So What Do I Stand For, You Ask?

A very brief overview of what I stand for:

• Free markets
• Capitalism
• Entrepreneurship
• Economic competition
• Civil liberties
• Methodological individualism
• Marginalism
• laissez-faire
• Personal freedoms 
• Freedom of choice
• Freedom of expression
• Free trade
• Completely privatized educational system with a "voucher"-type program and the localization thereof
• Parental control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education
• Property rights
• Free-market, privatized banking
• More social and economic freedom
• Fiscal conservatism
• Abolition of minimum wage laws or at least the lowering thereof
• Abolition of the current Social Security and Medicare systems in favor of voluntary, privatized systems, or at least the ability to opt out of these tax-financed systems.
• Abolition of tax-financed subsidization of political candidates or political parties
• Abolition of our "welfare state"
• Auditing of the Fed and SEC
• Privatized "charity" and "welfare" institutions
• Privatization of all "public" works and goods
• Smaller government - limited government intervention
• Governmental protection of individual rights, liberties, and property
• Governmental adjudication of legal disputes
• Governmental provision and protection of a legal framework upon which the free market rests
• Governmental control over the immigration of those who could potentially threaten or infringe upon health, security, or property
• Voluntary assumption of personal risk
• Virtually no governmental subsidization of any business, labor, or interest group
• Free-market-governed industry
• Free-market-governed health care
• Political antitrust laws
• Individual responsibility of retirement planning and income security
• No governmental interference or arbitration in the labor market
• Less concentration of power
• True, representative democracy
• Right to bear arms
• No ridiculous import tariffs or quotas
• No ridiculous inflationary monetary policies
• No ridiculous "entitlements"
• No ridiculous "bailouts"
• No war on drugs, in favor of the potential subsidization of drug education as opposed to imprisonment
• Adherence to the original Bill of Rights
• Adherence to the original Constitution
• No limitation, suppression, or misinterpretation of the original Constitution 
• Bring all our troops home
• Limited or no international interventionism without an invitation/request
• Get government out of our wallets
• Less taxes and a simpler tax code
• Abolition of our ridiculous income tax system to be replaced by a simple national sales tax.

You will notice that many of these reflect Libertarianism, with some minor differences, which is why, even though I dislike labels, I consider myself a Liberty Republican (Republitarian).


Best,
Tyler

10 Disasters of the 2009 Obama Administration

In no particular order:

1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post Office loses money
5. Economic Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Check out 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush Administration.

10 Disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush Administration

In no particular order:

1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post Office loses money
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Check out 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama Administration.

Armchair Economics - The Failure of the American Education System and the Ultimate Solution

One of the biggest issues we hear about all the time is the failure of the American education system to produce successful passing rates and actually give our children a quality education within a quality environment and facility. The main problem is that the government subsidizes the producer, not the consumer. In this case, the producer is the school, and the consumer is the student. Let me explain.

When the government pays for public schools, they generally provide the minimum amount of funds necessary to build the school, which is why you see schools that are basically dumps on the nightly news. The system demands that a child attend a particular public school based on where he or she resides, disabling them from being able to choose to go to another school for a potentially higher quality of education.

If government subsidized the consumer side of the market for education, if they gave money to the student, he or she would be able to choose where to go to school. Obviously the child and the parents thereof would want to choose the best quality school with the best teachers and the best facilities; this would create competition. Schools would compete to meet the needs of the student in the best way. Quality and quantity would be ensured across the board, as subsidizing the student would provide an incentive for schools to work to outdo the other schools. As such, prices would be forced down as low as the competition would allow, and the quality of schooling would skyrocket consequently.

This form of system would also enhance credentialism and meritocracy for teachers and students, which would further improve the quality of the education and learning environment provided. The current educational system causes many students to drop out before even completing high school, thus condemning them to low-income jobs and an overall lower standard of living. Everyone in society is worse off as a result. Illiteracy is widespread. For this reason, the educational system should be largely privatized. The parents and their kids must be free to choose the school, not the other way around.

A privatized educational system would also significantly reduce poverty by allowing the poor and those in parts of town that are forced to go to the 'inferior' school to achieve better quality schooling than they currently receive. Some parents still hold that their child's public school is "good," but that's simply because they don't know the alternatives, or because we've lowered the standardized rating of test scores across the board. But when the real test, the international test, is implemented, the truth comes out. When put up against 41 other countries, American students do just as well...up until the 4th grade. Then, from the 5th grade on, American students score far less than the other countries that spend much less on education than we do.

Privatizing education would also increase the salaries of teachers who try hard - credentialism and meritocracy, again. In terms of basic principles of economics, it's all about incentives. Pay would be based on productivity. That is, a great teacher will be paid more than a poor teacher, or the poor teacher will simply be fired to be replaced by a more qualified teacher. This gives the teachers an incentive to further their own education and qualifications. If the teachers know more and are better at teaching, the students learn more, and are able to ascertain higher paying jobs that require more skills, which the students will then have as a result of their higher quality of education, thus society as a whole becomes better off. Do you see the pattern here?

If the school is autonomous, it is free to hire and fire and choose and try out new things and experiment to get the best results possible. One myth is that the schools are "underfunded." That's all we hear nowadays. But with an average annual spending of $10,000 per student, which results in about $200,000 per classroom of 20 students, 3 or 4 teachers could be hired! Per-pupil spending has more than doubled in the last 30 years, while test scores and graduation rates remain flat.

It has been shown time and time again that private, alternative, charter, and independent schools do far better and cost far less than the highly bureaucratized government schools. Private systems like Sylvan Learning flourish. Public schooling cause some parents to go to the black market for their child's schooling and break the law by falsifying their residential address just to attempt to get their son or daughter a better education. The aforementioned countries that beat America in the international tests do allow the parents and students to choose, and they do much better and get a much better education as a result. Those countries don't leave any child behind, while America leaves many behind.

People have choices in many other areas, like what cell phone plan to get, or what food to buy, or what brand of computer to buy. Why not allow the same choice for education? The highest level of dissatisfaction and the subsequent inefficiency occurs at monopolies and government institutions, like motor vehicle departments and post offices, where there is really no incentive for the producer to 'perform.' Without competition, nothing really gets done. This concept applies to the education system just as much.

Teachers all across the board get paid the same independent of whether or not they are good teachers. The unionized teachers' contracts make it nearly impossible to fire most teachers, so they get away with many things that society and parents frown upon. Unionized monopolies ultimately fail. The education union does not allow the necessary changes to occur, and students suffer greatly because of it. Competition increases quality, quantity, and sustainability, and makes everything better.

Stick around for more at Armchair Economics.



Best,
Tyler

The REAL Cause of The Great Depression

Nine out of ten Americans seem to believe that the Great Depression was caused by the failure of private business or an excessive concentration of wealth of the elite profiteers and that it was necessary for government to step in and fix the free market. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The Great Depression was caused by the failure of government and the failure of the Federal Reserve.

How did this unbelievable myth become so widespread? Simply put, the free market and private enterprise have no press agents, whereas the government and the Federal Reserve have many. The Fed simply didn't want to admit a mistake of controlling currency and overextending credit.

Stick around for more on Armchair Economics.

"Price Gouging" = Nonsense

Washington loves to condemn "price gouging," whatever that is... A great example lies in the aftermath of Katrina, when prices for gas and water in the area rose sharply. Politicians were quick to bad-mouth the gas stations and water sellers for acquiring "excess profits" and wanted to immediately implement anti-"gouging" policies. If you want to punish the seemingly mean, greedy profiteers, then these laws would appear to be a good thing. But if you're one of the people that the laws attempt to "protect" from this "price gouging" thing, you're not going to be very well off. Allow me to explain.

Let's pretend for a second that you were a Katrina victim that is in desperate need of water. You go to the store to buy a bottle of water for $1, but there's a problem:  all the water's gone. Everyone's already bought it all up. So you continue your quest until you run into the infamous monster known as the Price Gouger, who is charging $20 per bottle for his water that was only $1 just last week. You pay the $20 to survive and enjoy your water as you go on your way.

You hate the Price Gouger, but if he hadn't "gouged" his prices, he'd have been all out of water, and you would have died. His "gouging" saved you because he was looking out for himself, because he was trying to make a profit. I cannot stress this point enough, as it seems to permeate all my articles. One man's profiting allows everyone to profit. You are now better off (alive) because of the Price Gouger's seeming malevolence. Everyone else was out buying water before you were. Everyone stocked up, thus every store's water supply diminished. Only the Price Gouger had a small supply of water, because his seemingly high price allocated the water, a scarce commodity in this example, to those who wanted and needed it most.

A price is the best, most efficient way to allocate a scarce resource, which is one of the most basic principles of economics. Politicians don't seem to understand this. They think those who are helping society are actually hurting it by being profiteers. Sure, some may give out of the kindness of their heart, but we can't depend on benevolence. As Adam Smith once said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

See, it's all about supply, demand, and opportunity cost. Why would the carpenters and roofers and electricians and plumbers leave their homes in some other state to go all the way to New Orleans to work if they couldn't make more money than they were already making at home. It would make no sense. If they couldn't, they simply wouldn't go to New Orleans. Politicians just don't understand basic principles of economics. Sure, you may have the would-be heroes who want to come help for a low price, but as I said, we can't depend on benevolence week after week. Those people have to eat too, ya know.

These anti-"gouging" laws are just another form of a price ceiling. If you force prices down, you force suppliers out. If you let the free market work, suppliers are plentiful, and the prices are guaranteed to be as low as the competition allows. As such, it is the "price gougers" who provide the water, gasoline, carpentry, and the like when necessary. The "price gougers" save lives.

"Caring vs. Uncaring"

Nothing is more beautiful than a flawless, concise illustration of a particular concept. This is exactly what I ran across many years ago in an article by Dr. Walter Williams titled "Caring vs. Uncaring." The article and the argument therein perfectly corroborate my post about capitalism and its benefits. This post is somewhat of a summary of the article.

As I have argued and will continue to argue, capitalism and the free market system make for the most efficient outcomes, specifically the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. It leads to the best outcome for every individual in society. But let me suspend this belief for a moment to entertain an alternative proposition. What about the seemingly selfless Mother Theresa or the admirable work of the Red Cross or The Salvation Army or charities?

"In December 1999, Stephen Moore and Julian L. Simon wrote an article titled "The Greatest Century That Ever Was," published by the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute. In it they report: Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 30 years; annual deaths from major killer diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, typhoid, whooping cough and pneumonia fell from 700 to fewer than 50 per 100,000 of the population; agricultural workers fell from 41 to 2.5 percent of the workforce; household auto ownership rose from one to 91 percent; household electrification rose from 8 to 99 percent; controlling for inflation, household assets rose from $6 trillion to $41 trillion between 1945 and 1998. These are but a few of the wonderful things that have occurred during the 20th century."

How did all these things come about? Hopefully the answer is pretty obvious. These things came about not because of selfless donation, but because of capitalism and its principles. People weren't concerned for others. They looked out for number one. People's attempts to profit allowed everyone to profit. I use my computer just about every single day. Do you think the laborers in Japan or China or wherever it was made simply wanted to make me happy? Or that the manufacturing company just wanted to help the world by providing affordable computers? No! They make sure that I can enjoy my cheap computer because in doing so they make sure that they themselves are better off. Essentially, in terms of the basic principles of economics, an increased producer surplus means an increased consumer surplus.

As such, all those wonderful things that came about during the 20th century were the result of humans pursuing profits. The unfortunate fact is that bureaucracy has rendered "profit" a dirty word, whereas "nonprofits" appear righteous and morally whole. I get so tired of hearing statements along the lines of "So-and-So is a nonprofit organization." Ok, does that mean they are completely selfless and righteous? Absolutely not. It is for this reason that privatized charities and such and more efficient. Well, really, most of the time, privatized everything is more efficient.

The politicians and liberal media have caused the word "profit" to have extremely negative connotations simply because most people don't understand the purpose and importance of profits. Think of it this way. Which sort of institutions produce the greatest amount of consumer satisfaction, grocery stores and computer manufacturers and clothing stores and the like or things like public post offices and motor vehicle departments? I think everyone can agree that it is the former. The survival of those institutions depends on profiting and in turn pleasing the average, everyday consumer like you and me. The latter examples do not.

Obviously markets don't always produce perfect results, "but they're the closest we'll
come to perfection here on Earth."

Read more at Armchair Economics.

A simple, concise explanation of libertarianism by John Stossel

What Am I? by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

The Racist Tax

One of the creative constituents of the new health care bill that has been the recent topic of conversation is the 10% tax on tanning. Tanning salon owners are outraged, and feel they are being unfairly targeted by the tax. While that is true, there are a few slightly more significant effects to consider.

To cite some basic principles of economics, the tax will raise the price of tanning to the consumer significantly, thus demand will decrease and the result will be a significant decrease in the number of mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. In doing so, the tax is detrimental to the welfare of society overall. Both parties suffer. The salon owner's profits shrink (his or her employees may also see a reduction in pay), and the consumer is forced to shell out more money for each visit to soak up some rays.

The main purpose of this post, however, is to reiterate the notion that Doc Thompson recently pointed out - that the 10% tax is the most fundamentally racist policy constituent Washington has ever produced in our twenty-first-century society.

“Why would the president of the United States of America - a man who says he understands racism, a man who has been confronted by racism - why would he sign such a racist law?”

See, dark skinned people have no use for tanning beds, therefore only whites are taxed as a result. This upsetting example of racism calls to attention the other hidden taxes we pay and often forget about, such as taxes on gasoline, travel, and fishing. Isn't it comforting to know that for every $1.00 you spend on a jar of peanut butter you pay $1.43 in import taxes?

The tanning tax is one of the many examples of government policy that defies the framework of the Constitution. Apparently all men are not created equal.

Enjoy the rest of Armchair Economics.


Best,
Tyler

Armchair Economics - Why the Minimum Wage Hurts Everyone and Causes Unemployment

Proponents of a higher minimum wage ignorantly believe it will help teenagers and minorities. In fact, the opposite is true. This post is a somewhat brief overview of why and how the minimum wage and the raising thereof actually hurts low-skilled workers in terms of unemployment.


On the surface level, raising the minimum wage increases the cost of labor across the board and makes it more expensive for firms to hire workers. At first glance (the only glance Washington ever takes), raising the minimum wage is very attractive to the average person and to politicians. It'll put more money in the pockets of a low-skilled laborer, they say. Upon analysis using some basic principles of economics, however, the proposition seems the opposite of beneficial.


The laws of supply and demand dictate behavior in society whether we want them to or not, folks. As one of my economics professors once said, the basic principles of economics are always at work. This concept is just as much armchair economics as it is technical jargon. When the minimum wage is raised, employers look for employees with more skills that are more productive to offset the increased cost of that labor. Thus, they hire less low-skilled workers. You see, in essence, a minimum wage law is effectively an example of a price floor. In terms of economics, it creates an immediate shortage of jobs and a surplus of potential laborers. What is even less obvious is the fact that the more the minimum wage is raised, the more attractive a minimum-wage-rate job becomes to a previously unemployed high-skilled worker, decreasing the amount of available jobs even further.

Yet another effect that is unnoticed is a possible slight increase in prices. Most companies will most likely choose to not go this route, but some will. People tend to forget that the money to cover the increased wages must come from somewhere; it does not just magically materialize from nothing. Washington often forgets this fact as well. As stated, some companies may choose to raise their prices which offsets the costs to the consumer, thus the total utility (benefit) to society is decreased. Employers, if the minimum wage is raised high enough, may even go so far as to outsource labor to foreign countries, hire illegal immigrants, or pay their employees under the table. As such, the only groups I can think of that would actually benefit from a raising of the minimum wage is illegal immigrants and workers in foreign countries.


Another group that would benefit is politicians, but hell, they benefit from virtually every policy they put into effect. They and their respective voters and supporters seem to believe they are on some moral high horse, stating that they want to help teens and minorities. This is ignorance at its best. Not only do they say one thing and do another, but they almost always don't even understand the ramifications of what they do.

Humans respond to incentives. Raising the minimum wage gives more people the incentive to disregard pursuing a valuable education. In doing so, young people set themselves up to 'live poorly' in the long run. And no, minimum wage hikes do not decrease poverty. Sure, previously poor families that experience a pay raise may escape poverty, but previously non-poor families will eventually fall below the poverty line in accordance with the aforementioned incentive effect, thus a minimum wage hike hurts everyone in society in the long run.


I would even go so far as to argue that in theory there should be no minimum wage, and that wages in most fields (obviously there would be exceptions) should be allocated based on the productivity of the employee. This occurs in the field of sales with a thing called commission. This system would allow the most productive workers, essentially the hardest workers, to earn the most money. If I were an employer, I would absolutely implement this system in every way possible. I believe this system would make employers more profitable as well, which is again a good thing for society. After all, we do live in a world surrounded by meritocracy and credentialism, for the most part. It's fair, as high pay rates are reserved for those who want and need it the most. How's that for morality and economics!


But Tyler, how will people live? Let the government subsidize education, internships, housing, or food (they already do much of this), and encourage low-skilled workers to become educated so that they can achieve higher paying jobs. This would also effectively decrease the number of low-skilled workers and increase the number of available minimum wage jobs, thus helping teens and minorities even more.


If you are a relatively productive worker, present this idea to your employer; your rate of pay may increase if he agrees. If not, however, do everything you can to keep the concept under wraps, as you will probably see a reduction in pay or get fired when he or she recognizes the extremely fallible system.

Below is a video featuring Milton Friedman, one of the most knowledgeable, most respected economists in history, and his take on the minimum wage.

Armchair Economics - Why Social Security and Medicare Comprise the Largest Ponzi Scheme In History

Unless you've been living in a box for the last 5 or so years, you've heard all the complaints thrown around about Social Security and its inevitable failure. The government forced upon us this entitlement that we don't ask for that's supposed to provide us with some money when we get old. This is a brief overview of the utter failure of this unwanted entitlement.

Many people I've talked to don't even understand how this horrible system works. They seem to think that the money you pay in FICA goes into some "account" that you have access to later in life. This could not be further from the truth. Essentially, Social Security and Medicare comprise the largest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen, in which the youth of today are supposed to pay for the retirement of the current elderly, as well as wars, welfare, and corporate bailouts. The problem that has been pointed out recently is the fact that life expectancy, as well as the American population, has increased drastically, and will continue too. People aren't dying, and we can't afford to pay them anything. The government refuses to pay anything because they've spent it all. The more victims that get sucked in, the larger the entire Ponzi scheme becomes. The system takes in more than it can pay out. Currently Medicare is responsible for a $36 trillion unfunded liability, and Social Security's is $8 trillion.

Do not fear, however. The brilliant Democrats have a plan! In a nutshell, their proposed solution to avert insolvency is to dump more money into the failing system, thereby increasing its magnitude. They want to tax the youth until the economy crashes further, and, if not, they'll just print so much money to where it's not even worth the paper it's printed on.

If he answered honestly about the system, I can see President Obama shrugging and borrowing the words of Bernie Madoff:  "The money's all gone."

 A bit from FBN about this issue:

Armchair Economics - "The Iowa Car Crop"

Landsburg's beautifully-painted metaphorical summary of the flawless argument of David Friedman illustrates politicians' and the general public's widespread ignorance and economic illiteracy, and simplifies a seemingly complex issue with some basic principles of economics.

Politicians and government officials hate technology. What? Yes, they hate technology in that they view international trade and its subsequent act of importing as being bad. International trade is simply a form of technology that is a product of a free market economy. I will try to do a longer post or two in the next few weeks on international trade, this one is just a simple illustration of one of the most significant basic principles of economics.

Everyone knows that we manufacture cars in the United States in factories, but most people don't realize that we also produce cars in fields in Iowa. We plant seeds from which the cars grow, a few months later the seeds turn into wheat which we harvest and load onto ships that disappear into the horizon of the Pacific Ocean. A few months later the ships reappear with brand new Toyotas.

International trade is merely a form of technology that allows us greedy self-interested Americans to get what we want. This is a good thing. The country of Japan and their factories and workers are all factors irrelevant to the welfare of individuals in America. The concept is as simple as wheat being converted into cars. As such, policies that prefer the first form of technology over the second are essentially policies that favor the manufacturers in Detroit over the manufacturers in Iowa.

Thus Detroit and Iowa are competitors, and a free market system allows production to be allocated to the most efficient producers when their marginal costs are equal, which results in a maximization of efficiency as well as a maximization of benefit to the consumer (individuals). Now obviously there are those that prefer an Impala from Detroit over a Corolla from Iowa, but essentially that is irrelevant here as well.

This example illustrates an important concept:  Trade theory dictates that if you attempt to protect domestic producers in a particular industry from foreign competition, you must hurt domestic producers in other industries. And in doing so, their is a net loss of total efficiency and total utility (benefit).

Next time someone asks you about your Toyota, explain to them how and why it was manufactured in Iowa and not in Japan.


Best,
Tyler