, canola)
2 8 oz. packages of cremini mushrooms, sliced
6 turkey or Italian sausages
1 medium onion, chopped
6-8 cloves garlic, minced
3 tomatoes, chopped
fresh basil, roughly chopped, to taste
freshly ground black pepper, to taste
(optional) dried basil, oregano, crushed red peppers, to taste

For the ricotta cheese filling
1 egg
15 oz. ricotta cheese
1 1/4 cups grated Parmesan
1 tbs basil pesto (you can buy this at Whole Foods)

Directions:
1-Add some vegetable (or other high smoke point) oil to a non-stick frying pan, and cook the sausages until the meat is fully cooked (cut open to check).

2-Remove sausages from pan and place on a plate covered with paper towels. Set aside to cool.

3-In a large saucepan, add 3-4 tablespoons of olive oil, and cook the garlic and onions until the onions are transparent, taking care not to burn the garlic.

4-Add the chopped tomatoes and basil and cook for another 3-5 minutes.

5-Add the pasta sauce, dried herbs (optional), and black pepper, stir, and simmer over medium-low heat, stirring occasionally.

6-While the sauce is simmering, add ~2 tablespoons of olive oil to a frying pan and cook the mushrooms until all of the water released by the mushrooms is gone.

7-When the sausages have cooled, cut them up into small pieces.

8-Add the sausage and mushrooms to the sauce, stir, and continue to simmer the sauce.

9-To make the ricotta cheese filling, beat one egg in a medium-large bowl, add the ricotta, Parmesan, and basil pesto, and mix until combined. Cover and refrigerate.

10-In a large pot, bring salted water to a boil (enough water to cook the lasagna noodles). According to Alton Brown, the water should be as salty as sea water.

11-Once the water boils, add the lasagna noodles and cook until al dente, about 9 minutes.

12-Dump the noodles into a colander to drain and then rinse the noodles with some cold water. Lay the noodles flat on a plate (stack them one on top of another).

13-Let the sauce simmer (don't forget to stir occasionally) for another 30 minutes while you clean up part of the mess you've made.

15-Before assembling the lasagna, preheat the oven to 375 degrees F.

14-To assemble the lasagna, ladle about 1/2 cup of sauce onto the lasagna pan (or any large, preferably rectangular, casserole dish), the exact amount of sauce will depend on the size of your pan.

15-Lay one layer of noodles (don't overlap the noodles) on top of the sauce. Place 9-12 dollops of cheese mixture on top of the noodles (either in 3 rows of 3 dollops or 3 rows of 4 dollops, depending on the size of your pan). Ladle another ~1/2 cup of sauce onto the noodles and sprinkle with some mozzarella. Keep doing this until the pan is filled to the top.

16-Ladle sauce (but no ricotta mixture) over the topmost layer of noodles. Sprinkle with mozzarella and the 1/4 cup of Parmesan.

17-Bake at 375 degrees F until the sauce bubbles up from the sides of the dish, the top is nicely browned, and a knife inserted into the center comes out hot.

The Stupid Missouri Report

2009-03-18T20:25:00.002-04:00

Talk about things that piss me off! Did you know that if you believe in the Constitution, you could be deemed a terrorist by the government? This stupid report (looks like some kind of training handout for law enforcement officers in the state of Missouri) states that supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr, members of the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties, and those associated with the Campaign for Liberty are potential terrorists.

I guess they must feel threatened by the liberty movement to react this way.

What really drives me nuts is the fact that the report indiscriminately puts everyone who peacefully opposes the State in the same category as violent white supremacists, violent Christian fundamentalists, and others who would advocate the use of force to achieve their goals. By mentioning the Campaign for Liberty by name, it is implying that the C4L is somehow associated with these violent right-wing elements. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The libertarian political philosophy, delineated by the great economist, historian, and political philosopher Murray Rothbard in his seminal work The Ethics of Liberty, is diametrically opposed to violence. Real libertarians (I say "real" because there are those who call themselves libertarians but then support the imperialist wars that the U.S. government wages abroad) believe that each individual owns himself and that this right of self-ownership must be recognized and respected. From this axiom of self-ownership follows the principle of non-initiation of force, that it is always wrong for one individual (or group of individuals) to initiate force against another individual or group of individuals. Real libertarians prefer peaceful cooperation and voluntary association and reject "social engineering" through the use of force and intimidation.

Furthermore, libertarians believe in free trade and appreciate the importance of the international division of labor. What we do not want is a world government because government is nothing but the legitimization of force and violence. When a government bombs a foreign country and kills thousands, it is called "shock and awe" or some other stupid thing that obscures the fact that it is really mass murder. The more centralized the power, the more dangerous it becomes.

Some of us do not even believe in borders (a statist construct, in my opinion, in a completely free society, there would only be private property, no nation-states) and do not despise immigrants. I, for one, believe in open borders and free immigration (although this is a point of contention among libertarians).

So it makes me sick that these people would put us in the same category as bombers of abortion clinics and gay bars, violent white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Anthony Gregory, editor-in-chief of the Campaign for Liberty, wrote a wonderful response to the stupid report.

Here's an excerpt:

"For defending this vision of a free and peaceful world, for sticking up for the rights of others no matter who they are or what they believe, we at the Campaign for Liberty and those of like mind have been wrongly targeted by an overbearing government. But we who love liberty have the right ideas and the passion to stand by our principles. In the end, the national police, state governments, Homeland Security and all the SWAT Teams and spying powers in the world cannot defeat a idea that is true and whose time has come. And it is this idea -- this idea at root of Ron Paul's Love Revolution -- the dream of peace and freedom for all Americans -- that truly frightens those who favor the total state, intimidation and fear directed abroad and toward peaceful dissent at home. It is the idea of liberty, not militias or terrorists, that most threatens the establishment, even as it offers nothing but hope and promise for the American people and the people of the world."

ASC Part II

2009-03-18T16:39:00.005-04:00

A panel on sound money on the afternoon of the last day of the ASC started with Guido Hulsmann's presentation on the role of financial markets in a free economy. Paul Cwik presented a paper about monetary policy during a recession. He emphasized the negative effects of the secondary contraction of the money supply caused by business failures (and subsequent defaults) so much that I was afraid that he was going to recommend that the Fed expand the money supply during recessions (to counter the secondary contraction). But, to my relief, he concluded that if the Fed were to expand the money supply, it would cause further misallocation of resources and introduce more market distortions and prolong the recession so the Fed should refrain from doing anything during a recession. Bob Murphy later pointed out that there would likely not be a secondary contraction if banks did not engage in fractional reserve lending.

The third day ended with a thought-provoking lecture given by Thorsten Polleit. (He hung out with us afterward too, nice guy.) He talked about how we could return to a sound currency system. He favored the re-anchoring of our fiat currency to gold because it will preserve some of the exchange value of the fiat currency. The competition-based reform, favored by many other sound money advocates, on the other hand, would likely wipe out the exchange value of the fiat money completely. Very interesting. I had never thought of that before. Also, Dr. Polleit did some calculations and concluded that if we were to re-anchor the U.S. dollar to gold, given the amount of gold that supposedly exists in the vaults of the Federal Reserve, the dollar price of gold will be $31,547/oz (if we used M2 as the indicator for the money supply) and $6,102/oz (if we used M1). Compare this to the $35/oz back in the 1930s! Whoa! Talk about currency depreciation! Audio of Dr. Polleit's talk can be accessed here: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2009/ASC09_Polleit.mp3

All audio and video recordings of lectures and panels at the ASC 2009 can be accessed here: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=137.

Austrian Scholars Conference 2009

2009-03-16T15:45:00.007-04:00

I just got back from ASC. Oh man! It was awesome! I thought about blogging while I was there, but, alas, bringing my laptop with me would have been too much of a hassle (especially since I wasn't going to check my luggage...I had a bad experience last summer when US Airways lost my luggage so I try to just bring a carry-on for short trips).

I met lots of great people, and I am still trying to find them online. One really bad thing about having terrible eyesight and not wearing glasses is that you have a hard time reading people's name tags (I mean, you don't want to put your face right up to it because that would be weird). And one problem with not being able to read people's name tags is that you end up not knowing their last names. And then you have trouble finding them online.

Anyway, back to the ASC...Well, my trip began with my flight out of Philadelphia being delayed for an hour. Then the plane sat on the runway for at least 20 minutes before takeoff (the Philly airport has traffic issues). All of this resulted in me missing the Express 85 shuttle that was supposed to take me from the Atlanta airport to Auburn, AL, where the Mises Institute is located. Some random shuttle driver (different shuttle) offered to take me there for $250. I told him "no thanks." ($250!! That's more than what I paid for the round-trip plane tickets.)

Mehul booked a hotel room for me with his points, thank god. I got to the hotel and decided to work out at their fitness facility before going to bed. They had miniature TVs attached to the machines so I watched Jurassic Park III while running. That ware pretty cool.

The next morning, I took Express 85 to the Mises Institute, in time to get some coffee before the conference started.

The first panel addressed the economic crisis, and Gary North was the first speaker. He ended his talk in such a grim way (he was talking about how some people had saved up for their dreams "and those dreams are now at risk"--that was the sentence with which he concluded his talk) that Anthony Gregory and I looked at each other and laughed (we were upstairs in the library where they had a simulcast of the panel that was taking place downstairs in the conference room). Audio of Dr. North's talk is available here: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2009/ASC09_09_North.mp3.

The second day of the conference started with a great panel on monetary policy. Walter Block and Bill Barnett presented a fascinating paper on how the boom phase of the business cycle can be induced by banks borrowing short and lending long (e.g., banks taking deposits from a 6-month CD and lending it out for 5 years), even in the absence of fractional reserve banking.

Day 2 ended with an awesome and incredibly entertaining talk by Peter Schiff. Schiff is somewhat of an icon in Austro-libertarian circles, and his popularity was evident in the way the audience responded to his jokes. Audio of Schiff's talk is available here: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2009/ASC09_Schiff.mp3.

Haha!

2009-03-10T11:42:00.003-04:00

This is too funny. The US National Nuclear Security Administration forgot how to make a component of the Trident missile. Maybe, just maybe instead of spending another $69 million to try to figure out how to make it, they should just give up. Maybe instead of refurbishing the missiles, they should just retire them? Oh, I have no idea how one would dispose of defunct nuclear weapons. Not even sure if there is really a safe way. Maybe they could load them onto a spacecraft bound for the sun? But what if the thing explodes during takeoff? NASA is fairly incompetent. (Actually, I don't even know if it's possible to fly something into the sun at this point.)

What a disaster. God damn Vannevar Bush and FDR for bringing the curse of the Manhattan Project on the world.

(Thanks to Lew Rockwell for linking to this article.)

Obama's 9/11?

2009-03-09T19:31:00.002-04:00

An article on Fox news asks: "Is the Economic Crisis Obama's 9/11?"

Well, they've already started the War on the Economy. What's next? Indefinite detentions, warrantless wiretapping, torture, invasion of Canada?

Chana Masala (Indian chickpea curry)

2009-03-08T01:25:00.006-05:00

"Chana" is the Hindi word for chickpeas, and "Masala" means spice so "Chana Masala" means spiced chickpeas.

Ingredients:
1 cup dry chickpeas (i.e., Garbanzo beans), soaked in water overnight, or two 14.5 oz cans
1 tomato, chopped
2 onions, chopped
1 inch piece of ginger, peeled and minced
1-2 tablespoons olive oil

Spices:
handful of cilantro, chopped
juice of one lemon (this will give the dish a nice tartness, use 1/2 a lemon if this does not appeal to you)
1/4 teaspoon ground turmeric
1/2 teaspoon ground cloves
1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
3/4 teaspoon cayenne pepper (this will make the dish nice and spicy, use a much smaller quantity if you're not used to eating hot food)
2 tablespoons chana masala (this is a spice mix that is prepared specifically for this dish. You can buy it at an Indian grocery store or online.)

Directions:
1- Cook onions in the olive oil for 1-2 minutes or until the onions are transparent.

2- Add tomatoes, ginger, and chickpeas.

3- Add salt, cover, and simmer for 10 minutes.

4- Continue simmering, uncovered, and add all the spices. Continue cooking for no more than 5 minutes.

Saffron Rice

2009-03-08T01:14:00.005-05:00

Ingredients:
1 cup basmati rice
1/4 teaspoon turmeric
pinch of saffron

Directions:
1- Steep the saffron in 1/2 cup hot water.

2- Bring 2 cups of water to a boil, add the rice and turmeric.

3- Add the saffron-infused water to the rice. Bring to a boil then reduce the heat.

4- Cover and simmer until all the water is gone (20 to 25 minutes).

**Note: If you prefer rice with a firmer texture, use 1.5 cups water in step 2.**

Goan Fish Curry

2009-03-08T00:10:00.010-05:00

WARNING: Reduce the amount of chili peppers if you are not accustomed to eating spicy food. Most of the capsaicin receptors on my tongue are dead--a lovely process called "apoptosis"--as a result of consuming large amounts of very spicy food over many, many years so my sensitivity to capsaicin is abnormally low.

Ingredients:
2 tilapia fillets (~3/4 lbs. total)
1 onion, sliced
1 tomato, chopped
4 green chili peppers
1 cup coconut milk
1 tablespoon oil
salt to taste
optional, 12-15 curry leaves (you'll have to go to an Indian grocery store to find this)

For the curry paste:
12 dried red chili peppers
2 tablespoons coriander seed
1 teaspoon cumin seed
1 tablespoon ginger, minced
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon tamarind paste
1 teaspoon ground turmeric
12 tablespoons coconut milk

Directions:
1- Combine all ingredients for the curry paste in a small food processor (a full sized food processor won't work unless you seriously scale up the recipe) and grind into a paste. If you don't have a small food processor, you can also grind it with a mortar and pestle.

2- Rub the fillets with some salt and ground turmeric. Cut the fillets into chunks (approximately 1 inch x 1 inch). Set aside.

3- Saute the onions in the oil over medium heat until onions are golden brown (about 5 minutes).

4- Add the tomatoes and curry paste, and bring to a simmer.

5- Add the coconut milk, and bring to a boil. In the meantime, cut open the 2 of the green chili peppers and remove the seeds. Slice up the remaining 2 peppers without removing the seeds.

**Note about chili peppers: Most of the capsaicin--the chemical compound that makes peppers hot--in chili peppers exist around the seeds and the membrane that lines the inside of the pepper, to which the cluster of seeds are attached. So you can control the amount of heat you add to the food by either removing the seeds--to reduce the heat--or not.**

6- Add the fish, green peppers, and curry leaves to the curry. Stir gently and simmer on low heat until the fish is cooked but not overcooked (about 6 minutes). Add salt to taste.

***It's not a good idea to rub your eyes after cutting raw chili peppers. The capsaicin receptors on my tongue might be mostly dead, but the ones in my eyes are alive and well, evidently. But if you do end up getting the hot stuff in your eye, just rinse it out with some cold water. You'll live.***

Debunking Keynesianism

2009-03-06T18:13:00.006-05:00

Economist and historian Bob Higgs debunks Keynesianism in an excellent article on LRC today.

Keynesian economics is the source of such idiotic and dangerous concepts as the "paradox of thrift."

In a nutshell, Keynesians believe that economic growth is brought about by spending--investment spending and consumer spending. When aggregate spending decreases, as it does during a recession, Keynesians call for government spending to "stimulate" the economy. They also favor central bank policies that artificially lower interest rates because low interest rates prompt businesses and individuals to borrow and spend. "Spend, spend, spend," cries the Keynesian. It doesn't matter what the money is spent on, as long as it is being spent.

Keynesians believe that reduced spending = reduced economic growth, hence the "paradox of thrift." But this idea is deeply flawed. First of all, economic growth results from investment--investment in capital goods--factories, equipment, even research and development that will eventually improve the productive capacity and efficiency of the economy (i.e., stuff that will allow the economy--I'm speaking in very general terms here...in reality it is the individual businesses that do the producing--to produce more and/or better consumer goods at lower costs).

For example, if I were a seamstress, sewing manually with thread and needle, it might take me 5 hours to make a blouse, whereas if I invested in a sewing machine, it might only take me 1 hour to make the same blouse. Thus, with a sewing machine, I could make 5 blouses in the same amount of time it took me to make one blouse sewing by hand. The sewing machine, a capital good, has increased my productivity by allowing me to produce more blouses, consumer goods, in the same amount of time.

So capital investment, when directed correctly (you could also have malinvestment, in which businessmen invest in projects that turn out to be unsustainable), induces economic growth. BUT before investments can be made, there must first be saving, i.e., before I can buy a sewing machine, I must first save up some money. This is obvious. "But," Paul Krugman says, "why don't you just borrow the money?" Yes, I could borrow the money. But where does the borrowed money come from? It comes from someone else's savings. This is because real resources (e.g., food, land, raw materials, labor, time--the physical stuff that we use to survive and to produce) are scarce. This means that in order for me to have resources to spend on an investment project, someone somewhere in the economy must have set those resources aside (i.e., they refrained from consuming those resources).

I think this obvious fact becomes obscured by the fiat currency system. Because what is money and credit nowadays? Can't the Federal Reserve just create more credit by tapping a few keys on the computer? Yes it can. But the fact that we have this stupid fiat currency doesn't change the fundamental fact that real resources--physical stuff--are limited. The Fed might be able to create money out of thin air, but it sure as hell can't create Filet-O-Fishes out of thin air. And, in the end, what is the worth of a twenty dollar bill or the number in your bank account or the credit limit on your credit card, if you can't buy anything with it?

So, investment cannot occur without saving, and hence, the correct way to think about economic growth is that it is the result of saving and investment.

No matter what tricks the Fed plays, no matter what mainstream economists say, the government can't make resources appear where there were none. It can't fix our capital structure with stimulus plans and bailouts. It can only make things worse by preventing market corrections from taking place.

Excessive consumer spending is not a good thing because the resources that are consumed today cannot be invested tomorrow. The only way there can be economic growth and prosperity is if individuals saved today so that (competent) businessmen and entrepreneurs will be able to invest tomorrow.

One last thing: those bailouts--terrible. Why? Because they keep incompetent businesses alive. See, the free market is a great thing because it is self-regulating. Incompetent entrepreneurs, businessmen, and investors are swiftly removed from the game. The worst thing the government could possibly do is bail out investment bankers because these people are in charge of making investments--what Austrian economists call the allocation of resources (i.e., they decide which firms get funding) so keeping incompetent investment bankers around means that resources will continue to get misallocated.

Death by Treasuries

2009-03-06T11:23:00.002-05:00

Read my article on the Campaign for Liberty's website:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=21

Things like this make me feel sad

2009-03-04T15:53:00.001-05:00

And ashamed of what this country has become.

"Is that illegal in the United States, asking an officer to be polite?" Asked the Canadian who was pepper-sprayed by a U.S. border guard while driving to his second home in Washington state. Hah! Mister, didn't you know that this isn't a free country anymore?

(Thanks to Christopher Manion for linking to this article over at LRC.)

Beginning

2009-03-04T14:25:00.000-05:00

So I've decided to start blogging. Something else to keep me from getting any work done. I've spent two hours on it so far. It's 2:27 pm, and I've gotten no work done today. Oh well! Should be fun. I'll have some real content to post later.