economy

Home » economy

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.

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.

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.

Yes, Corruption Cripples the Economy

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

Yes, Corruption Cripples the Economy

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

When analyzing the potential ramifications of picking one presidential candidate over the other, many prefer to overlook claims of corruption. On one hand, voters might not be exactly aware of what corruption may entail, but on the other, they might not be entirely sure of how corruption taking place in high levels of government will ever impact their personal finances. Unfortunately for those who do not seem to understand how corruption affects them, the consequences of rent-seeking and influence-peddling schemes go deeper than we expect.

corruptionIn Protectionism vs. Corruption: Which Is Worse for the Economy?, economist D.W. MacKenzie writes that while “an overwhelming majority of economists have agreed on the benefits of free trade since 1817,” many contemporary politicians believe that some trading restrictions help boost the U.S. economy.

But when it comes to analyzing the impact of corruption, few seem to take into consideration that political corruption “impairs economic efficiency and lowers living standards.”

Traditionally, corruption has always been treated as a legal affair, which might explain why the population’s attention is steered away from the real-world consequences of the practice.

According to MacKenzie, the problem with widespread corruption is that special interest groups take advantage of it, lobbying government elements directly to provide them with special treatment, therefore transferring wealth “from the general population into their pockets.” When analyzed closely, these special relationships between private industries and the government “make us all worse off” because the resources used to ensure these groups’ needs are being met could have been spared. In other words, taxpayer money spent on what many call corporate welfare could have stayed in the consumer’s pockets and then used for other purposes, getting that amount back into the economy and helping to make it grow.

Another aspect of political corruption that is often ignored is that free trade is the necessary condition for economic growth to occur, but in countries where markets thrive, their governments are often less impacted by corruption. Considering political corruption is inefficient and bad for growth, MacKenzie concludes, giving more power to politicians known for being corrupt will further damage the economy.

As voters cast their ballots for president, they must have in mind that the only policy that will bring economic growth and peace to America is the complete elimination of barriers to commerce, getting the government completely out of the business of picking winners. Unless the link between the government and the rent seeker is severed, there will be no room left for prosperity.

Goldman Sachs’ CEO: Regulations Help Us Grow, Keeping Competitors at Bay

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics by Alice Salles Comments are off

Goldman Sachs’ CEO: Regulations Help Us Grow, Keeping Competitors at Bay

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

Crony capitalism continues to expand big government’s grip, extending the realm under government’s control in ways we once thought impossible. As businesses and employees hurt due to government’s increasing control over all business fields, so does the economy.

GoldmanWhile this issue is inherently a government problem, big business has a lot to do with the growing regulatory burden. Instead of downplaying their role, libertarians should be pointing out how both parties are to blame, and how even big businesses understand this reality and often use it to their advantage.

In a 2015 interview, Goldman Sachs’ CEO Lloyd Blankfein explained how regulations help to protect large, established firms, keeping smaller competitors from having access to the market.

In his own words, he gave the reporter an outline of what happens when a large firm like his is afraid of its competitors, and what’s funny is that few news outlets caught on to the CEO’s unabashed honesty, choosing to never reproduce his comments or downplay their importance.

When talking about how upstart tech companies and the threat they pose to Goldman, Blankfein said that while “all industries are being disrupted to some extent by new entrants coming in from technology,” regulations have been a friend of Goldman mostly because “there are some parts of [Goldman] business, where it’s very hard for outside entrants to come in, disrupt our business, simply because we’re so regulated.”

The burden of regulation, Blankfein added, is a serious issue for “people in our industry,” but, “in some cases,” Blankfein continued, “the burdensome regulation acts as a bit of a moat around our business.”

As you can see, Goldman Sachs’ own CEO refers to regulations as moats. In other words, the regulatory burden can be heavy and Goldman executives agree, but as long as the rules keep competitors from getting anywhere near the Goldman castle, the company doesn’t see a problem with complying.

According to Bill Anderson, a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland, America truly embraced regulations during the Progressive era, following the lead of progressive leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson who believed that “the federal system of delegated powers was archaic and out of date for a ‘modern, progressive’ society.”

To these politicians, stripping “powers from state and local governments and transferring them to Washington, DC” and “convincing members of Congress to give up their own constitutionally-designated powers” were essential steps in making America a truly progressive nation. How did they manage to go about putting their plan in practice? By “crafting of regulatory agencies,” all of which are part of the executive branch.

So next time you see a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton supporter go on and on about how government and big business should not be involved in any way, remind them of what has enabled this cozy relationship.

Drug War: CO Residents Treated as Criminals in Neighboring States

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

Drug War: CO Residents Treated as Criminals in Neighboring States

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

Colorado was the first state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana. But while freer drug markets have also helped to boost other aspects of Colorado’s economy, issues associated with other state-run agencies were never fully addressed, mainly how law enforcement’s long-lasting love affair with targeting drug users and dealers hasn’t really changed.

Traffic StopEver since recreational marijuana was made legal, Tech Dirt reports, law enforcement agencies in neighboring states inched closer, considering any road coming out of Colorado a “drug corridor.”

Due to this approach to drug-related law enforcement, several unconstitutional stops and seizures have been taking place at the borders surrounding Colorado.

Recently, one of the incidents in which out of state officers attempted to send innocent travelers to jail turned sour—for the Kansas police.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a traffic stop carried out in Kansas was unconstitutional because the driver involved did not commit a crime by traveling from a state where marijuana is legal. After all, Tech Dirt adds, “it isn’t against the law to conspire to perform an act that is legal in another state.”

The incident that prompted the court’s decision involves Peter Vasquez. Originally, Kansas Highway Patrol officers claimed they pulled him over because his vehicle’s temporary tag was unreadable. But moments after his tag was verified, officers launched an expedition to find out whether the Colorado resident had any illegal substances in his vehicle.

While Vasquez was in the car, one of the officers told the second agent that Vasquez was “notably nervous,” urging the officer to “get a feel for him” to see “how nervous” he was. Once the second Kansas officer returned, he allegedly said Vasquez was “scared to death.” After checking Vasquez’s insurance and noticing he had added two new cars to his policy, one of the officers assumed Vasquez had been transporting illegal drugs. That’s when the K-9 unit was called.

During a quick interrogation, officers learned Vasquez owned a boutique, and that the newer car he had bought was given to his girlfriend. Once Vasquez told the officers he was moving to Maryland, they urged the driver to disclose the location of his belongings. Vasquez answered that he had already moved most of his belongings.

After issuing Vasquez a warning, officers continued to pressure him to give them consent to search the vehicle. But the attempts were fruitless. As a result, the officers decided to consider his stand was enough to prove Vasquez had something to hide.

Because one of the officers believed Vasquez was “probably involved in a little criminal activity,” they arrested him.

Once the dog was summoned, it failed to bark at anything in the vehicle. Nevertheless, cops went further, searching the vehicle on their own anyway. They also found nothing.

After the ordeal was finally over, Vasquez sued the Kansas Highway Patrol officers over their illegal search.

In their defense, officers involved claimed that the fact Vasquez was driving alone at night in a “known drug corridor” made him a suspect of taking part in illegal drug activities. Officers also claimed that, the fact Vasquez’s back seat “did not contain items” the law enforcement duo expected to see “in the car of someone moving across the country,” and the fact he seemed nervous, where all reasons for them to arrest him.

Thankfully for Vasquez, the judge ruled the officers’ conduct unreasonable and unconstitutional.

While this is a victory for this one individual, it’s disturbing to learn that law enforcement agencies see residents of a state where marijuana is legal as “instant criminals.”

When looking for what the drug war has accomplished over the years, look no further. Officers now consider anyone from Colorado a potential suspect. Even if drugs aren’t involved. That, and that alone, is what the drug war has produced.

How Crony Capitalism Almost Destroyed a Small Vegan Business

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

How Crony Capitalism Almost Destroyed a Small Vegan Business

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

Crony capitalism, what many still believe to be actual capitalism, is everywhere. That’s why every aspect of modern life seems to be ruled by those who nurture a cozy relationship with government.

Even what you eat for breakfast is under their control.

PastaLast year, we learned that the American Egg Board, a group of egg producers supervised by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), had used its influence and might to (try to) destroy a small company, the start-up Hampton Creek, which is behind Just Mayo.

The egg-less product became the target of the crony organization, which is funded by the mandatory fees members of the industry must pay, whether they are willing to be part of the organization or not. The USDA is in charge of overseeing the group’s budget and activities, making the AEB an arm of the state. So when the group’s president called the vegan Just Mayo a “crisis and major threat to the future of the egg product business” in an email and a USDA official suggested having Just Mayo’s labeling claims challenged with the US Food and Drug Administration, Hampton Creek was hit with a warning letter claiming that they had made unauthorized claims regarding their product, effectively “misleading” consumers by using the image of an egg on the label of a vegan item.

But the FDA move wasn’t enough. Later, the cartel group with direct ties to the US government moved to hire a lobbyist with the goal of making the grocery chain Whole Foods stop selling Just Mayo. While this step backfired, AEB ended up looking to another corporate ally to put an end to the competitor by convincing Unilever, the manufacturer of Hellman’s Mayonnaise, to file a lawsuit against Hampton Creek.

The lawsuit was later dropped.

A Freedom of Information Act request helped us learn more about this sordid pursuit against the small company just because of its competitive factor, giving us yet another great example of how government and special interests often work together to put an end to anything that makes them uncomfortable.

In a recent article for the Tenth Amendment Center, Mike Maharrey claimed that this episode in the recent history of food regulations shows the importance of fighting the federal government locally. After all, Maharrey wrote, “[t]he Constitution does not delegate the federal government any authority to regulate food safety.”

Despite the lack of legitimate authority, special interest groups like the American Egg Board continue to become involved with government, both local and federal. As they obtain privileges and special treatments that competitors do not enjoy, lobbyists work alongside lawmakers to solidify their clients’ position, oftentimes creating a scare regarding their competitors’ products that are sometimes powerful enough to nearly destroy small companies.

The result? Consumers end up having restricted access to variety, forcing the prices of commodities to go up.

Even if you’re not entirely positive the US Constitution should be followed at all times, you might agree that, if regulators and lawmakers do, indeed, have the health and safety of consumers in mind, they should be celebrating and welcoming new competitors in the food market, not fighting to keep the number steady. ​

Video Game Shows the Economic Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana

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

Video Game Shows the Economic Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana

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

In a truly free society, individuals would be able to provide the products consumers are after without having to deal with the restrictions imposed by bureaucrats.

Hemp IncWhen analyzed closely, private regulatory practices promoted within the marketplace are often much more efficient than regulations imposed by government officials who often are responding to potential threats instead of responding to legitimate market demands, putting a strain on job creators and consumers, who end up paying more—sometimes with their lives—for the product they want or need.

But as states begin to accelerate the process to legalize marijuana, the debate is finally shifting. Now, we’re finally talking more about the health and financial benefits of marijuana legalization than the legalization’s downside.

That’s why Hemp Inc. matters.

According to VICE News, the video game produced by HKA Digital Studios allows users to grow and sell weed while interacting with smokers, who sometimes happen to be celebrities. As a result of their economic ventures, these pot entrepreneurs are able to build marijuana empires. Unfortunately, that’s only currently—and legally—possible in real life if you move to states like Colorado and Washington.

The app was launched on April 26, but few news outlets covered the story.

Regardless of how popular the app becomes, the message it conveys is a powerful one. Despite the drug war, demands will always be met, no matter how many laws Congressmen pass. Once you lift barriers, however, industries flourish—including health industries—and consumer safety becomes a priority. Instead of assaulting people’s freedoms under the guise of safety, lawmakers are being increasingly reminded that they don’t know what is best for everyone. And that’s OK. Leaving it up to the individual is the only moral alternative.

So instead of logical arguments alone, anti-drug war advocates now have a new tool that demonstrates just how easily individuals are able to benefit themselves while benefitting others once marijuana is legal.

Instead of violent, bloody wars between gangs over street territory, the relationship between marijuana producers, sellers, and consumers is slowly becoming more like the relationship between the farmer, grocer, and the consumer—and that’s a positive development.

Unlike a real war, the drug war is an effort that targets a behavior seen as immoral, not a real enemy. But we have a modern historical example of how that type of war doesn’t lead us anywhere. Why are we still hesitant to put an end to this madness?

Minimum Wage Laws Push Young Blacks Out of the Workforce

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

Minimum Wage Laws Push Young Blacks Out of the Workforce

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

Unemployment is in the news again. But the media’s focus on the presidential elections seems to keep Americans from discussing the ongoing economic disaster we haven’t had the time to deal with since 2008. But as the Federal Reserve chairwoman shows signs of mild nervousness, more news outlets begin to pay attention. Still, few choose to dig deeper, and the great majority of the American electorate remains oblivious to the root causes of the problems they are dealing with now.

Walter E WilliamsIn order to help his fellow Americans understand the realities of government-management of economic policies, economist and professor Walter E. Williams wrote an article discussing the shift in unemployment rates and demographics over the past decades, helping us understand how bad the consequences of government interference are.

According to Williams, the unemployment rate of African American teenagers in 1948 was 9.4 percent while in 2016, the black teenage unemployment rate is about 30 percent. Still in 1948, the unemployment rate of white teens was higher, at 10.2 percent, while in 2016, it’s at 14 percent.

To the libertarian economist, what has caused this problem we have at hand is the elitist mentality.

In his article, Williams points out to comments made by another economist, David Howell, to illustrate the shifting mentality.

When talking about minimum wage laws and the reasons why we should embrace a higher minimum wage policy, Howell, who Williams calls a New School economist, says that we should not be worried about one of the most devastating consequences of raising the minimum wage: job losses. “Why shouldn’t we in fact accept job loss?” Asked Howell. But it was another scholar, Economic Policy Institute economist David Cooper, whose comments appeared to have truly triggered Williams.

“What’s so bad about getting rid of crappy jobs,” Cooper says, “forcing employers to upgrade, and having a serious program to compensate anyone who is in the slightest way harmed by that?” To Cooper, working fewer hours but making more money is all that matters, even if millions end up struggling to have access to entry level jobs due to the tough wage requirements.

To Williams, a “crappy job,” economically speaking, is a job. And being unemployed means being out of a job.

Whether Americans do not look fondly back to the 1940s and 1950s, Williams explains that, back when wage policies weren’t as interventionist, teens took jobs that would seem undesirable to the New School economists of today.

When Williams was a teen, he explained, he and his buddies would rise early during summers to board farm trucks headed to New Jersey. His jobs then varied a great deal. At times, Williams would pick blueberries, but sometimes he washed dishes and mopped floors, but he also worked unloading trucks at Campbell Soup.

Unfortunately for many teens living in poverty nowadays, the same jobs are either unavailable or not “good enough” for big city kids. Instead of allowing people to choose what job they are willing to take in order to make some kind of money, those who support interventionism in the economy prefer to see the poor unemployed and unskilled to see them fend for themselves.

If Williams is correct and current black leadership is all in favor of this view, things are only going to get worse.

The Solution to Detroit’s Corruption Scheme is Less Government

in Issues, Liberator Online, Libertarian Answers on Issues, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

The Solution to Detroit’s Corruption Scheme is Less Government

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

Certain municipalities in the United States look a lot like South America these days.

According to a CBS affiliate, the public school system in Detroit is facing bribery and fraud charges associated with some of its current and former principals.

DetroitTwo months ago, ex-principal Kenyetta Wilbourn Snapp—also from Detroit—pleaded guilty after being accused of pocketing a $58,050 bribe from a local vendor. She was sentenced to 46 months in prison. Paulette Horton, a 60-year-old consultant, also admitted to being part of the scheme. She allegedly played the part of the middleman between Snapp and other contractors and vendors seeking to seal deals with Detroit’s public schools.

The most recent corruption case involves 12 principals, a school district vendor, and an administrator. They are all being accused of participating in corruption schemes involving payments in exchange for exclusive contracts between businesses and public schools.

The legal charges were brought against the educators by the federal government. US Attorney Barbara McQuade, along with other FBI and IRS officials, made a public statement about the case on Tuesday. During the press conference, she claimed that the corruption case is a “punch in the gut.”

If the legal charges tied to the latest corruption case stick, suspects would be implicated in a nearly $1 million bribery and kickback scheme.

Detroit Free Press explains that the legal ordeal revolves around Norman Shy, a 74-year-old businessman who’s being accused of paying $908,500 in kickbacks and bribes to 12 Detroit Public School principals. These same schools used Shy as their school supply vendor for the last 13 years. The exclusivity deals with Shy helped him milk $2.7 million from Detroit’s public schools over the years. According to prosecutors, Shy kept the contracts going thanks to his personal transactions with school principals.

Recently, Michigan legislators passed a bill securing $48.7 million to the Detroit Public School (DPS) system, ensuring local schools wouldn’t run out of cash. To Speaker of the House Kevin Cotter, a Republican from Mt. Pleasant, the state should pass “strong financial and academic reforms” as “a part of any long-term solution to decades of DPS failures.” But unless the root of corruption is unmasked, and legislators finally admit that the very existence of government regulations is why corruption continues to take place, any reform will only lead to a momentary—and feeble—solution.

In a piece for Mises.org, David R. Henderson explains that “the reason so much corruption occurs in government is that government officials hand out so much in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, permits and regulatory exceptions.” Having power to make decisions for others while nobody’s watching makes corruption more likely to occur. To Henderson, this is the main reason why “private corruption often occurs in corporate purchasing departments.”

If federal prosecutors and Michigan legislators are serious about tackling this issue and putting an end to corruption, they must first focus on putting an end to favoritism. And the only day of accomplishing that is by reducing government grant giving.

Fixing Detroit’s corruption disease will involve a great deal of courage, especially when you consider that the government would have to relinquish control over the economy and education so the incentives are removed from the equation. As Henderson explained, the “sure cure for corruption is to reduce or even eliminate official power over the economy.”

The Sharing Economy is Challenging Labor Laws, Are Lawmakers Paying Attention?

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

The Sharing Economy is Challenging Labor Laws, Are Lawmakers Paying Attention?

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

Ride-sharing apps are revolutionizing how people across the country commute. But with the growth in popularity, companies like Lyft and Uber become easy targets for regulators and lawmakers, mostly because laws already in place protect industries that are already losing their appeal due to competition.

Last month, Lyft settled a class-action lawsuit brought by its California drivers. With the settlement, Lyft upheld the freedom of drivers locally by avoiding to classify them as employees. By allowing participating motorists to remain as contractors, Lyft gave drivers the flexibility to control when, where, and for long they work through the platform.

Lyft To many, this was a step in the right direction. But to Christopher Koopman, a research fellow with the Project for the Study of American Capitalism at the Mercatus Center, this victory is not enough.

In an article for The Hill, Koopman says the settlement fails to resolve other issues tied to worker classification laws.

Since sharing economy apps like Uber and Lyft do not easily fit within current state and federal labor laws, Koopman explained, “challenges [to] the status quo of government regulation” will continue to present a legal headache to company executives—and drivers.

In places like New York City, Uber and Lyft stood up to taxi regulations. By doing so, sharing economy apps helped to boost transportation choices for low-income households. At the federal level, Koopman explained, Uber and Lyft are now challenging an 80-year-old law known as Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which defines what an employee is. According to Koopman, the Department of Labor’s own interpretations of the 80-year-old law do nothing to clarify the issue, making the lives of individuals relying on Lyft and Uber to pay their bills much more complicated in the long-term.

If this issue is not fixed at both federal and state levels, Koopman says, Uber and Lyft will continue to battle lawsuit after lawsuit. And leaving the decision to the courts, Koopman stated, is “far from ideal.”

As labor laws remain unchallenged by lawmakers, Koopman warns that the sharing economy is not the only one that will suffer.

Using IRS data, Koopman found that the growth in non-employment working arrangements “predates the advent of the sharing economy.” In 2010, the Government Accountability Office estimated, at least 40 percent of workers in America operated under “alternative arrangements.” If their choice had been questioned legally, they would have lost their arrangements, therefore making it hard for folks to make ends meet.

To loosen the restrictions by changing legal definitions could prove beneficial to workers across the country, so why rely on the courts? If that’s the case, Koopman warns, juries, or “ordinary folks simply working with square pegs and round holes” will be tasked with the duty of choosing who should be classified as employees.

Will they choose solutions that boost freedom instead of giving government even more power?

What Happens When Demand Increases?

in Conversations With My Boys, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online by The Libertarian Homeschooler Comments are off

What Happens When Demand Increases?

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

How will I explain the phenomenon of rising prices after a disaster to my seven-year-old son? I’ll say something like this.

You know there was a big storm in the Northeast. We saw it on television. There was flooding, there was a big fire, trees were down, and now there’s no electricity in a lot of places. It’s pretty miserable.

Supply And Demand Analysis Concept

People want clean water, food, and gasoline. They want to be able to clear away the trees that fell and they want to be able to run their generators if they’re without power. Normally, they could get these things, but because of the storm not only do they need more, but it’s hard for these things to get in. The normal supply lines are cut. So they want more and there’s less than usual around.

We’ve talked about scarcity before. It’s when there is a limited amount of the things we want. Right now, the things that they want are scarce. Demand has increased.

We’ve also talked about what happens when demand increases. When demand increases, prices go up. Prices just tell us how much of this thing is available. It’s information. Like when there’s a bad drought, the price of tomatoes goes up because there are fewer tomatoes to sell. The opposite is also true. When there is a lot of something, the price goes down. If I have a tomato farm and I have twice as many tomatoes one really good year, the price of tomatoes will go down. You can tell how much of something there is by its price.

This is the situation in the Northeast right now. Demand for gas, clean water, generators, and things like that has increased. What happens to prices when demand increases? Right. Prices go up.

You’ve seen this happen in daddy’s ebay business. When he’s down to the last ten of an item, he hikes up the price. It’s still available if someone really wants it, but those last ten are really really valuable. When he gets more in stock, he lowers the price again.

Remember how your brother asked you what you would do if you only had one cup of water each day? You said you’d drink that water. And if you only had two cups, you would use the second cup for keeping clean. And if you had three cups you would use the third cup for growing plants. And if you had four cups you might use the fourth cup for playing in the sprinkler or something. You understand when things are scarce, you use them differently. You economize. They are more valuable when there is less. Everyone understands that.

Anyway, back to the storm. Let’s say daddy sold things that would be important in an emergency. He has a store that sells gas, water, ice, and flashlights. He knows that as a storm approaches the demand for these things will increase and that perhaps his supply line will be severed for many days. He won’t be able to get more for a while. He will have a limited supply–like when you only have three cups of water. When demand increases, he’s going to raise prices. People won’t be able to buy as much. They’ll have to think about how they use what they buy. This keeps things on the shelves longer and when someone desperately needs a thing, it is more likely to be there for them. That’s really important during an emergency. It can even save people’s lives. Now, some people would say that it’s mean of daddy to raise prices when demand increases. But that’s not true. He’s simply letting people know that it’s time to economize. They need to think hard about how they want to use things. He’s just passing along information. And there’s good reason for him to do it. He’ll make more money if he’s doing the right thing. It also makes it worth his while to go to the store and keep it open for the one guy who really, really needs something. When the prices go up, he’s not going to sell as much, but he still has to be there. If he keeps his prices low, he’ll sell out and close his store.

So, what we know is that when demand increases, prices go up. When demand decreases, prices go down. Those are just laws. Like inertia. We just have to know that they’re laws and that they’re always in effect. We shouldn’t be surprised by them.

Some people try to suspend law and make it so store owners can’t increase their prices as demand increases. That’s really bad. It doesn’t work and it leads to more shortages because people won’t economize on their use of the scarce goods and services. If they aren’t properly priced, the consumer doesn’t know how valuable it is. They might buy the last flashlight to entertain their children in the dark when a guy two blocks over needed that flashlight to find something really important–like maybe the gas shut off–in the night. When things cost more or when we have less of a thing we really think about how we use it. If the prices don’t give us that information, that causes more problems in an already bad situation.

In Wisconsin, Homemade Cookies are the Victims of Big Government

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

In Wisconsin, Homemade Cookies are the Victims of Big Government

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

Things are hard out there for folks trying to make ends meat.

According to Watchdog.org, Wisconsin residents can go to jail and face steep fines if they dare to sell homemade baked goods without an OK from the government.

Under Wisconsin law, entrepreneurs selling homemade baked goods who prepare their products in home kitchens are not allowed to make a profit. After all, how will the state assure the quality of the those delicious cookies baked by grandma if she’s not following state regulations?

Cookies

According to Institute for Justice’s attorney Erica Smith, entrepreneurs in Wisconsin could face a $1,000 fine or go to jail for up to six months even if they “sell one cookie at a farmers market, to your neighbor, [or] somewhere in your community.” This practice, the attorney told Watchdog, “[is] not only unfair, it’s unconstitutional.”

In order to remedy this problem locally, three Wisconsin farmers filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection with the help of IJ’s Smith. The suit hopes to put an end to the ban on homemade baked goods.

But before there was a lawsuit, a piece of legislation introduced two years ago could have made small changes to the baked goods law. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the Assembly after passing in the Senate. According to Smith, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) is the reason why the “cookie bill” won’t hit the House floor.

“That could very well be because he owns his own commercial food business,” known as Rojos Popcorn, Smith told Watchdog.

According to the bill, current law would be modified to allow up to $7,500 in annual homemade baked goods sale. While the proposed legislation isn’t perfect, it could have helped countless Wisconsin residents to earn some extra cash on the side.

According to Dave Schmdt, the executive director of the Wisconsin Bakers Association, the commercial food industry in the state is not happy with the proposed ban lift. “If several people in a certain market or particular community are doing that, they’re eating away at a local baker that’s been there for 100 years and taking away his livelihood,” Schmidt told Wisconsin Public Radio. To Schmidt, that’s simply not fair.

But home bakers also believe that the treatment they get from their own state government isn’t fair either.

To Lisa Kivirist, one of the plaintiffs fighting for her right to bake and sell her homemade goods, the “state’s home-baked-good ban hurts farmers, homemakers and others who just want to help support their family by selling simple goods from their home oven.”

Instead of keeping consumers happy and allowing local economies to gain from the competition, the ban also “prevents customers from buying the fresh and local foods of their choice,” Kivirist stated during a press event at the Capitol.

Current law keeps bakers from selling products that aren’t produced in commercial kitchens. To small outfits, the cost of setting up a commercial kitchen is simply too high. The only exemptions currently in place protect nonprofit groups such as churches or charity organizations. These groups are currently allowed to sell homemade goods, but there’s a catch: they may not put their products up for sale more often than 12 times a year.

State of The Union Address: What this Administration Got Wrong About Obamacare

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

State of The Union Address: What this Administration Got Wrong About Obamacare

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

During President Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address, this administration’s signature healthcare law was seldom brought up. As a matter of fact, little time was dedicated to healthcare overall. But the few references to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have been mostly ignored, suggesting that little to no attention is dedicated to healthcare law as the media focuses on the 2016 presidential election.

But to Brian Blase, Senior Research Fellow with the Spending and Budget Initiative at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the administration’s claims deserve a second look.

In an article for Forbes, Blase looks at how the current programs are performing. With the hopes of helping Americans have a better understanding of ACA and its consequences, the scholar analyses the administration’s claims and reports on his findings.

cooperative

According to the current administration, ACA was designed to fill “the gaps in employer-based care so that when you lose a job, or you go back to school, or you strike out and launch that new business, you’ll still have coverage.” To Blase, however, things aren’t that simple.

If the administration had made the portability of coverage a main priority, the law would not have to be as complex as it is.

Blase also argues that portability as a main goal would have prompted a piece of legislation that would have attracted considerable bipartisan support. Why? Because most healthcare experts on the right and center have always advocated for increased portability, urging lawmakers to severe the ties between insurance and employment.

To Blase, the primary purpose of ACA couldn’t be to keep Americans covered through the several changes they experience if the law standardizes health insurance and ups the requirements concerning coverage levels. By implementing a complicated tax and subsidy system to support ACA, the Obama administration forced consumers to fall prey to distorting price controls that make insurance coverage actually less affordable.

If the administration’s main goal with ACA was to keep people covered no matter what, the law wouldn’t also have been written in a way that increases gross premiums so radically, making low-income earners less likely to get good coverage.

While Blase spent a good deal of time focusing on this particular claim, another subject also caught his eye.

During the address, president Obama claimed that ACA has helped businesses to create jobs, not eliminate them. To Blase, this particular claim is troubling mostly because it’s not necessarily wrong. It’s misleading instead.

Claiming jobs were created because of the enaction of ACA is not a fact, since job growth naturally increased after the deep economic recession the country had just been recovering from when ACA became the law of the land. During the recession, millions of people were kicked out of their jobs, but as confidence grew, more jobs were inevitably created. That’s just a natural consequence of the labor market dynamics and is not at all connected to the enactment of ACA.

If the current administration is, indeed, concerned with how its healthcare programs are performing, Blase suggests, its review of ACA would lead to its repeal. Why? Because ACA is actually a negative pull on the economy.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, ACA will actually shrink the labor market in America. If the congressional projection is correct, two million full-time jobs will be lost due to ACA alone.

Regulations Inhibit Growth, Time to Take The Negative Consequences Seriously

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

Regulations Inhibit Growth, Time to Take The Negative Consequences Seriously

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

Regulations are good, some say. They keep evil elements from hurting consumers. But are regulations doing more harm than good?

By definition, regulations are laws that seek to produce pre-designed outcomes. The way they operate is by changing individuals’ behavior. As federal regulations grow, the number of restrictions on individual consumers and businesses also grow. Over time, the increased number of restrictions may completely close the paths to innovation. Who suffers? Both the consumer and the job seeker.

Regulations

According to a 2013 study, the American regulatory system is so crowded and chaotic that economic growth has slowed by about 2 percent per year between 1949 and 2005. While that doesn’t sound as bad as you might have expected, the real impact of the US regulatory system is hard to assess given the lack of a working process that helps to review regulations and weed out what’s obsolete and harmful. Without a system that helps us identify the issues with the regulations put in place, there’s no way to determine how bad these regulations really are.

While it’s hard to assess the cost of regulation now, earlier studies have at least been able to find that the American regulatory environment has been very bad for growth and very good in stifling innovation and keeping entrepreneurs from sprouting from sea to shining sea.

Despite several administrations’ efforts to modify or cut regulations that simply don’t work, all attempts were in vain.

In order to achieve success, future administrations should not take part in the same failed attempts. According to research carried out by the Mercatus Center, the US government should embrace a series of government reforms in order to remove obstacles to economic growth in America instead.

Based on the success of the Dutch Administrative Burden Reduction Programme and the Base Realignment and Closure Commission’s efforts, the Mercatus team concluded that the American government should begin by promoting an independent review of the regulatory system in place so the burden is assessed promptly and effectively.

But the key to success in this case is true independence.

An independent look into what’s stifling innovation must not be effected by crony influences, since once the influence of particular groups or stakeholders are taken into account, review teams will have a hard time assessing what works and doesn’t. Instead, those tasked with the chore of reviewing regulations should simply focus on how effective regulations have been since they were implemented.

While other steps should also be taken if the US government is serious about trimming the burden of regulations, guaranteed independence in the review process is the most important aspect of successful reforms. If future administrations are serious about growing the economy and helping America prosper, they should prioritize this type of reform. Why? Because removing roadblocks promote the growth of businesses, giving Americans the jobs they so desperately need to live their own version of the American dream.

Use “Venture Buyers” to Show the Hidden Dangers of Government Spending

in Liberator Online, Monetary Policy, One Minute Liberty Tip, Taxes by Sharon Harris Comments are off

Use “Venture Buyers” to Show the Hidden Dangers of Government Spending

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

You’re probably familiar with venture capitalists. But what about “venture buyers”?

I encountered that term this week in an excellent short article entitled “Federal Spending: Now for the Really Bad News” by Forbes Political Economy Editor John Tamny.

“Venture buyers” is a nifty phrase and concept that can be very helpful when you’re trying to persuade skeptics that government spending has terrible consequences.

Traian_vuia_flying_machine

In his article Tamny points out that government spending is not just ridiculously wasteful, bad as that is. It also deprives the people who earned that money of the ability to spend it themselves, on the things they consider most important. And this not only deprives them, it harms the rest of us — in unexpected ways.
One of those ways is that “venture buyers” don’t get to spend their money on new, innovative, risky, expensive and important items.
What are “venture buyers?”

“We sometimes hear them described as ‘first adopters,” Tamny explains. “These are the people with the means to experiment on what is new, frequently expensive, and possibly even life-threatening. Their buying habits tell businesses what consumers want, how they want it, and [by] doing that signal to entrepreneurs where the profits will be if they can turn what is frequently a rare luxury into a common good. But with government so aggressively spending the resources we’ve created… there’s much less ‘easy money’ in our pockets that would reveal our preferences for what is [currently] expensive and largely unknown.”

Venture buyers, then, are the people who are the first to buy new, promising, risky and costly goods and services, try them out, and bring them to the attention of the rest of us. As we watch them using and playing with their new products and toys and benefiting from exciting new services, the rest of us start clamoring for them as well. And businesses are motivated to discover how to quickly lower prices so the rest of us can enjoy them, too.
Venture buyers thus play a huge role in bringing life-changing new products and services to
society.

Think of all the things we commonly use today that began life as expensive and/or startlingly different products only used by those on the bleeding edge. Cars were once crazily expensive and dangerous, as were airplanes. Portable phones were luxuries for the rich. Home computers, VHS players, fax machines, Uber, Airbnb… it’s an endless list.

And an important note: it’s not just fun and seemingly frivolous products that venture buyers popularize. Take health and medicine.

Writes Tamny:

” [C]onsider the health implications of our free spending government. … Thinking about cancer, how much experimentation has never taken place over the last 80 years thanks to government spending having greatly shrunk the total availability of resources necessary for it? Was a cure (or many cures) lost as politicians falsely promised growth through spending on the proverbial bridges, grants, and yes, medical studies to nowhere?”

The more government spends, the less venture buyers have to spend. And that means far less experimenting with new and innovative products and services — including critical and life-saving ones. And that in turn means businesses and entrepreneurs receive far less information about society’s greatest needs and desires — and the best ways to fulfill them.

Of course, we never see the inventions, the cures, the innovations, the services that don’t come into being. We don’t know what we are missing. But we can understand that we are far poorer because of it.

This is a powerful and persuasive indictment of government spending. (There are many others, of course.) I love the catchy, intriguing phrase “venture buyers” and how using it helps explain the little-understood but crucial role early adopters play in raising living standards for everyone.
Share it, and open minds to overlooked dangers of massive government spending.

Immigration is Good for the Economy

in Immigration, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Jackson Jones Comments are off

Immigration is Good for the Economy

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

The Republican presidential race has devolved into a contest about who can spew the most venom at immigrants. Make no mistake about it, the rhetoric on the campaign trail hasn’t been limited to illegal immigrants but even those who came to the United States through the legal process.

immigration at ellis islandMuch of the focus has been on the comments of Donald Trump, the businessman turned celebrity turned presidential candidate turned general annoyance of anyone who wants a serious discussion of the issues facing the United States.

Trump has already accused Mexico of “sending people that have lots of problems,” accusing immigrants from our neighbor to the south of being drug runners and criminals. Of course, that isn’t true. But Trump has continues to spout of this nonsense to appeal to a certain segment of the public that, simply put, just doesn’t like people of color.

On Tuesday evening, for example, Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he wants to eliminate citizenship for children who are born to immigrant parents in the United States. He actually said that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to people “born or naturalized in the United States”, is “unconstitutional.”

“What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” Trump said on The O’Reilly Factor. “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.”

Yes, seriously. He said that, and it’s painfully ignorant of, you know, the Constitution – the “supreme law of the land.”

Other Republicans contenders have made equally asinine comments. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon turned presidential candidate, said he wants to use militarized drones to police the southern border.

“We can use a whole series of things to do that, not just fences and walls but electronic surveillance, drones and many of the techniques that are used to keep people out of top secret places,” Carson told a crowd in Phoenix on Wednesday. “All of those things are available to us. We have the ability to do it; we just don’t have the will to do it. That will change when we have the right administration in place.”

“The reason that is so important—a lot of people think there are just people coming from the south of the border—there are radical global jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life and we have to keep them out. We have to make it not easy for them to get in here. This is a matter of our own security,” he said. “Then once we have that border sealed, we have to turn off the spigot that dispenses the goodies. If there are no goodies, guess what? They won’t come. It won’t be worth trying to get through our borders if there are no goodies. That includes employment—we should make it illegal to employ people in this country who are not legally here.”

Carson’s nativist logic – which has been repeated by a handful of other Republican contenders – is baseless. Immigrants contribute to the economy. A 2006 study conducted by the Texas Comptroller found that immigrants contributed $17.7 billion to the state’s economy and paid $1.58 billion in taxes, more than the $1.16 billion they consumed in services.

On the whole, immigration, much like trade, is a net-benefit for the economy. This doesn’t mean that immigration reform proposals in previous congresses were worth passing, but as a general principle, immigration is a good thing. Republican candidates need to stop demagoguing this issue and propose serious policies to educate to the party’s base rather than appealing to the lowest common dominator of it.

Obama Is Wrong: Marijuana Re-Legalization Is No Joke

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the Activist Ammunition section in Volume 20, No. 12 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

“Every so often, President Obama is confronted with young Americans who favor legalizing marijuana,” notes Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic magazine, in an enlightening short article entitled “Obama’s Critique of Young People Who Want Legal Marijuana.”

“He typically treats their enthusiasm for the issue as a joke, despite the fact that he almost certainly wouldn’t be a successful politician today if he’d been arrested and convicted for smoking marijuana … in his youth.”

Friedersdorf points to the latest example of our ex-pot-smoking Drug-Warrior-in-Chief doing this: an interview Obama did in mid-March with VICE News founder Shane Smith. When Smith told Obama that marijuana re-legalization was the number one issue online readers said they wanted addressed, Obama’s reply was again condescending:

“It shouldn’t be young people’s biggest priority,” the President said. “Let’s put it in perspective. Young people, I understand this is important to you. But you should be thinking about climate change, the economy, jobs, war and peace. Maybe way at the bottom you should be thinking about marijuana.”

Wrong, says Friedersdorf. He reverses Obama’s argument:

“The young people to whom Obama addressed himself would be fully justified in reversing the criticism: ‘Given challenges like climate change, an uncertain economy, joblessness, and war, how can you justify spending perhaps $160 billion over the course of your tenure on marijuana prohibition? Isn’t it the federal government, not us young people, that has irrationally prioritized marijuana policy? We’re fighting for a more rational allotment of resources, where government funds are directed away from weed and toward challenges you listed as more pressing.’”

Further, Friedersdorf points out, young people may not have settled opinions, agreement, and effective political strategies for action on the problems Obama lists. But on the re-legalization issue, they are already in agreement and having major success, winning re-legalization battles in several states and winning public opinion. Plus the solution is straightforward and the benefits tremendous. And, he notes, “If they mobilize, they have a realistic chance of ending prohibition in the next decade [and] that would meaningfully enrich the lives of many millions of people here and abroad.”

So why shouldn’t young people press forward on this issue? Is it sensible to wait for the climate debate to be settled and solved, war to be halted and world peace achieved, and jobs and prosperity to be available to all — before dealing with the far simpler-to-solve issue of marijuana re-legalization?

Conor Friedersdorf’s excellent short article has much more of interest on this, and includes a link to the full VICE News interview with President Obama.

Are You Waiting for Our Libertarian Ship to Come In?

in Communicating Liberty, Liberator Online by Michael Cloud Comments are off

(From the Persuasion PowerPoint section in Volume 19, No. 9 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

big ship“Big Government is unsustainable,” said one libertarian. “It’ll collapse and that’s when we’ll get liberty.”

“I’m part of the Remnant,” said another. “Liberty is doomed…for now. My job is to quietly share libertarianism until the world is ready for liberty.”

“Our tax-burdened, regulation-strangled economy can’t last,” said a third. “When it falls apart, liberty will march in.”

Passive waiting is NOT a strategy. Nor even a good choice — if you want freedom in our lifetime.

You have to send out ships — if you want our ship to come in.

Do you know where the phrase “waiting for my ship to come in” came from?

In the 19th Century, English investors and entrepreneurs built huge sailing ships. It took months to build them, months to stock them with trading goods and provisions, and months to hire a good captain and crew.

Then these ships were launched to seek out foreign producers and traders. To exchange English goods for gold and silver and jewels, for silk and spices and other precious things.

Some of the ships hit reefs and sank. Others were destroyed by storms. Some were seized by pirates. Others mutinied — and went to Australia.

There were no shortwave radios. No telegraphs. No cell phones. No way to communicate with the ships until they returned to England.

“Waiting for my ship to come in” was coined by those who sent their ships out.

How many ships have you sent out? How many have you helped make ready to launch?

For our libertarian ships to come in, we must first send out many more seaworthy ships.

Have you acquired an Operation Politically Homeless (OPH) libertarian outreach kit for your local libertarian organization? OPH is a proven, tested way to discover new libertarian-leaning people and bring them into the liberty movement. That’s one ship sent out.

If you’re a student, the Advocates is giving OPH kits FREE to any campus libertarian organization that agrees to use them a minimum of three times in the coming year. Have you requested one for your campus group? That’s a second ship sent out.

Have you volunteered to work at an OPH booth? That’s a third ship sent out. (AND the most fun you can have with your clothes on.)

Have you forwarded thought-provoking articles from the Liberator Online to interested friends? That’s a fourth ship launched.

Have you bought an Advocates book or product — say, Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion — for libertarian friends and acquaintances? For their birthdays? Or just because? That’s a fifth ship. (And a handbook on “shipbuilding” for liberty.)

Work for liberty! Send out more and more ships. And you will stand a much better chance that YOUR libertarian ship will come in — and that you will have liberty in our lifetime.

* * * * * * * *
Unlocking More Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion by Michael CloudMichael Cloud’s latest book Unlocking More Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion is available exclusively from the Advocates, along with his acclaimed earlier book Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion.

In 2000, Michael was honored with the Thomas Paine Award as the Most Persuasive Libertarian Communicator in America.