Economic Liberty

Home » Economic Liberty

How will libertarians help those who are disadvantaged?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Liberator Online, Welfare by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

How will libertarians help those who are disadvantaged?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Question

In every human endeavor that has been measured, humanity shows a distribution of talent, ability, error, height, weight, intellectual capacity, etc. that follows the traditional bell-shaped curve. That is, unless it is skewed by local factors of education, various selected populations, and so on. In other words, half the people of the world are on the ‘left’ side and half the people are on the ‘right’ side of this curve.

libertarians

So, then, my question: How do libertarians, with their ‘pull yourself up by your boot straps’ outlook, propose to deal with those on the left side of the curve? To blithely say that ‘privatization of welfare,’ private charity, and so on will take care of these more unfortunate folks is simply ‘pie in the sky’ thinking.

Answer

Libertarian societies are wealthier than other countries because the poor are given the opportunity to work. European immigrants, for example, came to the US to escape the guilds and trade restrictions that kept them out of the labor market. Thus, the first thing a libertarian society does to help the ‘left side’ is to shift as many people as possible further into the middle. Because almost everyone is better off in a libertarian society, more charity is available for the few who cannot support themselves. When help is given privately, approximately 80% of each charitable dollar gets to a worthy recipient. Only 20% of each tax welfare dollar reaches the poor; most of the money goes to pay the salaries of the social workers. In addition, welfare harms the poor by discouraging them from entering the work force. After ten years of personally working with welfare recipients, I can attest that the system does the poor more harm than good.

The Military Wastes Your Money On NASCAR And It Isn’t Working

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Taxes by Alice Salles Comments are off

The Military Wastes Your Money On NASCAR And It Isn’t Working


This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

If you read our articles regularly, you may know the U.S. military is prone to wasting money on things that simply don’t work.

Not only because a lot of the programs they implement end up backfiring, putting weapons and tools purchased with U.S. taxpayer money in the hands of terrorists, but also because they often spend money on superfluous materials that have no real purpose.

NASCAR

But perhaps what you may not have known until now is that the U.S. military also spends millions sponsoring sports teams and athletes. Well, that is, until the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment that bans military sponsorship of sports. Perhaps now that the bill is going to the House floor for a vote, things might end up changing soon.

Over the past five years, the National Guard has spent $136 million on Dale Earnhardt Jr., NASCAR’s most popular driver. And what for? To get people to become engaged enough that they would enlist. The problem is that the advertising effort is simply not paying off.

In 2009 alone, Earnhardt earned $27.35 million in taxpayer dollars due to the National Guard’s sponsorship. However, only 343 guardsmen were recruited during that year. That means that the National Guard spent $80,000 to recruit each guardsman.

In 2012, something even worse happened.

When surveying new guardsmen who enlisted that year, not one said that NASCAR had been the reason they joined. Still, more than $26 million was spent that year on Earnhardt.

In the past, the military was harshly criticized for spending millions of taxpayer dollars on “patriotic displays” at sporting events, prompting many to wonder whether the advertising even made sense.

If other governments did the same, wouldn’t we call them propagandists? Why is it OK when the U.S. military does it?

When it comes to taxpayer dollars, it’s common to think of the funds as “free” money, but the revenue comes from individuals who have part of their hard-earned pay taken by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regularly so programs such as the ones run by the military can be funded. Technically speaking, these people are entitled to feel horrified, if not flat-out offended, whenever they learn their money is used on something they would never spend on themselves.

But they are also entitled to simply feel cheated out of their tax dollars by learning that the money they are earning is going toward programs that simply do not produce any tangible or positive results.

Whatever reason you may have to disagree with the military or any other government agency spending your money, we can all agree that the mindless waste has gone too far.

Afghan Soldier Uniforms That Didn’t Match The Terrain Cost Taxpayers $28 Million

in Liberator Online, Military, News You Can Use, Taxes by Alice Salles Comments are off

Afghan Soldier Uniforms That Didn’t Match The Terrain Cost Taxpayers $28 Million

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Recently, Defense Secretary James Mattis was in the news for complaining about the Pentagon’s offhand spending habits.

While this may sound somewhat contradictory thanks to Mattis’ earlier claims indicating he would, indeed, love if defense had access to even more taxpayer money, his complaint brought light to yet another issue we often see happening with government.

uniforms

According to a recent Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report, the agency spent $28 million on camouflage uniforms for Afghan soldiers that, unfortunately, do not work well with Afghanistan’s terrain. This means that, the $28 million that was used to purchase forest-patterned uniforms should have never been spent this way.

The decision to purchase these uniforms was made after a former Afghan defense minister saw the model online and “liked” them. However, only two percent of the country’s terrain is woodland.

And who picked up the bill? The U.S. taxpayer.

In his response to the Department after this discovery was made, Mattis criticized officials who allowed this “cavalier” expenditure to take place, adding that this decision wasted taxpayer dollars “in an ineffective and wasteful manner.”

Claiming that this careless spending is an indicator of an “attitude that can affect any of us at the Pentagon or across the Department of Defense,” Mattis rightly pointed out that this makes the department lose focus on what matters.

But what Mattis may have missed is that government waste exists and is part of how government operates. It’s a feature, not a bug.

The Defense Department isn’t more or less likely to be wasteful than the Education Department or the Health and Human Services department. What makes any — and all — government agencies prone to waste is the very fact that these organizations aren’t worried about how they spend this money.

When you spend other people’s money, you’re more likely to abuse it. After all, only you know how better spend your own money.

But that’s not all.

Agencies often make huge mistakes when judging policies or particular approaches simply because they do not have the knowledge necessary to know what will work. Real-world consequences are often ignored because bureaucrats and officials make all the decisions, often basing their assessment on faulty or incomplete information.

Because knowledge is dispersed and difficult to access, governments are naturally incapable of acting with all variables in mind. As a result, they cannot ensure that the service in question will meet the demand.

Whether it’s Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria, government officials have repeatedly claimed to have the answer, leading the country into military campaigns that not only backfired but that will also cost several generations of Americans.

While Mattis is right to be worried, it would serve him and others in similar positions to remember that there’s little one can do to put an end to waste within the government that doesn’t involve stripping government from free, easy, and endless sources of revenue.

How can we solve America’s economic woes?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, Social Security by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

How can we solve America’s economic woes?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Question:

How can you balance the budget, pay off the debt, and slash spending without doing away with entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare, that people have paid into for decades?

economic

Answer:

We can only balance the budget by privatizing entitlements like Social Security and Medicare and ending foreign wars. The ONLY way we can keep the promises made to our seniors without massive inflation is to increase our rate of wealth creation. One way to do that is by deregulating business. Each regulator destroys about 150 private sector jobs each year, so each one fired is true economic stimulus.

Another way to increase wealth creation is to cut the tax rate and end tariffs and other barriers to importation. This drives domestic capital into efficient businesses, stimulating the economy further. Even at lower tax rates, a robust economy means more tax dollars collected to offset the entitlement programs, which should be privatized ASAP so that young people aren’t forced into these Ponzi schemes.

In New York, You Can’t Pet Sit Without The State’s Permission

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

In New York, You Can’t Pet Sit Without The State’s Permission

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

For pet owners and dog lovers, the app Rover is a gift sent from the heavens. It helps users find affordable, convenient, and accessible help with their pets when and where they need it the most, no matter how last minute the emergency may be. Like Uber or Airbnb, Rover allows people willing to take care of your dog to do so freely, making it also affordable for the pet owner. But in places like New York, people making cash by providing a service and users looking for reliable help with their pets through Rover are under attack.

pet

Recently, the New York Health Department announced that pet sitters using the Rover app are breaking the law across the state and that’s because in New York, you are not legally allowed to take care of pets unless you’re associated with a licensed kennel.

Back in October, the department reached out to DogVacay.com, the app now known as Rover, telling the company to require its users to get licenses. Siding with app users, the company refused to comply.

As the news broke that the health department was cracking down on illegal pet sitters, many started speaking out against the state’s rules.

Twenty-nine-year-old Chad Bacon is one of them. The Brooklyn pet sitter told NY Daily News the fact he’s considered a criminal is absurd.

“The laws are antiquated. If you’re qualified and able to provide a service, I don’t think you should be penalized,” he said. After all, if his customers are happy, why would he be targeted by officials?

Using the app, Bacon told reporters, helps him when he’s between jobs, making it easier for him to be able to pay bills. Now that he’s been working full time by only using the app, he’s afraid this could put him in a sticky situation.

To those behind Rover, this type of policy hurts the poor and disadvantaged by forcing them to go through an expensive and laborious process in order to be allowed to offer pet-sitting services. The crackdown also hurts middle class and low-income pet owners who simply cannot afford to put their pets under the care of licensed professionals.

“You [are telling] the middle class you can’t own dogs unless you can pop in your Range Rover and drive to Connecticut for a boarding facility,” Rover’s general counsel John Lapham said.

Still, the department refuses to let go of the fear mongering rhetoric, claiming that without a license, pet owners are putting their beloved furry best friends in danger.

The same rhetoric all U.S. regulatory agencies employ whenever their credibility — and efficacy — is questioned.

Stories like this help to illustrate just how indefensible government interference in the market is. And yet, many well-meaning people who sometimes do agree that cases similar to this are absurd will still advocate for more government involvement in other fields.

It’s time to admit that government officials know little about the big wide world out there. Time to stop giving them the power to dictate how we should live our lives.

After Obamacare, Let’s Repeal All Government Involvement In Health Care

in Economic Liberty, Healthcare, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

After Obamacare, Let’s Repeal All Government Involvement In Health Care

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Everyone is talking about health care.

If you consider yourself a conservative, you might have felt a spark of excitement when Congress motioned to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, only to be let down once you learned lawmakers fell short of putting an end to President Barack Obama’s signature law.

obamacare

But to those who are serious about free market principles, the entire debate revolving around the end of of ACA is somewhat frustrating. That’s why health care in the United States hasn’t been good for decades, and Obamacare just made it a tad worse.

By the mid-1960s, the United States started to experience what heavy-handed intervention in the market does to supply and demand of services, and how it inflates the costs of such services.

With the passage of Medicare and Medicaid and new regulations that artificially trimmed the supply of doctors and hospitals, Americans noticed an increase in health care prices that, according to Mike Holly, “responded at twice the rate of inflation.”

Over time, medical special interests continued to lobby government for more regulations, further restricting competition and making it harder for members of the medical profession to make their services available at a lower cost.

With government’s involvement, demand for medical services increased thanks to subsidies, but with the restrictive regulatory monster only growing stronger with each passing decade, the supply of physicians, clinics, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals was further restricted.

As consumers began reporting hardships having access to care thanks to government’s overbearing involvement, government decided to act once again, targeting high costs by “partnering,” once again, with well-connected service providers and offering even more subsidies.

ACA, or Obamacare, is what happens when government tries to fix the problem by repeating its past mistakes.

With the passage of Obama’s signature health care law, the government ramped up subsidies, causing demand to continue to grow artificially while the supply was reduced thanks to the greater number of restrictions imposed on the market. As a result, powerful health care industry leaders grew into more powerful monopolies while entrepreneurs and independent physicians and clinics became overwhelmed and were forced to succumb to the system or get out of it completely.

So when Congress talks about repealing Obamacare as the only measure necessary to put an end to the incredibly maddening situation we find ourselves in today, don’t believe them.

For America to have a true free market system that will guarantee lower prices and increased supply of health care services to everyone, we must look beyond Obamacare. Or, as Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken put it, we must “focus on repealing and undermining the edifice on which Obamacare was built: the highly regulated, subsidized, and manipulated healthcare markets that dominate today.”

Is Congress listening?

Massachusetts Moves To Put An End To Hair Braiding Licensing Requirements

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Massachusetts Moves To Put An End To Hair Braiding Licensing Requirements

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Some estimate that the practice of hair braiding is about 5,000 years old, making it a much more traditional and well-established practice than going to the state for permission to braid hair.

Still, hair braiders across the country are often forced to dedicate long hours of training and spend thousands of dollars on classes they shouldn’t be required to take to continue braiding hair professionally.

braiding

Thanks to state laws regulating the practice, many women found themselves in tough situations, being forced to stop making a living out of hair braiding out of fear they would end up having troubles with the law. As a result, the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice filed several lawsuits across several states on behalf of these hair braiders.

Now, many states exempt hair braiders from having to follow licensing laws. Still, the most populous state in the New England region remains in the dark ages, requiring anyone who wants to braid hair for a living to log in 1,500 hours of training and spending up to $20,000 just so they may obtain a cosmetology license.

Because these licensing laws often impact women of color and immigrants, it’s hard to ignore the impact on these communities, especially when we consider that hair braiding poses no threat to public safety.

In order to address this issue statewide, Republican Massachusetts Senator Ryan Fattman proposed legislation that would ensure hair braiders would be exempt from cosmetology licensing laws. If this bill passes, it could help countless women who are predominantly black and immigrant to get back into the workforce without fear of being driven out of the market by the law.

When defending his bill, Fattman explained that licensing laws keep people from turning their talent into a fulfilling profession. “It’s an ethnic vocation that people have learned in their upbringing and they do it, and they do it without realizing they have to be licensed,” Fattman explained. “We wanted to basically lower the barriers to entry for people who make a living this way.”

As it stands, the bill is being reviewed by the Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, but a hearing about the piece of legislation won’t be held until this fall.

While forcing hair braiders to obtain licenses to perform their duties is usually seen as nonsensical by most, many seem unable to think the same way about other professions and commercial endeavors, failing to see how regulation actually hurts professionals and consumers across the board by imposing barriers to entry in the market that will eventually inflate the cost of doing business. Still, it’s encouraging to see that yet another state is working on abolishing licensing requirements for hair braiders.

Thank A Bureaucrat: Baby Boomers Aren’t Leaving The Labor Force, Millennials Can’t Find Jobs

in Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Thank A Bureaucrat: Baby Boomers Aren’t Leaving The Labor Force, Millennials Can’t Find Jobs

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Early in 2017, the New York Times reported that the workforce is growing slowly as more baby boomers retire. Recently, economist Janet Yellen, otherwise known as the Federal Reserve System’s Chair, stated that another economic crisis is unlikely “in our lifetime.” Still, reports show that now more than ever, Americans of retiring age are choosing to forego retirement altogether. As these older Americans notice that Social Security and the meager savings they have accumulated over the years won’t be enough, they continue working.

boomer

But as young Americans leave college and find themselves stuck in part-time jobs that don’t even cover their student loans, baby boomers remain active. So, as a matter of fact, labor force participation hasn’t been falling thanks to older Americans finally retiring. Instead, young, fully capable and educated men and women are the ones who aren’t being able to find suitable work.

Don’t trust me? Look at the numbers.

Last quarter, Bloomberg reports, 19 percent of 70- to 74-year-olds were still working. In the same period in 1994, only 11 percent of people in that age group were still in the labor force.

Also, this past quarter, 32 percent of Americans between the age of 65 and 69 were employed. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 36 percent of people in this age group will be working by 2024. A huge increase from 22 percent of Americans aged 65 to 69 who were active in the labor force in 1994.

 If these numbers aren’t enough, consider that in a survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 79 percent of respondents said they expected to go into retirement while continuing to work. Workers aren’t even relying on retirement anymore as they struggle to save throughout life due to the high cost of living, high debt, and knowledge that Social Security alone just won’t do.

As you’ve read previously here at The Advocates, many young, educated Americans have already chosen to completely ignore their diplomas, going for occupations that are often available only to the low-skilled and poorly educated. As older Americans find it increasingly hard to leave the labor force altogether, expect an even greater number of young Americans failing to find gainful employment, especially in their areas. But instead of blaming baby boomers alone, remember what policies have paved the way for these discrepancies and who champions them.

 More government-backed student loans and easier access to loans and grants, ensuring everyone has a higher education, has always been a staple of the progressive agenda. One that has been thoroughly supported by… yes, Millennials.

As a result of the implementation of this kind of policy, the government created an inflated, artificial demand for a college education that would not be the norm if the state hadn’t decided that college is for everyone. Students, who are often just influenced by peer pressure, were led to believe that any degree was enough, and that they shouldn’t be taking a good look at the labor market before making a decision. The result? Too many Americans with useless degrees who will eventually settle for occupations that have nothing to do with their “calling.”

Unless government is removed entirely from the picture, this trend will only worsen.

Credit Union Wins Small Victory In Fight Against Federal Marijuana Prohibition

in Drugs, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

Credit Union Wins Small Victory In Fight Against Federal Marijuana Prohibition

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Marijuana was legalized in the state of Colorado, nullifying the federal prohibitive rules regarding the substance, in 2012. But as the pot industry grew tremendously over a short period of time in the state, the feds found yet another way to restrict marijuana entrepreneurs.

marijuana

Since marijuana is still an illicit drug according to federal law, the banking industry found itself unable to provide services to marijuana businessmen and women. As a result, many entrepreneurs found it hard to have access to loans or even bank accounts to better manage their business.

Recently, a marijuana credit union was able to win a small but significant victory in the fight against the federal government’s control over drug policy.

Fourth Corner Credit Union had been barred from having access to certain services due to its willingness to do business with marijuana-related businesses. As a result, the institution was not allowed to open a Federal Reserve master account so it could provide banking services to customers. Now, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has annulled this decision.

Thanks to this move, the institution is now free to re-apply for the account. And, if denied once again, Fourth Corner may take the case to court once more.

While this isn’t necessarily a victory in the sense that it allows banking institutions to provide services to whomever they wish, it’s the first step in a long process to ensure that Colorado’s marijuana laws aren’t undermined by the federal government’s insistence in upholding laws that effectively impact Americans’ right to self-ownership.

As it stands, Colorado’s pot industry has functioned mostly on cash transactions. This causes problems for both consumers and entrepreneurs as many of these companies may feel that saving and managing their money is more difficult without having access to a banking account.

But Colorado isn’t the only state running into major banking problems thanks to the federal government. Business in Washington and Oregon are also facing problems as feds are the ones that regulate the banking industry.

Perhaps, if freedom and true liberty advocates are willing to take up the fight, the next step anti-drug war advocates should take is to embark on a new nullification effort that might help to decentralize banking in the United States. By default, if this effort is eventually successful, states could continue passing their own drug-related pieces of legislation, allowing entrepreneurs to have access to a world of banking options not available to them until then. Of course, any such fight wouldn’t be easy. But decentralization is key in promoting liberty.

As more states become freer than others on diverse fronts, Americans see incentives in moving. This is how “voting with our feet” happens.

 

GOP Will Fail To Bring ACA Down Because Lawmakers Don’t Understand Economics

in Economic Liberty, Healthcare, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

GOP Will Fail To Bring ACA Down Because Lawmakers Don’t Understand Economics

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been slowly falling apart from day one. With President Donald Trump promising to repeal and replace the health care legislation once in office, he pressed both the House and Senate to pass legislation that “fixed” what was wrong with President Barack Obama’s signature legislation. But perhaps, that’s the problem: The idea that a piece of law can be fixed simply by passing more legislation addressing the same issues is nothing but a sham.

GOP

Access to health care can only be expanded, helping those among us with the most meager of means to be able to obtain the care they require, once all laws regulating health care and insurance are abolished, not reformed. Unfortunately, neither the Senate nor the House GOP’s health care bill goes as far as necessary to allow the health care market to heal completely from the failures brought about heavy-handed government intervention.

According to Senior Research Fellow and health care scholar at the Mercatus Center Robert Graboyes, the latest version of the GOP’s health care bill does nothing to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. As a matter of fact, he writes on Real Clear Health, the bill simply alters the law. Calling the changes proposed by the bill “arcane,” Graboyes says neither of the GOP’s last attempts at tackling Obamacare dismantle the law’s structure. Instead, he explains, the only thing both the Senate and the House versions of health care reform are able to eliminate is the individual mandate, lifting requirements that force all Americans to obtain health insurance or else pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Still, the Senate version of health care reform legislation is just as dependent on government spending as Obamacare, ignoring that access to care will only be widened once the private sector isn’t restricted by regulations brought about the very marriage of Washington, D.C., politics and health industry heavyweights.

Instead of trying to tackle the health care problems that were provoked by health legislation in the first place with more laws, it’s time lawmakers recognize that the only way people will obtain better and more affordable care is by allowing the market to heal. And for that to happen, legislators must get out of the way completely, letting the private sector come up with the answers.

As Ron Johnson writes for the New York Times, the private sector relies on root-cause analysis to pursue improvement and offer better solutions to consumers without losing sight of the “KISS” principle (“keep it simple, stupid”). Without getting out of the way, health care providers will not be able to adapt and patients will continue to suffer to obtain basic care amidst health insurance skyrocketing premiums. Is that what we want?

The Hoosier State Is About To Give Residents Enough Reasons To Flee

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

The Hoosier State Is About To Give Residents Enough Reasons To Flee

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

As lawmakers across many states of the union begin to understand that decentralization and less federal government control over their lives are important, other states make it easier for locals to simply pack and leave for greener pastures in neighboring states.

Hoosier

In Indiana, a Republican-controlled Assembly has been working with Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb to increase taxes and fees on everything from fuel to medical marijuana registration in a series of different bills. As these bills have already been signed into law, locals will soon realize that the most mundane things that would otherwise cost nothing or very little in an environment free of government intervention are now actually hurting their pockets.

With all bills signed into law in 2017 alone in Indiana, at least 45 different taxes and fees have either been instituted or gone up. But according to Holcomb, that’s not “a lot.” Instead, he told reporters, he thinks that “paying for what we need” is what matters.

As fuel cost in the state goes up 10 cents on the gallon, many drivers may think that going “green” is the answer. But beginning in 2018, electric and hybrid vehicle owners will see a considerable increase in their registration fees, with hybrid cars costing an extra $50 and electric cars costing $150 more just to be registered with the state.

Thanks to the new laws, if you are local and you have a treatment-resistant epilepsy condition, you will need to register with the state’s epileptic cannabidiol registry to obtain legal treatment. But just to get your name on their list you will have to gather an extra $50 for the privilege — if you do not want trouble with the law for pursuing a health treatment to which you and only you have the right to say yes or no.

If Hoosiers who are tired of their current employment situation decide to change careers, choosing to become massage therapists instead, they will also have to obtain a license from the state, which will cost them $100 just for an “OK” stamp from bureaucrats.

Are you a college student in Indiana? Well, then you will face mandatory immunization against meningitis, which will cost you between $100 and $150. As we all know. there will be a lot of broke college students out there having to take money from their loans to cover for that.

Other fees and taxes that are also rising include court recordkeeping fees, background checks for teachers, notary services, storage fees for abandoned vehicles, and even harsher income tax requirements for visiting athletes.

‘Old-Timey’ Jobs Are Back, And Gentrification Has Nothing To Do With It

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

 ‘Old-Timey’ Jobs Are Back, And Gentrification Has Nothing To Do With It

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The Wall Street Journal published a piece stating that certain forgotten and despised professions are making a comeback in urban centers like Portland, Brooklyn, and Pittsburgh.

According to the WSJ, “gentrification” is causing young, educated workers to choose to take on jobs that had been seen as low-status, semi-manual professions, turning them into what sociologist Richard Ocejo calls “glamorous occupations.”

jobs

As young men and women leave college to work as butchers, craft brewers, bookbinders, furniture makers, and bartenders, Ocejo argues that young people are drawn to these jobs as a reaction to “the ephemerality of the digital age.” But what Ocejo seems to forget is that, as the education industry is inflated with an artificial demand mostly ignited by government-backed grants and easy loans, young people who were told they should go to college no matter what often leave universities absolutely unsure of what they will be doing next.

Sometimes, they look for jobs in their fields but a lack of success makes them desperate. Sometimes, they abandon what they studied for years in a heartbeat, choosing to do odd jobs and then settle, doing something that is both accessible and financially sustainable, but not overly complicated.

That’s why there are so many restaurant workers with college degrees. So many bartenders, baristas, and fishmongers who never even glanced at their credential again. Not because they may have been born to take on those occupations, but because they wouldn’t have gone to college if they hadn’t been told they should have.

When the government adopts policies that offer individuals extra incentives to take on a particular task, eliminating the upfront cost to obtain a certain degree, it eliminates the individual’s willingness to establish him or herself as their own person, fighting and working hard for whatever it is they wish to do or be.

By facilitating college education to the point that anyone can have a degree, no matter how low their performance might be, governments are harming these individuals. After all, not everyone truly wants a college education, but they might not be compelled to go find out for their own because who would turn down “free” money?

Just like not all of us were born to be doctors, many of us prefer occupations that involve skills better learned at an apprenticeship program or in a trade school. Others learn their craft entirely on their own, by watching online classes or studying at their own pace at home.

By inflating the demand for college degrees, bureaucrats are doing nothing but to inflate the cost of a college education while forcing young men and women into a life of debt. Instead of serving as a guide, college becomes a burden, putting the young and the educated in despair mode. Many move back with their parents while others choose to change their lives completely, taking on jobs they would have never imagined taking.

Instead of gentrification, what has been driving these young men and women into “unwanted” professions” is nothing but circumstance, as they leave college with little to no professional experience and no idea of what they are going to do to pay their student loans. In other words, they are being driven toward anything they can do thanks in part to government’s involvement with the higher education business.

 

What will happen to people with low incomes if minimum wage is done away with?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

What will happen to people with low incomes if minimum wage is done away with?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Question:

If you take away minimum wages, businesses can pay whatever small amount they want and keep the rest for profit. What about those who will only make $3.00 per hour?

wage

Answer:

If businesses can pay what they want, why do 90-95 percent of today’s workers in the U.S. make more than the minimum wage? The answer: supply and demand applies to employees as well as products. If a business doesn’t pay a person what he or she is worth, they go to a new employer or start their own business. In a libertarian society, with its expanding economy, such moves will be much easier than they are today.

Minimum wage laws actually destroy entry-level positions for the unskilled. Black economist Walter Williams believes that the minimum wage laws are the single most important factor in keeping young blacks out of the job market. The next time Congress considers raising the minimum wage, look in your newspaper for an estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost – potential training jobs for the disadvantaged.

New York’s ‘Worker Protection’ Laws Will Only Hurt Workers

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

New York’s ‘Worker Protection’ Laws Will Only Hurt Workers

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Politicians cannot create value, and neither can governments. Still, voters are often the first ones to admit they chose a particular candidate because he or she promised to “create jobs.” With both conservative-leaning and progressive-leaning Americans making the case for government-sponsored programs that create more jobs, it’s easy to ignore the role of basic economics. After all, knowing economics in depth means that you understand that you cannot create jobs out of thin air. What you can create instead is value, and the only way to do so is by having government get out of the way completely.

Workers

In an environment where individuals are free to start businesses by basing their decisions on the demands of consumers, jobs are created out of a real necessity. By responding to an actual market need, employers then offer potential employees the opportunity to trade their labor for wages, which in turn will help them better their standard of living. As Robert Fellner wrote for the Mises Institute, “wages spring directly from, and are proportional to, the degree in which a job creates wealth by helping to satisfy an unmet need.” Or in other words, wages are the product of the wealth creation process triggered by a service or product created to meet the market’s demands.

When government attempts to “create jobs” and stipulate wages artificially by passing minimum wage laws, they are neither creating these positions out of a real necessity to meet a market demand nor raising standards of living by creating value. Instead, government-sponsored job creation is often the result of taxpayer-backed projects, which are in turn managed by central planners with little to no knowledge of market demands. And by increasing restrictions on the productive sector of the economy with minimum wage laws or other restrictive policies, the government takes the businessman’s freedom to give low-skilled individuals a chance at being employed, learning a trade and perhaps going on to take jobs in the future that offer higher wages.

 The new law also stipulates that workers may not work without breaks of at least 11 hours between shifts.

Needless to say, this new law will only hurt workers who are often the first to take on extra shifts and are willing to cover for colleagues due to an abrupt schedule change — not the employer. These individuals will be forced to take on extra side gigs to make ends meet instead of simply working more hours for their current employers.

If anti-poverty advocates were honest about helping those in need, they wouldn’t demand government do “something” about creating new jobs or raising wages artificially. Instead, they would look at the only viable way of actually helping the greatest number of people possible: the free market.

What Aetna’s Decision To Leave Obamacare Proves

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

What Aetna’s Decision To Leave Obamacare Proves

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

When it comes to government policies, we seldom see initiatives looking into undoing what has been done.

AetnaAs the health care bill supported by President Donald Trump makes its way to the Senate after being passed by the House of Representatives, many remind the public that the bill isn’t ideal. Not because it doesn’t bring a complete end to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as we know it. But instead, critics suggest that the new proposals simply do not go far enough by not bringing an end to the federal government’s involvement with the health insurance business.

Government officials have, for the most part, created a rise in health care costs by trying to address the consequences of their policies by enacting more restrictions and regulations.

By selectively intervening in the health care market, government generates more unanticipated difficulties, as economist Ludwig von Mises once wrote. As politicians are pressed to “do something” to address the issues brought up by intervention, they come up with new interventionist policies, thus never bringing an end government’s involvement in the business of providing care.

A perfect example of an unintended consequence caused by further meddling with the health insurance industry is Aetna’s recent decision to pull out completely from the Obamacare individual market for 2018.

According to the company, its participation in the Obamacare exchange is costing them money. More precisely, the company is projected to lose around $225 million this year. In 2014 through 2016, Aetna lost $700 million from its exchange plan businesses.

Some of the issues that have been to blame for these losses include a poor balance between sick and healthy customers purchasing plans through the exchange. As a result, premium rates have gone up 25 percent this year, forcing more Americans to remain uninsured, proving that every time the government gets involved with health policy, it stifles choice, hurting those who need the care the most: the patient.

Another problem caused by government’s requirements concerning mandatory insurance purchase is the lack of access to actual care.

As the insured notice that it becomes ever more expensive to have access to doctors because of the high co-pays, they fail to seek the care they require.

Seeing this trend and feeling the pressure to see more patients for less cash, many doctors have decided to skip the nightmare altogether by leaving the insurance market and by offering personalized care instead. The movement has prompted a series of doctors to turn to direct primary care for the solution, offering patients care in privately-run clinics in exchange for a monthly payment that often pales in comparison to what an individual would pay an insurance company.

By saying no to insurers, these doctors and patients are also saying no to suffocating regulations.

Perhaps, if more of these businesses are launched, health insurance companies as we know them will become obsolete, forcing the government to finally step away from messing with healthcare policy altogether.

California Kicks the Corpse of Free Association in Airbnb Investigation

in Economic Liberty, Issues, Liberator Online by Erik Andresen Comments are off

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

California has decided you must allow anyone into your home, at least if you rent it on a short term basis. Department of Fair Employment and Housing had filed a complaint against Airbnb over alleged incidents of hosts discriminating against users on the basis of race. Airbnb has agreed to let DFEH conduct “testing,” similar to testing applied to landlords.

AirbnbThe problem DFEH is looking to solve: it seems some Airbnb hosts reject users based on their race. It reminds me of dating site OKCupid’s “discovery” that race plays heavily into how users select prospective matches.

That’s the trouble with freedom; sometimes people use it in ways we don’t like. Sometimes the results are unpleasant. But libertarianism isn’t about making perfect people. That’s what Progressivism wants to do: remake mankind. Libertarians see the world as it is, and we endeavor to act – messy as it can be – in harmony with human nature, not against it. Our goal is maximum happiness and prosperity for all but without the threat of force from the state.

Many libertarians have hailed the disruption that the “sharing economy” has unleashed on tired and over-regulated business, from taxis to hotels.  But we should not be surprised that those established industries and bureaucrats are fighting back however they can. And in this instance, they have found a chink in the armor; the sharing economy may not survive it. Airbnb and similar services are troubling for regulators and elected officials (beyond protecting established industries and maintaining tax revenue).  Peer-to-peer dealings, especially those involving your car and your home, are prone to reveal individuals’ personal preferences.

Then the mask slips – regulators like to regulate “business” – putting the boot to someone who wants to rent their spare room for extra cash looks too heavy-handed (and it is). A government official would never say that we must allow every stranger who knocks on our doors must be allowed in. But that is exactly what DFEH is saying the moment you and that stranger exchange cash.

Libertarians favor free association and dissociation. Private deals between two individuals are no business of the state. But California doesn’t see it that way; bureaucrats want to decide for you who you may let into your home.

 

Why Do People Obsessed With Science Ignore Economic Science?

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Why Do People Obsessed With Science Ignore Economic Science?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

It’s an interesting paradox often left unexplored by the media, but we seldom find someone who’s both passionate about climate change science and economic science.

Science Economist and professor Robert P. Murphy explored this at length in a recent column, using the April 22nd “March for Science” to demonstrate how little people know — or care to know — about economics.

Despite being supportive of the scientific method, Murphy aptly explained, the environmental activists taking to the streets to demand governments “do something” about the issue also used the event that gathered thousands of people across the country to show President Donald Trump they do not agree with his proposed budget cuts.

Claiming Republicans are “climate change deniers” who often ignore the “consensus” on global warming among the scientific community, these same science-loving advocates ignore the “consensus” on economic science. Instead of being consistent, they call for government intervention to bring an end to man-made climate change, Murphy correctly points out.

But as a Senior Economist with the Institute for Energy Research specializing in climate change, Murphy knows better.

A belief held by many economic science deniers includes the idea that a “bare minimum to cap global warming at 2 degrees Celsius” is imperative. However, if you consult the last United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, you won’t find anything that justifies that limit, Murphy wrote.

Furthermore, Murphy contends, “the IPCC’s own estimate of the economic cost of compliance with the policy goal [of limiting warming to 2°C] was greater than the estimate of the climate change damages from ‘doing nothing.’” Meaning that forcing governments to go along with this arbitrary cap would cost nations more, causing more damage than if government officials were simply sitting on their hands.

Still, Murphy continued, critics charged at him after he pointed their inconsistencies out, suggesting that the IPCC had used economic models that weren’t sufficient and adding they may have understated the risk posed by climate change. But by ignoring Murphy’s observations, climate change advocates who criticized his comments have also completely ignored the scientific process, putting their own beliefs before sound evidence.

Instead of relying on research and evidence-based results, Murphy concludes that the “refusal to follow the science” might be “more widespread” among environmental activist than one might suspect.

So what are these marchers doing when they take it to the streets to fight for the planet? Are they parading their “awareness” across the country out of a strange urge to appear “woke?” Or are they simply so oblivious of what science truly is that their lack of enthusiasm for the hard work that goes along with it shows, making them seem like the unsophisticated privileged kids they truly are?

We might never know.

 

 

I Went To An Anti-Trump Tax March And This Is What I Found

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Taxes by Alice Salles Comments are off

I Went To An Anti-Trump Tax March And This Is What I Found

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Saturday, April 15, the day on which individual income tax returns have been traditionally due, anti-President Donald Trump activists flooded the streets of several major cities across the country to demand Trump release his tax returns.

TaxWhile I was sent to Downtown Los Angeles to cover the “event” as part of a work assignment and I was not allowed to discuss different approaches to the idea of taxation, I was able to ask many of the attendees whether they were happy about the way the U.S. government handles their tax dollars.

In all cases, participants said “no.” And yet, none of those who talked to me thought of using that particular protest to voice those concerns. Instead, what they were really angry about was that Trump’s returns should be released so that his “ties to the Russians” were finally revealed.

How incredibly naive, even for progressives.

What was more unnerving was that they weren’t even angry that their taxes were now in the hands of a man they disliked, and that for the past eight years, anti-President Barack Obama activists were seeing their tax dollars being used by a man they despised. Instead, they found themselves in the right to demand documents from a man who has no legal or moral obligation to disclose documents related to the government confiscation of his wealth.

As participants answered my questions, saying they were unhappy that their hard-earned money was going to build walls and pay for bombs, not one attendee thought that that would be a much greater reason to go to the streets over. Instead, what mattered to them was Russia and how Trump, the “illegitimate” president, stole the election from the hands of a woman.

Many libertarians felt that none of the 2016 presidential candidates truly spoke to them, but to see so many people allowing their own concerns to be overridden by what the masses — or in this case, the great bulk of mainstream media — tells them that matters, is like watching countless of sleepwalkers march toward an abyss.

Giving up on a fight momentarily in order to stay out of trouble is one thing, but to give up on your individuality in order to let powerful groups with an agenda manipulate your political actions is madness. And yet, as I asked each and every person who agreed to talk to me whether they were unhappy, the answer was yes. But the euphoria tied to the Russia narrative was, unfortunately, just too good to let go.

In a time where addictions have replaced the rational decision-making process, it’s easy to see why many call this the age of outrage. And as I hopelessly looked for someone comfortable enough with their own thoughts to openly talk about their concerns and fight for them, I also found we just can’t depend on masses — no matter how compelling they may seem.

What The United Airlines Fiasco Teaches Us About Monopolies

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

What The United Airlines Fiasco Teaches Us About Monopolies

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The United Airlines fiasco has been all over the news — for a good reason.

A passenger who had already been allowed to take his seat had his face bloodied as police officers were asked to physically remove the man from the plane. The incident had followed what many reported as being an issue with an overbooked flight but later, it was discovered that the man had been picked in a lottery to leave the full flight after United noticed it needed four seats for crew members.

United AirlinesThe passenger in question, David Dao, refused to leave the plane, even after the company offered $800 and a hotel stay to whoever accepted to relinquish their seat, and that’s when the police were called in to “help.”

Many have noted that legally speaking, Dao was in the right and United was in the wrong. But what many are ignoring in this story has to do with how we got to a point where a private organization needs the services of the state police to remove a customer who had not broken his contract.

If United had to compete for its customers in a free, open market, would they have treated any customer this way?

Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute answers that question with an in-depth review of the U.S. airline industry. He explains that, in North America, the four top carriers enjoy 80 percent of the business, putting these four companies in a nearly total control of the domestic flying industry. But that occurs not because these firms form an official, government-backed cartel. Instead, government intervention is so heavy-handed that it provokes an artificial barrier to other airlines, making competition less likely to happen.

Take the U.S. ban on foreign carriers for instance. Because international airlines are not allowed to fly certain point-to-point destinations domestically, only domestic airlines have the privilege of doing so. Economically ignorant politicians defend this policy by saying that this protects American workers and consumers. Unfortunately, this particular protectionist policy has the exact opposite effect, as fewer companies mean fewer options for both job seekers and flyers.

Down the line, as competition is stifled and domestic companies enjoy an artificial monopoly over the industry, the consumer suffers greatly, as the top four carriers are allowed to act erratically and still have a virtual control of the market. With no options but to fly using one of these protected firms, these consumers are then forced to undergo severe mistreatment. In a free market, this type of incident could have destroyed United, but in an environment where protectionism rules, United will suffer for some time before it bounces back up as few companies are able to compete.

Arizona Bill Could Be A Win For Sound Money

in Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Arizona Bill Could Be A Win For Sound Money

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

A bill being considered by the Arizona legislature could be the park of a sound money revolution. Much like the marijuana legalization movement ignited by anti-drug war advocates across the states, this new movement could help strike the root of all of our economic woes.

MoneyAccording to the Tenth Amendment Center, House Bill 2014 would initiate the sound money revolution by eliminating state capital gains taxes on gold and silver specie. Thus encouraging individuals to use the metals as currency. The bill, which passed the House on the 13th, will need a final approval from the Senate. And if approved, the legislation would then initiate a movement that could help put an end to the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

By removing the burden of applying state capital gains taxes on income “derived from the exchange of one kind of legal tender for another kind of legal tender” and redefining legal tender as ““a medium of exchange, including specie, that is authorized by the United States Constitution or Congress for the payment of debts, public charges, taxes and dues,” coins having precious metal content could become, once again, a legal form of currency.

By passing this bill, the Arizona legislature would be allowing silver and gold specie to be treated as money, essentially “legalizing the constitution.”

Currently, Arizona law requires individuals to pay capital gains taxes whenever they use gold and silver in transactions or any time they want to exchange the metal for Federal Reserve notes. Due to inflation, the purchasing power of fiat money decreases, which then causes the metal’s nominal value to rise. Thus the “gain” taxes. Even if they are fictional. The result is obviously unfair because it penalizes those using gold and silver as money.

By passing HB 2014, Arizonans would not have to add the amount of any net capital gain tied to the exchange of different kinds of legal tender, freeing the consumer from being subject to state taxes.

This could open up currency competition in Arizona, causing other states to perhaps do the same once they realize competition will help to bring the government monopoly over the currency down.

To advocates of states’ rights like Tenth Amendment founder Michael Boldin, this piece of legislation in Arizona is a great first step to “end the fed’s monetary monopoly,” even if it won’t put an end to it overnight. By giving the individual Arizona resident his freedom to trade freely, he will be securing the purchasing power of his money as a result.

Page 1 of 712345...Last »