Rural People Want Separation and Freedom from Elite City Overlords

/in , , , , , /by


Here is one example of where rural people are fighting back, even if it seems like it is a hopeless case.
I expect it is happening in other states too.
From The Hill:

Group in Colorado county seeks secession from state to join Wyoming

A group of disenfranchised Colorado residents are exploring the possibility of annexing from their home state and changing boundary lines so their entire county becomes part of Wyoming.
Christopher “Todd” Richards is leading the effort with his “Weld County Wyoming” political committee, created last February, according to local outlet Fox 31 KDVR.
The organization is working to get a measure added to the November 2021 ballot that would encourage county commissioners to “engage and explore the annexation of Weld County with the State of Wyoming’s Legislature.”
The purpose of the measure is to “get out from under the thumb” of Colorado’s more liberal government, according to the group’s Facebook page.
“Can this be done? Yes, it can be done. Is it going to be easy? No,” Richards said during a meeting posted to YouTube in November.

Whether it can be done or not, this is the kind of thing many rural communities should be pushing because it helps to educate Americans about how rural people, the country class, have had enough and they are fighting back.
It is a warning shot to the elitists, a warning to the ruling class, and one that does garner mainstream media attention.
By the way, for those who do not follow my Refugee Resettlement blog here is a little factoid.  Wyoming is the only state in the nation that does not resettle refugees and never has in the forty years the UN and the feds have been spreading the third world to rural America.
RELATED ARTICLE: Rep. Gaetz In Wyoming: ‘It’s The Establishment Against The Rest Of Us’
EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Cuomo’s Latest Tax Hike Proposal Would Accelerate New York’s Decline

/in , , , , , , /by


New Yorkers had a rough, rough 2020. Governor Andrew Cuomo’s latest proposal would make 2021 even worse.
“New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed raising taxes on the wealthy to a combined level of 14.7%, which would be the highest state-and-local tax rate in the nation,” CNBC reports. “The tax increase would raise $1.5 billion for the state, Cuomo said Tuesday in an address unveiling his 2022 budget proposal.”


The tax increases would apply to those who earn more than $5 million a year. If implemented, New Yorkers would officially beat California for the top state and local tax rate in the nation; the Golden State currently comes in at 13.3 percent.
Governor Cuomo says the tax increases are necessary because unless the federal government passes a full bailout for the $15 billion state budget hole New York has created, it will have a large deficit to plug.
“New York cannot manage a $15 billion deficit,” Cuomo said. “It’s beyond what we can do.”
The governor favors hiking taxes on “the rich” rather than closing the budget gap solely by cutting spending.

Even before these proposed hikes, the Empire State already has the highest overall tax burden—beyond just income taxes—nationwide and one of the highest costs of living. The situation has only worsened during the COVID-19 crisis, with huge losses of life, in part due to the governor’s mandate forcing nursing homes to accept COVID-19-positive patients. And, drastic lockdowns imposed irrespective of actual pandemic data have ruined New York City’s economy and the cultural vibrancy that made it so appealing pre-pandemic.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that people are fleeing in droves.
More than 300,000 people have left the city, according to official filings. Informal measures like U-Haul data similarly show New Yorkers moving elsewhere en masse. An astounding $34 billion in income left the area in 2020.
Over the summer, Governor Cuomo was literally reduced to calling up wealthy residents who’d fled and begging them to come back to New York City—even offering to cook for them and buy them drinks.

New York state officials should be doing everything they can to reverse this troubling trend; cutting taxes; removing regulations; expanding education options. If Cuomo successfully implements his tax hikes, though, it will only result in more people leaving the Empire State.
Why? It’s simple.
A tax proposal cannot be evaluated simply on its raw numbers. One must also take into account how it would change people’s behavior.
Successful people are not automatons; if anything, they are the most responsive and mobile members of society. And other thriving states like Florida and Texas offer not just warmer weather than New York, but zero state income taxes. It’s only natural that increased tax rates will prompt more people to leave the Empire State; nobody likes paying taxes or wants to have more of their money taken away. Even the super rich.
This will hurt the entire state, which will lose not only residents, but also their wealth, spending, investment, and businesses (aka jobs).
Ironically, the tax increase may not even raise the $1.5 billion in revenue that Cuomo hopes. Sometimes, an increase in income tax rates can actually decrease income-generating activity so much that overall tax revenues fall. This was the famous insight of economist Art Laffer, who served on Ronald Reagan’s board of economic advisors. We can’t know for sure whether it would apply here—taxes always disincentivize income earning, but only sometimes result in less tax revenue—but it’s certainly cause to be skeptical of Governor Cuomo’s revenue projections.

However, Governor Cuomo’s backward policy proposal has implications that reach much wider than just New York state and its most successful citizens. It’s another reminder that when it comes to government policy, incentives matter.
“Our economic verities have remained forever,” Laffer once explained. “They go back to caveman, pre-cavemen. Incentives matter: If you reward an activity, then people do more of it. If you punish an activity, people do less of it.”
This is why progressives often promote cigarette taxes or carbon taxes. They, at least in this setting, acknowledge that taxing something naturally discourages its consumption and production—you get less of it. Why does anyone want to do that for income?
The timeless economic reality of incentives doesn’t just call Cuomo’s tax hike on high earners into question. It ought to make us reconsider whether we should be punishing wealth-creation through taxing income at all.
COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
RELATED TWEET:


RELATED VIDEO: Covid and Many Humans’ Yearning to be Slaves.

Biden Chooses Elites Over Workers

/in , , /by

Within hours of saying “So help me God,” the newly minted President Joe Biden, with the stroke of his pen, added thousands of American blue-collar, middle-class workers to the unemployment line while the coronavirus continues to rage.

Among a blizzard of executive orders signed on Inauguration Day afternoon, the president canceled the Keystone XL pipeline under construction to transport Canadian oil to the continental U.S. and halted the building of the wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.

Mr. Biden also re-committed the United States to the spurious Paris Climate Accord that mandates the U.S. and other western industrialized nations—but not China and India, our global economic competitors—to reduce carbon emissions. Also in the works is a moratorium on new energy development leases on federal lands and waters.

Shutting the Keystone pipeline, re-entering the Paris Treaty, and imposing energy moratoriums will make thousands of Americans jobless, increase the price of energy for American households and companies, and make the U.S. more dependent on energy from overseas. This is only the beginning salvo of the Biden administration’s declaration of war on American energy that fuels its job market and economy.

Stopping the completion of the southern border wall is one of many steps President Biden will take to increase illegal immigration, which will harm American jobs and wage growth. It is no coincidence that by the end of 2019, before the pandemic hit, lower immigration contributed to historically low unemployment rates across the board, especially among minority and blue collar workers. Concomitantly, hourly wages for Americans had the largest growth in decades.

The great labor union leaders of yesteryear such as John L. Lewis, Lane Kirkland, Leon Bates, and so many others must be turning in their graves. At least some of their successors are rightly critical.

Terry O’Sullivan, for instance, the General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), called Biden’s Keystone cancellation “insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members who will lose good-paying, middle-class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project and pandering to environmental extremists, a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be forgone.”

Mr. Sullivan further pointed out that the pipeline would eventually have been operated by the T.C. Energy company using renewable energy, and that there are no renewable energy jobs that come even close to replacing the wages and benefits being lost by his union members. He hopes that the Biden administration “will not continue to allow environmental extremists to control our country’s energy agenda at the expense of union construction workers being forced to the unemployment lines.”

Such hope is a vain exercise. Environmental extremists indeed control President Joe Biden, as his early, cold-blooded actions reveal.

For example, Bill McKibben is thrilled, precisely because he’s one of those “environmental extremists” President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are so eager to please over the interests of working people. Mr. McKibben, you may remember, heads the Green group “350.org” and was portrayed as an elitist hypocrite in the Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans, which exposed the fallacy of “renewable energy.”

In celebrating the Keystone cancellation, McKibben pointed out that it is the latest victory in “these infrastructure battles,” in which the Greens also have “added delay and cost to these projects.”

Then there is the nation’s largest business lobby, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which revealed its schizophrenia over Biden’s day-one assault on the American economy. The Chamber supports re-entry to the Paris agreement, but at least acknowledged that shutting the Keystone project “is a politically motivated decision that is not grounded in science [and] will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work.”

There also are serious foreign policy implications with the Keystone cancellation and other climate actions. Candidate Biden promised to take “immediate steps to renew [our] alliances [and] protect our economic future.” Yet he immediately poked the eye of Canada, one of our closest allies, while oil-producing nations like Russia and Iran stand to gain economically.

Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who was never a friend of the Trump administration, criticized Biden’s action on Keystone. Count on our northern neighbor to respond by putting more of its fossil fuel abundance on westbound trains for overseas shipment to China and other eastern nations. A further irony is that transporting oil by rail and cargo ships is far less environmentally friendly than by pipeline.

President Biden is off to an ominous beginning with his executive orders on climate and energy. CFACT warned early and often this was coming. His actions reveal he cares more for the concerns of politically powerful environmental elites than for the livelihoods of American workers and consumers who will pay with their lost jobs and higher energy costs.

Fasten your seatbelts, America. There is plenty more to come, and it won’t be pretty.

*****

This article originally appeared in CFACT on January 26, 2021, and is reproduced with permission. CFACT is the Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow.

A Short Case for Owning Gold

/in , /by

Whether by fraud or by legitimate political will, our nation has taken a turn to the political Left.

We should all do our civic duty to the best of our ability, given the constraints of time and personal resources, to preserve liberty for ourselves and for our children. That is a duty to be fulfilled, not a leisure activity.

But the road will be long and difficult and while we are confident freedom will win in the end, there will likely be many setbacks. These negative trends will take some time to reverse.

Therefore, each of us must acknowledge to some degree, the influence these political trends will have on our personal lives.

Without sound finances, a family has little time or resources to assist in the cause of liberty.  Therefore, we at The Prickly Pear will increase our coverage of matters relating to personal finance and the general finances of the country.

We will convey a variety of views because no one person has the information to provide complete answers. These will be opinions to be weighed. The actual decision to implement such decisions depend on personal circumstance and thus must be determined by the reader only and his or her financial advisor.

We are concerned that our nation seems to be ignoring the soaring debts we are accumulating and ignoring the underfunded nature of our Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid systems.

It seems there has been a concern about this for years and little if anything is ever done about it.  The value of our money has slowly eroded. Using the government’s own numbers, something that cost $100 dollars in 1970, would cost today over $670.

However, of late, both Republicans and Democrats seem to avoid discussion of the issue. Republicans generally ignore it while Democrats propose even more new spending schemes. Neither has there been much concern about inflation. An important new book has just been released in that regard has recently been reviewed at The Prickly Pear (The Great Demographic Reversal) and we urge you to read that review and think about the arguments put forward.

However, as a concrete step, if you have not already acquired some gold and silver, we suggest you consider it. American Precious Metals is one of our sponsors. If you have not already established a relationship with a gold provider, you may wish to look them up.

With all that being said, the following is a short case for why you should consider acquiring some exposure to the gold market. Many of the same arguments can be made about silver as well. You should consider having some of each.

No one seems to care about debt and deficits. It hardly came up as an issue in the last political cycle.

Yet, the U.S., the issuer of the reserve currency for the world, has taken a sharp turn to the political Left. Socialism is on the rise.

The U.S. will be seen to be increasingly in a new Cold War with China. Unlike the Soviet Union, which was an economic basket case, China is growing more powerful every day.

The U.S. is caught in the classic vice of ancient empires. We are stuck between large military expenditures and an expensive welfare state at home.

As suggested in the book review noted above, demographics are now conspiring to raise spending for the elderly on the backs of a shrinking workforce. Higher labor costs and higher inflation are likely ahead.

Interest rates are likely to start to rise with inflation, putting real pressure on a global debt bubble that has grown to enormous proportions because of prolonged zero interest rate policies.

The policymakers will have to choose between default and inflation, and historically, inflation is the more popular choice. Debtors are many, creditors are few. Politicians go with the popular choices if they wish to stay in power.

The colliding forces of inflation and deflation will create turbulence and uncertainty. Gold has acted well under either extreme.

There is no meaningful political or academic support to reign in excess spending. Quite to the contrary, the new radical ideas of Modern Monetary Theory are gaining ascendence.

The lockdown crisis, an ill-conceived way to deal with the pandemic, copied as it were from totalitarian China, will exacerbate all the currently negative financial, political and geopolitical trends. It is a huge supply shock, likely to make inflation worse.

Gold plays a unique role in finance. It is not issued by a government and cannot be arbitrarily increased in supply. Generally, gold does not correlate with other assets. That means it is a true diversifier. You don’t want everything you own to swing up and down together.

It is the only international asset that is not someone else’s liability. As a metal, it cannot default, and you can’t be locked out of your investment because you “lost the code” or computer systems go down.

There have been a disturbing number of serious hacks of important websites, including those of important government agencies. Large tech companies are demonstrating they can shut down service, deny access, and otherwise harass people they differ from politically. Large tech companies are coordinating their actions with political parties and political forces. And, now with trading excess in stocks like GameStop, they collude with Wall Street insiders. Billions of dollars have flowed into digital money over the past few years seeking privacy and independence from government money. Any cyber-based digital money based on the integrity of the Web is thus suspect. You may have money in cryptocurrencies but in an emergency, will you really have access to your money?

There really is no substitute for owning gold and having it in your possession or control.

Because gold is not issued by a government and is not dependent on large tech companies, is why gold remains the international bank reserve.

Gold has had value throughout the ages and with all cultures. It is not new and untested. Although silver at present is not a central bank reserve, it too has a long history of being money. It has many of the same characteristics as gold and thus should also be considered.

Gold is certainly not a sure thing. Nothing is. All investments fluctuate and timing is always difficult. But it has an excellent record at holding its value over time. Like every other investment, it fluctuates in value and thus diversification and adequate cash reserves are required before you should own it. It should not be purchased for the short term but rather regarded as long-term insurance against currency debasement.

With the political shifts we are now seeing, it is a good time to learn about your options and have that discussion with whomever you consult for financial advice and see if gold should play a role in your personal finances.

*****

Neland Nobel is a retired portfolio manager and Certified Financial Planner, who worked in the financial services industry for 45 years.

BOMBSHELL: Robinhood employee says the White ☭ House pressured HALT of GameStop Trading

/1 Comment/in , , , /by


Screwing the little guy, the individual, that is the mission by objective of the Democrat party of treason and destruction. Crush the individual.

BOMBSHELL ALLEGATION: Man Claims To Be Robinhood Employee & Says The White House Pressured Halt of GameStop Trading

By T. Grant Benson, Breaking News, January 28, 2021:
Fueled by the “WallStreetBets” Reddit forum, GameStop’s market value has risen over 466% this week.
Thursday morning, Robinhood, one of the top free trading apps, put restrictions on trading $GME (GameStopCorp.) This action was immediately met with backlash across the internet. One Reddit user, Odin19199, claiming to be an employee of Robinhood, stated that the company was pressured to halt GameStop trading by Sequoia Capital and the White House. These allegations have not been independently confirmed by Breaking911. 
In the post, he alleges that he overheard that “Vladimir, yes founder Vladimir [Tenev], and the C-Suite, received calls from Sequoia Capital and the White House that pressured into closing trading on GME.”
The user then goes on to state that he has information and documentation regarding the situation that he is planning to provide to Project Veritas and lawyer Glen Greenwald.
The newly-confirmed Treasury Secretary, Janice Yellen, has financial ties to one of the hedge funds that came to the aid of Melvin Capital, one of the companies that saw large losses after GameStop’s market surge. Yellen’s financial disclosure shows her receiving around $800,000 from Citadel for speaking fees.
White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, stated on Wednesday that Yellen is ‘monitoring’ the GameStop stock situation.
New York Attorney General, Letitia James, released a statement Thursday announcing that “we are aware of concerns raised regarding activity on the Robinhood app,” and that “we are reviewing the matter.”
[Click here to see allegation]

RELATED ARTICLE: Class-action suit filed against Robinhood app for blocking trading of GameStop, other stocks
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.

BIDEN’S FOLLY: Trying to Control the Weather [a.k.a. Climate]

/in , , , , , /by


“Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” – Mark Twain
“Climate change is sometimes misunderstood as being about changes in the weather. In reality it is about changes in our very way of life.” – Paul Polman
“’Climate change’ gives the Left a ‘moral’ code, a kind of pseudo religion, without the reasoning that animates true religion.” – Hadley Arkes

Climate change is about control of every aspect of our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness.
I have learned three things about the weather (a.k.a. climate):

  1. The weather/climate changes.
  2. These changes in the weather/climate are cyclical natural cycles (eg. summer, fall, winter, spring).
  3. There is absolutely nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.

Biden’s Climate Change Folly

It appears that Biden has taken a bite of the climate change apple. He wants to immediately stop everything we do in our lives in order to “save the planet” from ourselves.
Among the evil things that we Americans do is:

  1. Drive cars powered by gasoline or diesel engines.
  2. Heat our homes with oil, natural gas and electricity from power plants fueled by natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear reactors.
  3. Buy plastic products, which are made from oil.
  4. Use power sources other than wind and solar.
  5. Believe that no-one can change the weather/climate by government edict.


In a National Review column Biden’s Climate-Change Folly wrote:

Joe Biden has one thing right about climate change — that any meaningful evolution of U.S. policy can come only from a “unified national response.” There isn’t one of those in the making, and Biden shows no inclination or aptitude for forging a new climate consensus.
Instead, he is leaning into his favorite mode of politics, corporate welfare, by promising to have the federal government purchase a large new fleet of zero-emissions vehicles, which, he says — based on almost nothing — will create 1 million new jobs. He is issuing executive orders to this effect, which are practically meaningless — the president has no money to spend other than what Congress appropriates, and Congress has not appropriated funding for a happy-hour shopping spree at Tesla or General Motors, that quondam ward of the federal government.
[ … ]
Biden can put his name on the Paris agreement, but the Senate will not ratify a treaty accepting its terms or pass legislation to implement them. Biden can demand nine-tenths of the Green New Deal while claiming not to have gone quite whole hog, but he is not going to get it. Presidents can’t pass laws or amend the Constitution or appropriate money. One of the things they can do is campaign to build consensus where no consensus exists. Franklin Roosevelt did it. Ronald Reagan did it. Biden should at least give it a try.
Read more.

The “C” in Climate Stands for Control

If you want to take control of any culture you must have a crisis. For Democrats and Biden that crisis is climate change. In a column titled Scapegoating “White Christians” for Climate Change Jerry Newcomb wrote:

California, Oregon, and Washington State are burning—and it’s all the fault of “white Christians.” So says a professor at Oregon State University because “white Christians” are “science-deniers” who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming.

White Christians? How is blaming white Christians science?

Conclusion

The truth is that climate change is neither catastrophic nor man-made.
Rather is is mankind that has created ways to stop flooding, cull forests to reduce the possibility of massive fires, invented ways to provide cheap and reliable power that has taken many individuals and nations out of poverty.
Energy is key to any healthy society. Take away cheap and reliable energy and you have what we are seeing in California’s brown outs.
Killing the energy industry is killing American jobs and making American dependent on either unreliable power sources (wind and solar) or making us energy dependent on other nations like those in the Middle East.
Cheap reliable American power is a national security imperative.
Take away our energy and you drain the life blood of our economy and people.
©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

TAKE ACTION: Bed Bath & Beyond, Kohl’s, Kroger cancel American made ‘My Pillow’ but sells merchandise from Communist China.

/21 Comments/in , , , /by


See THREE EMAILS prepared below one to send to each company.
Bed Bath and Beyond, Kohl’s and Kroger stopped selling American manufactured My Pillow because of the owner’s political beliefs.  But ALL THREE companies are major retailers of products made in Communist China.  Consider these three articles:
BED BATH AND BEYOND:  Thestreet.com headline:   Bed Bath & Beyond Plunges 21% After Slashing Sales Forecast on China Tariffs.  The article states in part:  Bed Bath and Beyond Inc. (BBBY) – Get Report shares plunged Thursday after the struggling home retailer posted much-weaker-than-expected second quarter earnings and cited the impact of trade tariffs on China-made goods as it slashed its sales and profit target for the rest of the year.
KOHL’S:  Supplytraindive.com headline:  Kohl’s prepares for diminishing gross margins amid tariff hike.  The article states in part:  Kohl’s lowered its outlook for gross margin rate by 20 to 30 basis points for the year due to the tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200 billion worth of goods from China, executives told analysts on the retailer’s first quarter earnings call. “That increase wasn’t contemplated when we first put out our guidance,” said CEO Michelle Gass.  “China is not our largest source of merchandise, but it is a big one,” CFO Bruce Besanko said on the call. He said the retailer sources just over 20% of its goods from China.
KROGER:  Reuters headline:  Kroger partners with Alibaba in China grocery sales venture.  The article states in part:   Kroger Co KR.N has partnered with Alibaba Group Holding Ltd BABA.N to sell nuts, supplements and other products in China, venturing outside the United States for the first time in what is fast becoming a fierce global battle to dominate online grocery sales.
Bed Bath and Beyond, Kohl’s and Kroger find Mike Lindell’s freedom of speech and political beliefs offensive enough to drop My Pillow which is “Made in America” but appears to have no problem with Communist China’s tyrannical treatment of its citizens including the 1 million Uighurs that have been forcibly detained by the Chinese government in a widespread network of prison like facilities.  Bed Bath and Beyond, Kohl’s and Kroger are so deeply troubled by Mike Lindell’s constitutionally protected speech that it cancels business relations with him but these companies do not react the same way regarding its products made in Communist China which imprison citizens if they express a political opinion different from the party.  There is no First Amendment free speech in China.
Bed Bath and Beyond, Kohl’s and Kroger’s un-American freedom denying reaction to Mike Lindell is incomprehensible considering these companies’ trade with Communist China.
Florida Family Association has prepared THREE EMAILS for you to send one for each company.
BED BATH AND BEYOND
Click here to send your email to Bed Bath and Beyond.  (For Gmail, Yahoo and other email clients that require comma separation of addresses.)  YAHOO works best in Yahoo Mobile App, not so well with internet browser.
Click here to send your email to Bed Bath and Beyond.  (For Outlook and other email clients that require semicolon separation of addresses.)
KOHL’S
Click here to send your email to Kohl’s.  (For Gmail, Yahoo and other email clients that require comma separation of addresses.)  YAHOO works best in Yahoo Mobile App, not so well with internet browser.

Click here to send your email to Kohl’s.  (For Outlook and other email clients that require semicolon separation of addresses.)
KROGER
Click here to send your email to Kroger.  (For Gmail, Yahoo and other email clients that require comma separation of addresses.)  YAHOO works best in Yahoo Mobile App, not so well with internet browser.
Click here to send your email to Kroger.  (For Outlook and other email clients that require semicolon separation of addresses.)
These emails will open in your email browser because these companies are is blocking normal form emails sent through the Florida Family Association email server.  If the above link does not open in your email browser or if the email is returned to you please prepare an email using the suggested subject line, content and email addresses provided below. Please feel free to change the wording.
BED BATH AND BEYOND
Suggested subject line:

Bed Bath Beyond cancellation of My Pillow given its sale of products from Communist China is incomprehensible.

Suggested content:

It is truly disheartening that Bed Bath and Beyond finds Mike Lindell’s freedom of speech and political beliefs offensive enough to drop My Pillow which is Made in America but appears to have no problem with Communist China’s tyrannical treatment of its citizens including the 1 million Uighurs that have been forcibly detained by the Chinese government in prisonlike facilities.  Bed Bath and Beyond’s un-American freedom denying reaction to Mike Lindell is incomprehensible considering its trade with Communist China.  I will remember your decision when in the marketplace.

Email String separated by commas
mark.tritton@bedbath.com,
gustavo.arnal@bedbath.com,
ir@bedbath.com
Email String separated by semicolons
mark.tritton@bedbath.com;
gustavo.arnal@bedbath.com;
ir@bedbath.com
Contact information:
Mark J. Tritton
President and Chief Executive Officer
mark.tritton@bedbath.com
Gustavo Arnal
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasure
gustavo.arnal@bedbath.com
KOHL’S
Suggested subject line:

Kohls cancellation of My Pillow given its sale of products from Communist China is incomprehensible.

Suggested content:

It is truly disheartening that Kohls finds the freedom of speech and political beliefs of Mike Lindell offensive enough to drop My Pillow which is Made in America but appears to have no problem with the tyrannical treatment by Communist China against its citizens including the 1 million Uighurs that are forcibly detained in prison like facilities.  The un-American and freedom denying reaction by Kohls toward Mike Lindell is incomprehensible considering your trade with Communist China.  I will remember your decision when shopping.

Email String separated by commas
michelle.gass@kohls.com,
doug.howe@kohls.com,
jill.timm@kohls.com
Email String separated by semicolons
michelle.gass@kohls.com;
doug.howe@kohls.com;
jill.timm@kohls.com
Contact information:
Michelle Gass, Chief Executive Officer
michelle.gass@kohls.com
Doug Howe, Chief Merchandising
doug.howe@kohls.com
Jill Timm, Chief Financial Officer
jill.timm@kohls.com
KROGER
Suggested subject line:

Kroger cancellation of My Pillow given its sale of products from Communist China is incomprehensible.

Suggested content:

It is truly disheartening that Kroger finds the freedom of speech and political beliefs of Mike Lindell offensive enough to drop My Pillow which is Made in America but appears to have no problem with the tyrannical treatment by Communist China against its citizens including the 1 million Uighurs that are forcibly detained in prison like facilities.  The un-American and freedom denying reaction by Kroger toward Mike Lindell is incomprehensible considering your trade with Communist China.  I will remember your decision when shopping.

Email String separated by commas
rodney.mcmullen@kroger.com,
gary.millerchip@kroger.com,
michael.donnelly@kroger.com
Email String separated by semicolons
rodney.mcmullen@kroger.com;
gary.millerchip@kroger.com;
michael.donnelly@kroger.com
Contact information:
W. Rodney McMullen
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
rodney.mcmullen@kroger.com
Michael J. Donnelly
Chief Operating Officer
michael.donnelly@kroger.com
Gary Millerchip
Chief Financial Officer
gary.millerchip@kroger.com
©Florida Family Association. All rights reserved.

The Stock Market Has Reached Extremes Of Sentiment

/in , /by

The broad stock market had another year of gains well above average. It has rolled through the pandemic lockdown in the spring with a quick V-shaped bottom and continued to rise throughout the turmoil of the election cycle and difficult post-election period.

Rarely have we seen a market so determined to persevere in the face of difficulties. The prospects of easy money and relief from vaccines to whip the Wuhan virus seems to dominate positive thinking. Market action has been truly impressive.

It may well be justified. Many feel pent-up demand will emerge. People are tired of being imprisoned by lockdowns and as the threat wanes, people may well come out in droves and spend their heads off.

The Federal Reserve has promised to keep interest rates low and the new Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (a former Fed Chair) has told Congress to “go big” on the stimulus. The Fed itself continues to pump liquidity into the system through Quantitative Easing. We are getting a blast from both barrels of monetary and fiscal stimulus.

A large stimulus was passed at the end of the Trump administration and he had called for substantially more.

Biden is now talking about raising the benefit from the $900 billion passed under Trump but not yet spent with another round of checks perhaps as large as $1.9 trillion.

That would be stimulative in the short run, but it is contradicted by increased regulations and higher taxes.  Neither would the drift toward socialism prove helpful.

Meanwhile, the national debt approaches $27 trillion. No one in either party seems to care. Excessive debt is not a problem until it is.

While the ability of the market to shrug off difficulties is impressive, we have reached a curious stage. It will be hard to know what is real pent-up demand and what is unsustainable spending based on debt, deficits, and currency debasement.

The market is now expensive, if not overvalued, by most traditional measures. As always, there is a robust debate about what measures to use but the three best market cap to GDP (Buffet’s favorite), price to sales ratio, and Tobin’s Q ratio (market value divided by replacement cost) are at all-time highs. Other measures show the market to be expensive, but not necessarily excessively so.

Moreover, there are concerning signs of the froth and excessive speculation that have appeared in previous market cycles.

Yet despite this, market internals remain healthy and point to higher market prices ahead. An expensive market can get more expensive.

Jason Goepfert, editor of Sentiment Trader succinctly sums up the conundrum: “Signs of excessively optimistic sentiment abound, but internally markets have been very healthy so far.”

What is sentiment and why should we care? To understand this concept, we have to back up a moment and discuss “the theory of contrary opinion.”  Briefly put, the idea is that people establish a viewpoint, then they act on those beliefs and their financial action works its way into the price structure of the market.

For example, when everyone was chasing Beanie Babies, they were hard to find and very expensive.

Years later, no one wants them, and the price is much lower if you can find a buyer at all.

But it is still the same toy, right? Why such a difference in value? As the Austrian Economists teach, value is subjective.

So, if everyone is thinking easy money will do the job and the pandemic will go away, while that may be wonderful, it could already be in the current price structure.

Thus, markets get into trouble, become overvalued and frothy when just about everyone is overconfident. Markets tend to bottom and be a good value on pessimism. To execute the theory, the investor is supposed to sell when everyone is delirious and buy when everyone is scared witless. Or as Warren Buffet put it, “Be Fearful When Others Are Greedy and Greedy When Others Are Fearful”.

A corollary to this line of thought is this: when everyone is thinking the same thing, no one is really thinking. Markets at extremes can reflect the irrational herd instinct in human beings. Markets are rational calculating mechanisms, most of the time. People are rational, most of the time. But people do have periods of irrationality and guess what – markets are made up of people.

People will buy things, simply because they are going up and they expect to take the financial ride to riches.

If you have been through a few market cycles, you know the psychological pendulum swings, both ways. Markets cycle from overvaluation to undervaluation. The problem is that our tools for knowing when markets are about to shift are lacking in precision.

What has some seasoned investors bothered are the signs of excessive enthusiasm are starting to appear again, much as they did in the tech bubble of 1999 and the housing bubble of 2007.

There are two ways to measure sentiment. One is by opinion survey. You ask investors what they think. But people often say one thing and do another. So, it is more important to measure action.

It is in this latter category, action indicators, that has some market mavens concerned. For example, margin debt is at an all-time high. This means people are not just buying stocks with their own money. They are confident enough to borrow money to buy stocks. This is called leverage. Leverage exaggerates movement upward in markets and when markets turn around, leverage can cause exaggerated moves in downward markets. Excessive leverage is a feature of all speculative manias.

Public speculation, especially by small investors, has hit record numbers regarding call options on equities. An option is a way for an investor to control the price movement of a lot of stock with little money. A call is a bullish bet on the market. Lockdowns seem to be causing a huge increase in the number of new brokerage accounts being opened.

Meanwhile corporate insiders, presumably people who know their companies better than the public, are selling at a record clip.

Ultra-small cap companies, sometimes called penny shares, are seeing a lot of excessive action.

We are seeing the growth of more ways to speculate, leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, and SPACS.

What is a SPAC?  It is a Special Purpose Acquisition Company. There are now more than 300 of these operated by people ranging from former basketball stars to faded politicians like Paul Ryan. They raise money from investors and then, later, are supposed to acquire new start-up companies of great promise. In short, they are raising money for investments yet to be made. It is literally betting on the come.

The economic historian Edward Chancellor, in his epic Devil Take the Hindmost, writes about the great South Sea Bubble of 1720 and notes, “the most famous of the bubble companies was that for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage but no one to know what it is.”  Sounds kind of like today’s SPACs.

Of the 190 bubble companies formed during that mania, only four survived.

We see similar speculative action in new IPOs, or Initial Public Offerings, as we saw during the recent tech mania.

We have seen some truly massive moves in cryptocurrencies.

We could provide more examples, but you get the point. Clearly, the markets are awash with speculative money willing to chase new untested ideas.

We at The Prickly Pear are not your financial advisor. All we can do is report the thoughts of people we respect and our own personal experiences. It might be time for a financial checkup. Things are getting a bit overheated.

We have no better sense of timing than anyone else. The excesses cited might suggest nothing more than just a “pause that refreshes” or it could be more serious. We don’t know. Our concern more is the psychological condition of the market. The lopsided sentiment is usually a warning of at least turbulence ahead. We have seen this movie before.

The problem when markets are priced for perfection is that perfection is rarely delivered.

*****

Neland Nobel recently retired after 45 years in the financial services industry.

The Great Demographic Reversal

/in , , /by

Book Review:  The Great Demographic Reversal by Charles Goodhart and Manoj Pradhan.  Published by Palgrave/Macmillan 2020

Economics has been referred to as the dismal science.  In this book, the former chair of Banking and Finance at the London School of Economics (Goodhart) and  the former head of Morgan Stanley International (Pradhan), show once again that economics can indeed be depressing. That said, it is an important book for investors and policymakers alike.

To start, the reader should appreciate that the book arrives during an ongoing discussion that the reader may not be fully aware of. We will keep it brief by referring to it as “the inflation, deflation debate.”

In this debate, the two authors come squarely down on the side of an inflationary outcome, based largely on demographics, which they argue will overwhelm whatever contrary forces might appear. While they give fair treatment to both sides, this is not a book of “on the one hand this, on the other that.” We admire that they look at the evidence, weigh the arguments and come to a conclusion.

Their use of demographics is interesting because some writers like Harry Dent, use demographics to argue for deflation.

For many the puzzle has been – why has the sea of money and credit created by central banks and governments over the past 20 years, not led to the kind of price inflation expected? With inflation quiescent in the face of such monetary expansion, political leaders have been emboldened to spend and borrow beyond even the height of WW II financing, all ostensibly in a period of both peace and prosperity.

So bold are the political leaders, that there was a general indifference by both parties to soaring deficits in the most recently concluded election cycle. One side in fact, proposes massive new spending on top of the incredible increases we have already seen in debts and deficits.

If you can spend and borrow to historic excess without the ill effects of inflation, then they assume the world is better off for it. Our leaders think it is about their wise policies. The authors think it is largely favorable demographics that have moderated inflationary tendencies.

This tendency to spend to excess and use the central banks in novel ways to finance it (Quantitative Easing, zero interest rates) has been accelerating since the currency crisis of 1998, through today and the economic wreckage of the pandemic induced Lockdown.

These novel central bank maneuvers started in Japan after their crash of 1989. Now, hyperactive central banking has become standard policy for all major economic systems today. We will call this the Grand Monetary Experiment or GME.

Critics of GME suggest that inflation is indeed present, just in a somewhat different form than what we saw in the 1960-1980 period, which ended with interest rates above 20% and inflation in the range of 12%.

It may be that inflation calculations (hedonic accounting which supposedly adjusts for quality changes) are hiding the inflation from us. Critics contend if calculations were performed the same as in the 1970s, inflation would be quite obvious and the new ways of calculating are misleading us all. This position has its points but is not that convincing.

Others contend inflation is present for sure, but mostly in asset values like stocks, bonds, and real estate and not in the typical basket of consumer goods measured by the CPI.  The stupendous valuation (some say gross overvaluation) of these markets, is evident by historical comparison.  This argument has more merit.

Either way,  critics of the GME are hard-pressed to explain how such monetary expansion can take place without causing greater general inflation than what we have observed.  Inflation does not seem to be the problem.  Central banks are in fact busy fighting deflation and governments are “stimulating” with fiscal policy as if we were in a serious recession.

Deflationists contend that debt levels have reached an inflection point where the sheer weight of debt depresses economic growth (Rogoff and Reinhart), and that demographic shifts are causing a drop in demand.  As the population will be shrinking, so will the demand for goods.

This may explain why money supply numbers have been quiet until quite recently. Now they are up about 25%, year over year.

The main argument of deflationists is that we had a confluence of deflationary events, such as technological improvements on a vast scale (the internet and personal computer), news ways of marketing and distribution (Walmart, Amazon) and entry of new workers previously outside of the general world economy. The integration of China into the world trading system, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the rise of India have all had the effect of introducing a vast trove of new workers, which have moderated wage rates and lowered the cost of many goods. It has allowed “globalization” and off-shoring of production to low-cost areas of the world.

To give some sense of the immensity of China’s role in deflation, consider this:  since 1990, China’s contribution to the growth of the working-age population is four times that of North America and Europe combined.

Globalization brought in not just Chinese workers but from other areas as well. The end result was a huge growth in the supply of labor.

And we have virtually doubled the labor force in the West since the 1970s by the full integration of women.

The combination of all these political, technological and demographic trends, has been to pull prices downward even in the face of monetary expansion. Inflation is not so much a monetary phenomenon as monetarists like Milton Friedman had thought.

So strong are these deflationary undertows, that Central Banks are hard-pressed, even with their extraordinary exertions, to hit and maintain their 2% inflation targets.

Thus, deflationists contend, we are locked in a period of slow growth and high debt which will keep inflation and interest rates low for years to come. This position seems to be the dominant view among economists and money managers.

So, amid this debate comes this new and controversial book.

The authors contend, that this “sweet spot” of the confluence of disinflationary trends is coming to a close and will go in reverse. Thus, rising inflation and rising interest rates lie ahead. They accept the notion that demographics is a prime mover, just like the deflationists. The difference is that they think those forces are now swinging the other way.

It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of what they say because if they are right, the next 30 years will look quite different than the last 30. More importantly, it will create difficulty because the global political leadership is fully convinced of the opposite view.

A rise in inflation and interest rates will shock the ruling elites, making governing more difficult. With a rise of just 2% in interest rates, the cost of carrying the U.S. $27 trillion-dollar national debt goes up by almost $600 billion per year. Interest expense and care of the elderly will crowd out other federal expenditures.

Similar costs will hit the private sector, which has gorged itself with low-cost debt.

The author’s key argument is that the number of young workers globally is due to begin shrinking rapidly soon. There is no possibility of experiencing “another China” or another collapse of the Berlin Wall and its powerful downward influence on labor costs. Those forces were unique and are now reversing.

For example, look at China. Because of their one-child policy and likely near the end of the migration from rural areas to urban industrial production, the supply of cheap labor is drying up. That is also occurring in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Only sub-Saharan Africa is showing population growth.

In most of the world, the number of young will shrink drastically while the ranks of the old, especially the very old, will soar.

In their view, the 40-year period where labor was at a disadvantage to capital is ending. Labor will regain its bargaining power just because of the shortage of workers. They believe workers are aware that their compensation must be net of both inflation and taxation and thus wages will spiral upwards. Labor costs are the biggest component of consumer prices.

The authors believe the “savings glut”, or high savings rates in China caused by the lack of a social safety net, will dry up because it will be spent on elder care. A shortage of savings will result and the need to get a return above the rate of inflation will in turn cause real interest rates to reverse and start to rise.

Thus, the world will face rising inflation and interest rates.

Rising interest rates against a global debt bubble exaggerated by zero interest rates could potentially start another financial crisis, with deflationary implications.  This is where their argument is the weakest. But they argue demographics will overwhelm other factors and that the only way out of the debt trap we find ourselves in is to inflate it away.

Similar demographics trends exist in the West as well. While not as severe as the results of the prior one-child policy in China, western families are much smaller than they used to be. Some countries like Germany will see drops in population upwards of 40 to 50 percent over the next few decades. To maintain demographic stability, a society needs 2.1 children per family. Many European countries are in the range of 1.3 to 1.5, and the U.S. has decreased to around 1.7.

But it is more than population contraction. It is population ‘skew’ as well.

Just about everywhere, and at roughly the same time, there will be fewer young workers producing and more old dependents consuming (without working). The authors contend the change in the dependency ratio is inflationary.

The authors are concerned as to where the army of caregivers will come from to care for the elderly and argue that such care cannot be “off-shored” and not likely to be farmed out to robots either. It takes extraordinary social skills for strangers to convince someone in a short time period they can be safely bathed for example and it takes social skills to care for people and maintain necessary dignity. Health care by its nature is idiosyncratic and therefore difficult to mechanize.

They show particular concern about the number of elderly over 80 that will rise dramatically because among this population lurks some of the most expensive diseases such as senile dementia and Parkinson’s. The incidence of these conditions rise after the age of 80 and this age group will be the most rapidly growing part of the population. These conditions are very expensive for society to treat and life expectancy is often not shortened.

Globalization will slow, if not reverse. Brexit and the rise of Trumpism are indications that political blowback to off-shoring to the cheapest producer has limitations, and the world supply chain now is looking both at price and political stability. Chinese culpability for Covid-19 and the vulnerability of the West for drugs and personal protective gear, has triggered the realization in the U.S. and Europe that too much of the supply chain is in the hands of either a fierce competitor or an outright adversary. Production will be migrating home or to other safer, more expensive locales.

This is one of those important “Big Picture” books, that looks at big, broad trends and helps one think about them in new ways. While they do a good job of airing both sides of the argument, they conclude with a convincing argument that inflation and higher rates will be the outcome.

The fact that their conclusions are so different from the established consensus today among ruling elites is hardly a reason to dismiss them. Their arguments deserve to be examined on the merits.

The book is not an easy read as it is technical, filled with charts, jargon and citations to numerous studies. But admirably, unlike many academics, they reach a conclusion with important ramifications.

The debate will undoubtedly rage on, but if they are correct, what do policymakers need to do differently?  If they are right, what do investors do differently?

In this current period of complex forces colliding without a certain outcome, timing is difficult. The authors could be correct but these inflationary trends might not emerge for several years or appear fleeting before it becomes clear they are persistent. However, in a final postscript to the book covering events around the Wuhan virus and the worldwide lockdowns, they suggest the shift to inflation is much closer than they previously thought.

Lockdown has been a huge hit to production. It is a massive shock to the supply of goods. That is what happens when the government orders people not to work and produce. They conclude that the economic trauma of the lockdown will mark the dividing line between the deflationary factors of the past 30 years, and the resurgent inflation that will replace them in the next 20 years. The shift to inflation is not years away, it is now in the early stage of reversing from deflation.

As an investor, it might be worthwhile to check in on long-term commodity prices, gold prices, wage rates and interest rates. It is hard to see the themes of this book playing out without it becoming evident in markets well before the trend is obvious to the general public. Price action should confirm the theory.

Interestingly, in recent months we are seeing stronger commodity prices, a weaker dollar, rising gold prices, rising wages (particularly minimum wages around the world) and rising interest rates. Only time will tell if these trends are transitory or the start of a new sustained long-term trend.

 

Is ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ Newspeak for Economic Fascism?

/in , , , , , , /by


The changes favored by the ‘Great Reset’ movement would force businesses to serve the interests of ruling elites and leave true stakeholders out in the cold.

Leaders of the World Economic Forum are seeking to implement a Great Reset of capitalism whereby “global stakeholders” cooperate to achieve “shared goals.” In the true spirit of not letting a crisis go to waste, they see the COVID-19 pandemic as presenting a unique opportunity to push their agenda.
“The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream,” World Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab recently observed. “In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles.”
Of course, when they say “our lifestyles” they mean your lifestyle, not their own. Their preferred vehicle for achieving their goals is other people’s businesses. In short, what they want is for private businesses to serve the interests of their own curated list of stakeholders rather than (as they see it) concentrating on returning profits to business owners. They want governments to pass laws and tax regimes to cajole businesses towards their favored ends. Since this arrangement still involves a modicum of private ownership of the means of production, they call it “Stakeholder Capitalism.”
It is important to recognize the subversive use of language here. Such a system is all about sidelining the true stakeholders, and undermining capitalism. This is Orwellian Newspeak at its best, since it misuses the word “stakeholder” and is actually closer to economic fascism than capitalism.

There is one reliable way to know if a business is serving the needs of stakeholders: profit and loss. Absent any government bailouts or monopoly privileges, the higher the level of profit, the greater the degree to which stakeholders’ needs have been balanced and served.
Profit means value has been created for all stakeholders, by turning resources into finished goods that people value more highly than the resources used to make them. Losses indicate that scarce resources have been wasted and value destroyed, turning out finished goods that are worth less than the resources that went into them.
In order to please customers and generate profits in a world of uncertainty, companies need entrepreneurial insight to decide what to produce and in what quantities and varieties. They also need to attract good employees, material suppliers, a management team, and financial resources, all on favorable terms. Any failure will result in losses. Under this arrangement – which could be called unhampered capitalism – a company does not need to be told by some outside expert who their “stakeholders” are.
The profit and loss system offers them the information they need and reveals any mistakes. As Ludwig von Mises explained:

Profits convey control of the factors of production into the hands of those who are employing them for the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers, and losses withdraw them from the control of the inefficient businessmen. In a market economy not sabotaged by the government the owners of property are mandataries [servants] of the consumers.

When those who seek to modify capitalism speak of “stakeholders” they will often include customers, employees, suppliers and shareholders on their list, to at least give some context. But invariably the aim of these reformers is to extend the list to include nebulous collective entities like “societies” and “communities” or even “global” stakeholders. Since these collectives cannot speak with one voice, these social reformers are all too happy to speak on their behalf and lay out the demands.
Imagine a pizza restaurant, Joe’s Pizza. They exist in a society, which includes:
A: people who enjoy eating Joe’s pizzas
B: people responsible for supplying the pizzas (at all levels of the supply chain)
C: everybody else
It is easy to see who the stakeholders are. Group A profits in pizza, which they prefer over the money they offer for it; Group B profits through remuneration which they also prefer. The entrepreneur, being the residual claimant, profits only if they do. Meanwhile, Group C is unaffected, being left alone to do other things they prefer above eating or producing pizza at the prices offered.
It is possible there exists a fourth group:
D: those who suffer a negative externality, such as neighbors who put up with bad smells or rats coming from Joe’s bins.
This fourth group ought to have a legal right to compel Joe’s to properly deal with their waste. Assuming this group has their property rights protected (thus joining group C), “society as a whole” is definitively better off from this endeavor, since all actions involved were voluntary. People either benefited from Joe’s, or were left no worse off. It is the job of entrepreneurs to coordinate this socially beneficial process, and profits or losses indicate success or failure.
Nobody serves “all members of society” directly. Yet all members of society, including group C, are benefited indirectly through this process, even those who cannot afford the products of the firm.
A highly profitable activity indicates an urgently felt need of consumers that is being underserved. The entrepreneurial process impels other entrepreneurs who see this profit signpost to move additional resources into this area. Alternatively, the reporting of losses becomes a signpost to avoid further destruction of value, freeing up resources for a more urgent need.
Through this process, consumer goods become increasingly more affordable, exhausting fewer resources in the process, and people’s productive efforts become increasingly valued.

When global re-setters insist that “all” stakeholders should be represented, what they really mean is “I neither eat pizza nor help to produce pizza… but WHAT IS THE PIZZA SHOP DOING FOR ME?!”
It is a boldfaced attempt to substitute the interests of non-stakeholders for the interests of stakeholders, using surreptitious language to blur the line.
“Society as a whole” has no unified goal, and if it did there would be no way to ascertain what it was. So those who try to install “society” as a stakeholder in the activities of corporations, are eager to insert their own goals and interests.
Murray Rothbard puts it well:
Whenever someone begins to talk about ‘society’ or ‘society’s’ interest coming before ‘mere individuals and their interest,’ a good operative rule is: guard your pocketbook. And guard yourself! Because behind the facade of ‘society,’ there is always a group of power-hungry doctrinaires and exploiters, ready to take your money and to order your actions and your life. For, somehow, they ‘are’ society!
A better way to understand society is the sum total of all voluntary interactions between individual people. Voluntary activity is pro-social, while use of coercive force is antisocial. Those who want to hyphenate capitalism invariably prefer the use of government force over voluntary interaction.
It is important to understand how those who claim to represent the interests of non-stakeholders (by holding out their hand for a piece of the action) are actually doing social harm. If companies end up masking their level of profitability in order to appear more ‘ethical’ and placate the mob, the process of market alignment that indirectly benefits everybody is hampered. Resources that ought to be moved into an underserved area of production are not, as the ‘profit signal’ has been obscured.
Elsewhere, further resources are wasted as the ‘loss signal’ is cloaked by bailouts.
“Critics may consider eliminating the profit motive the equivalent of giving the Tin Man from Oz a heart; in fact it’s much more like Oedipus’ gouging out his own eyes,” as Professor Steve Horwitz put it rather brilliantly.
As this Wall Street Journal article explains, profits and losses keep corporate leaders honest, whilst a so-called stakeholder view allows them to be opaque or even corrupt. So our “great resetters,” in order to substitute their own interests for the interests of others, need to destroy the profit and loss system, leaving only their own will backed by force to guide productive efforts.

Let’s now turn our attention to the second weasel word in “stakeholder capitalism.” If you are confused about whether national socialism (a.k.a Nazism) is indeed a form of socialism, you should read this article and this one and this one.
Socialism means the abolition of private ownership of the means of production in favor of mythical “collective ownership,” but the brutal reality is that it is a system of forceful centralized control.
In the same vein, “for fascism the state is absolute, individuals and corporations [are] relative” said Mussolini. Either way, the holders of centralized power, by controlling production, control your life. They become the solitary “stakeholder” in all decisions involving material resources.
As Ludwig von Mises showed, without real private ownership there is no buying and selling and therefore no market price system, so the planners have no way of knowing what people value. They are flying blind, creating chaos in place of economic coordination. For his scathing but inescapable insights Mises had the honor of being intellectual enemy number one of both the Nazis and the Soviets.
In what Mises called Russian style socialism, the owner of the widget factory would be shot or sent the gulag, to be replaced by a party apparatchik, often with no background in widget production at all. Not only would there be no way of knowing whether widgets were socially beneficial, but you wouldn’t get very good widgets anyway.
Under what Mises called German style socialism, the former owner of the widget factory would be left nominally in charge, but made into a party apparatchik, using as much coercive pressure as necessary to force him to serve the interests of the state. This ownership in name only, is why people sometimes confuse national socialism with capitalism rather than correctly identifying it as another path to socialism. Resources are de-facto nationalized by different means.
Under this system, there is also no way of knowing whether widget production is socially beneficial, since the widget factory is following state orders rather than responding to consumers. But nevertheless, by retaining knowledge from the past, things would still get produced, whether they are goods or “bads.” This is why Germany was able to produce abundant planes and other war machines in World War II – by harnessing private expertise for state ends; by the “merger of state and corporate power.”
Under German style Socialism, Mises explained, even before the outbreak of war, former capitalists were reduced to the status of “shop managers”, and:

No German capitalist or entrepreneur (shop manager) or anyone else is free to spend money on his consumption than the government considers adequate to his rank and position in the service of the nation… Nobody is free to buy more food and clothing than the allotted ration. Rents are frozen; furniture and all other goods are unattainable… Travel abroad is permitted only on government errands… German corporations are not free to distribute their profits to the shareholders. The amount of the dividends is strictly limited according to a highly complicated legal technique… For many years German business has not been in a position to replace its equipment… Warring Germany lives on its capital stock, i.e., on the capital nominally and seemingly owned by its capitalists.

This is a picture of “stakeholder capitalism” made manifest. To varying extents, all governments adopt these kinds of policies during wars or pandemics using what Robert Higgs calls the ratchet effect. This is why groups like the World Economic Forum view the COVID-19 crisis as a great opportunity.
I am not suggesting that Klaus Schwab and cadre aim to produce Messerschmitts and mustard gas. But whatever their goals are, if they were socially beneficial then no force and no “great reset” would be required to achieve them – people would voluntarily cooperate toward those ends. By contrast, the apparent need to overturn market cooperation using government coercion indicates their agenda is one that suits the elite, to the detriment of the voluntary society.
A system that replaces the goals of true stakeholders with the iron will of ruling elites, which retains nominal private ownership, but uses government force to pressure firms to serve centrally determined goals, looks and smells an awful lot like economic fascism.
COLUMN BY

Mark Hornshaw

Mark Hornshaw is a lecturer in Economics, Entrepreneurship and Management at The University of Notre Dame Australia.
RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Ignores His Own Mask Mandate on First Day. ‘Bigger Issues to Worry About,’ Says WH Press Secretary
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New Research Debunks Claim That a $15 Minimum Wage Would Not Reduce Employment

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , /by


A new paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds a “clear preponderance” of evidence that minimum wage laws reduce employment.

President Joe Biden is pushing a federal $15 minimum wage in his sweeping $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, and the policy is only gaining steam in progressive circles. But newly released research undercuts the main argument progressive economists make in favor of minimum wage increases.
A new paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research surveys the body of economic research on minimum wage increases and rebuts the notion that empirical data show no impact of increases in minimum wage hikes. The authors find that of all the available research on the subject they reviewed, there is a “clear preponderance” of findings that show a job-killing impact. The documentation of job losses is even more pronounced for teenagers, young adults, and the less-educated.
“[The] body of evidence and its conclusions point strongly toward negative effects of minimum wages on employment of less-skilled workers, especially for the types of studies that would be expected to reveal these negative employment effects most clearly,” economists David Neumark and Peter Shirley write.
This research is a direct rebuttal of one of the most popular pro-minimum-wage-hike arguments offered by progressive economists. They rarely engage directly with the ironclad theory of supply and demand in competitive labor markets that proves the minimum wage causes unemployment just like any other price floor creates surplus.1
Many advocates simply pivot to empiricism and handwave about “the data” not showing any impact.
“There’s just no evidence that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, at least when the starting point is as low as it is in modern America,” economist turned left-wing New York Times  columnist Paul Krugman has argued. (Reversing his own former position). Similarly, economist and former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen recently reversed her prior position during a confirmation hearing for her political position as the Biden administration’s Treasury Secretary. Now, she argues that the research suggests a “very minimal” impact on employment from minimum wage increases.
The same argument has pervaded through much of academia.
“The last decade has seen a wealth of rigorous academic research on the effect of minimum wage increases on employment, with the weight of evidence showing that previous, modest increases in the minimum wage had little or no negative effects on the employment of lowwage workers,” reads a letter signed by prominent pro-minimum-wage economists in 2019.
But this new research, after surveying the field of empirical evidence, finds that reaching these progressive economists’ conclusions “requires discarding or ignoring most of the evidence.”

When the government mandates a price for labor—aka a minimum wage—that exceeds the market rate, employers will inevitably purchase less labor. It’s just like consumers would purchase less soda if the government arbitrarily mandated higher prices for it than what it’s actually worth to people. In fact, that’s the exact point of  “soda taxes” passed in the name of public health; they reduce soda consumption. The same thing happens with labor.
The lucky workers who end up being able to keep their jobs may benefit from the artificially high wage, but many others will not find work at all. As far a federal $15 minimum wage is concerned, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would eliminate 1.3 to 3.7 million jobs altogether.
This was before the COVID-19 pandemic. Layoffs would likely be much worse now, with so many small businesses already on the brink of collapse amid lockdowns and a struggling economy.
No amount of empirical squirming can eliminate the reality of trade-offs. Minimum wage proponents bury their heads in the sand in order to argue that you can simply pass a law to miraculously make everyone richer without any consequences. You can’t.
“There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs,” economist Thomas Sowell once observed, “and you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that’s all you can hope for.”
“Economics teaches you that making a choice means giving up something,” economist Russ Roberts has similarly explained.
The job losses that come with minimum wage hikes are a fundamental economic reality. This latest research offers yet another reminder that, no matter how much wish-casting progressives engage in, there’s no escaping trade-offs in public policy.

  1. Some progressive economists engage with supply and demand theory by arguing that if a business has a labor monopsony, aka they are the only employer for that type of labor, then minimum wage increases will not cause unemployment. But this makes little sense, as the types of employers who hire minimum wage workers, such as restaurants, retail stores,  fast food, coffee shops, and so on, have nearly innumerable competitors for other places that will hire workers at the minimum wage.)

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.
RELATED ARTICLE: Why a One-Size-Fits-All Federal Minimum Wage Makes Zero Sense
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Biden Pumps out Orders, Not Oil

/in , , , , , /by



Here’s a sentence you’ll never see on CNN:

“President Joe Biden, hoping to stack his first 100 days with as many achievements as possible, has relied heavily on the use of executive orders.”

Or this:

“While the orders have run the gamut from immigration to federal lands, they all offer Biden a key benefit: the ability to tout wins without going through the arduous legwork of working with Congress to pass legislation.”

But, when you switch out the names, CNN did write it about President Trump. And they are true about Joe Biden. The crucial difference is that Trump signed 29 executive orders in his first 100 days, while Biden has signed 21 (and counting) in his first week alone. In fact, he’s signed more executive orders in his first week than any president ever — quadrupling the next closest competitor (Barack Obama with five).
It sure is a funny way to achieve the national unity and the return to America’s democratic norms that President Biden promised in his inaugural address.
Unlike President Trump with his executive actions, President Biden is costing American jobs and angering our allies. He has hamstrung the oil and gas industry with an order to halt drilling and exploration on federal land, including Alaska’s north shore, as well as revoking the permit for the Keystone oil pipeline. Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis joined me on Washington Watch to discuss the impact these policies will have. “It will raise energy prices,” she said.
Biden’s actions have a direct cost in jobs lost — high-paying blue-collar jobs, at that — and an indirect cost on the jobs that would follow them. That’s not to mention the higher energy prices Americans will pay to heat their homes and drive their cars, or the higher food prices that result because farmers have to pay more to run their machines. These costs will have an outsized impact on those Americans who have been hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic and accompanying lockdowns. This is hurting the very people the Democratic Party says they want to help.
But the impact goes beyond the individual household; states with large oil and gas industries, from Pennsylvania to New Mexico, will suffer as well. Lummis pointed out that, since the federal government owns half the land in Wyoming, Biden’s order will be a serious shock to the state’s economy and tax revenues. “The hit to Wyoming schools and infrastructure is profound.”
President Biden’s defenders might try to argue that there are important environmental reasons to move away from oil and gas, and the economy will eventually recover. Lummis’s commonsense, American response was, “what we need to do is innovate our way out of this climate issue, not regulate our way out of the climate issue.”
But no reason that puts the interests of America first can outweigh the importance of national security. For the first time in fifty years, America achieved energy independence under President Trump’s watch. That means that oil-producing nations like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela could no longer threaten America’s energy supply, as they did in the 1970s, to bring us to our knees. But President Joe Biden has put an end to that; America will once again be beholden to foreign “bad actors” simply because they produce the energy we refuse to produce for ourselves.
From a policy perspective, President Biden’s executive actions to kill jobs and block energy production don’t make any sense. But they are “a political payback to his radical Left base,” said Lummis. Indeed, President Bid60 has yet to make good on his inauguration promise to unify America. Rather his actions are unilaterally further dividing America.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column and video are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Arizona Is Now a High Tax State Thanks to Prop 208

/in , /by

Do you remember when people were flocking to Arizona? When new employers, entrepreneurs, and families found our state attractive because of its low taxes?

It wasn’t that long ago. Here’s just one example from 2019, when the state’s top marginal tax rate was 4.50% — one of the most competitive in the country!

But all of that has changed thanks to Proposition 208.

With the passage of this disastrous piece of legislation in which voters were misled, Arizona’s new rate was raised dramatically to 8%. This gives Arizona the ninth highest small business tax rate in the nation! Of course, the teacher unions and out of state special interest groups behind Proposition 208 said this wouldn’t happen—that it would NOT tax small businesses. Clearly that was a lie.

And now, with Arizona already having the 11th highest sales tax rate and the 20th highest business property tax rate in the country, we are officially a high tax state for small business.

That’s not exactly something we’d want to advertise to those who may consider moving here. After all, a recent study from the Cato Institute found that American citizens are leaving high tax states for lower tax states. Certainly, that’s not much of a surprise. But Arizona used to be ones of the desirable states to move to because of its low taxes. Not anymore.

And while the media and the Left continue to push the myth that the people of Arizona are undertaxed, just ask small business owners their experience since Proposition 208 passed. If the taxes were so low, then why are many of them picking up and leaving the state?

The fact is that Arizona has now joined the ranks of other high tax states that have experienced decades of decline. You probably know some of them: Illinois, New York, California. Each of these states are dealing with high taxes, distressed economies, and people fleeing to other states to find greener pastures.

Just look at California, where an estimated 13,000 businesses left between 2009 and 2016. In fact, during the economic boom years in 2018 and 2019, 765 commercial facilities left the “Golden State.”

But this begs the question: If the economy was booming throughout the country, why did these businesses leave? The answer is quite simple: high taxes.

Is that what we want here in Arizona? We certainly hope not.

But thanks to Proposition 208, Arizona has now lost the tax-competitive advantage that once made it so special. And that means we can expect other nearby states like Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Texas to have the upper hand when it comes to attracting small businesses and creating new jobs.

It’s time for our state legislature to take swift, aggressive action to fix this problem. Proposition 208 has made Arizona a high tax state, crushed small businesses, and done irreparable harm to the state’s competitiveness. And if our legislature doesn’t do something soon, we’ll end up in an endless cycle of decline—just like our neighbors in California.

*****
This article from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club was originally published on January 25, 2021 and is republished with permission.

Backers of the (Arizona) Corp Comm Green New Deal Think That Legislators Are Too Stupid to Handle Energy Policy

/in , , /by

Supporters of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s plan to impose the Green New Deal and ban all fossil fuels are up in arms this week. The reason? The legislature has decided to exert their constitutional authority and make it clear that they are in charge of setting energy policy for the state.

This week the Arizona House and Senate are hearing HB 2248 and SB 1175, legislation that would prohibit the Corp Comm from adopting any policy or rule regulating distributed energy without legislative authorization. Several interest groups and Green New Deal activists have signed in against the bill, and they have coalesced around one argument: legislators aren’t smart enough to handle energy policy. This is a topic that should be left up to the “experts” over at the ACC.

Just a cursory look through the comments submitted to Request to Speak, the legislative system used to register support or opposition to a bill, catalog dozens of statements ranging from condescending to insulting.

Here is just a small sample of the vitriol sent their way:

Lawmakers Are Too Dumb to Understand Energy Policy

“The ACC is independently elected to make energy decisions because they are more knowledgeable than legislators!”

“ACC, not state reps, have focus & expertise to determine energy issues.”

Apparently legislators are competent enough to decide tax policy, create the state’s budget, criminal code, and legislate on other complex issues, but when it comes to energy policy our elected legislative body is not qualified enough.

Will of the Voters! Except for the Steyer Initiative, That Doesn’t Count

“This bill proposes to disrespect the will of the voters who strongly supported Clean Energy”

“The ACC Rules being considered have been properly vetted and have strong public support. This bill is legislative overreach.”

It was only two years ago when Arizonans overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 127, a ballot measure that would have imposed Green New Deal energy mandates very similar to what is being proposed by the ACC. Voters have spoken on the issue, and it wasn’t to have the Corp Comm install a sweeping energy plan that will raise utility prices and cause rolling blackouts in the state.

Arizona Should Adopt California-Style Energy Mandates

“Clean energy is good for Arizona. It keeps electricity costs lower, consistent, predictable and reliable over the long term. Being a solar leader gives us more energy independence and control. This is not the Legislature’s job.”

California tried the same plan, and what was the result? After weeks of rolling blackouts Governor Gavin Newsom was forced to beg residents to limit the use of their appliances and turn up their air conditioning thermostats. It got so bad that Newsom suspended the closure of several natural gas power plants that were scheduled for closure.

The Legislature Needs to Butt Out and Let the ACC Run Wild

“DO YOUR WORK AND LET THE ACC DO THEIRS—READ THE CONSTITUTION!”

While the constitution does say that the Corp Comm “may prescribe… and make and enforce reasonable rules, regulations, and orders for the convenience, comfort, and safety, and the preservation of the health, of the employees and patrons,” it also makes it clear that the Legislature has the final say. In the recent Johnson Utilities court decision, Arizona Supreme Court unanimously held that the legislature’s authority over the public health and wellbeing of Arizonans “is paramount” to that of the Commission’s on matters of policy.

As HB 2248 and SB 1175 move forward, it will be interesting to see how lawmakers respond to being told that they are stupid and should stand in the corner while the Corp Comm attempts to set energy policy for the state. Hopefully it will stiffen their resolve to do the right thing: stopping the Green New Deal in Arizona.

*****
This article from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club was originally published on January 20, 2021 and is republished with permission.

Rudy Giuliani Sued by Dominion Voting Systems for $1.3 Billion

/in , , , , , , /by


https://twitter.com/PamelaGeller/status/1353755507190857730?s=20
https://twitter.com/PamelaGeller/status/1353723425995501570?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1353723425995501570%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2021%2F01%2Frudy-giuliani-sued-by-dominion-voting-systems-for-1-3-billion.html%2F
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1353745678367920129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1353745678367920129%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2021%2F01%2Frudy-giuliani-sued-by-dominion-voting-systems-for-1-3-billion.html%2F

Giuliani sued by Dominion Voting Systems for $1.3 billion

By Associated Press
Dominion Voting Systems filed a defamation lawsuit on Monday against Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who led the former president’s efforts to question the validity of the 2020 election.
The lawsuit seeks more than $1.3 billion in damages for the voting machine company, a target for conservatives who said it was part of a massive election fraud scheme, blaming it for Trump’s loss and alleging that its systems were easily manipulated.
Dominion’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, is among the first major signs of fallout for the former president’s allies and the ultimately unsuccessful effort to question the results of the 2020 election.
“For Dominion — whose business is producing and providing voting systems for elections — there are no accusations that could do more to damage Dominion’s business or to impugn Dominion’s integrity, ethics, honesty, and financial integrity,” the lawsuit says.
Israel’s Chief Rabbi slams ultra-Orthodox rioters: ‘No justification… desecration of God’
WATCH: Israel officially opens embassy in UAE
Health officials warn: Israel’s closures may last longer
“Giuliani’s statements were calculated to — and did in fact — provoke outrage and cause Dominion enormous harm.”
The suit is based on statements Giuliani made on Twitter, in conservative media and during legislative hearings where the former mayor of New York claimed the voting machine company conspired to flip votes to President Joe Biden.
Dominion provided machines for the state of Georgia, the critical battleground that Biden won and which gave Democrats control of the U.S. Senate.
“Dominion brings this action to set the record straight, to vindicate the company’s rights under civil law, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and to stand up for itself, its employees, and the electoral process,” the lawsuit read.
Giuliani did not respond to a reporter’s message seeking comment.
During an episode of Giuliani’s podcast, he charged that “Dominion had stolen the election ‘technologically,’” the lawsuit alleges, and warned listeners that cybercriminals could steal the titles to their homes online.
Dominion has also sued Powell, who claimed that the company was created in Venezuela to rig elections for the late leader Hugo Chavez and that it has the ability to switch votes.
The lawsuit also alleges Giuliani’s statements about Dominion and the election being stolen helped lead to the breach on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol.
“Having been deceived by Giuliani and his allies into thinking that they were not criminals — but patriots ‘Defend(ing) the Republic’ from Dominion and its co-conspirators — they then bragged about their involvement in the crime on social media,” the lawsuit states.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Brave, ethical lawmakers continue investigation into extensive evidence of widespread voting fraud
Arizona GOP votes to censure TRAITORS McCain, Flake, and Ducey after the trio split with Trump
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.

Carlsbad, California Says No More Lockdowns. May It Be A National Model!

/in , , , /by

“I’m not willing to give up without a fight — I’m just not.” – Annie Rammel, Carlsbad, CA restaurant owner.

It’s been said off and on over the decades that California is a bellwether of sorts. What happens there is a preview of what’s going to happen elsewhere in the U.S.

In the late 1970s the passage of Proposition 13 foretold a national tax revolt. Californians used a referendum to limit the tax power of grasping politicians in the Golden State, and the pushback eventually went national.

A different, more local revolt began last weekend in Carlsbad, CA, a town just north of San Diego. Its restaurant and bar owners decided they’re weren’t going to take it anymore. They’re no longer going to allow witless politicians to destroy what they’ve worked so long to build. They’re going to open their businesses to eager customers.

Some will ask what California legislators right up to Governor Gavin Newsom will say. Ideally the mini-revolt will wake these sick people up to the extraordinary damage they’re doing, but if not it’s worth reminding everyone that the very individuals in government who are presently limiting your right to work, operate your business, and live your life as you desire, used to not be in government. Some even used to have regular jobs in the private sector. The main thing is that they’re not experts on medical matters, nor are they abnormally smart. They just happen to be good at politics. They’re in no position to tell us how to live, or operate our businesses, or whether or not we should have a job to go to. They’re just people who want power, prestige and money, only they want it the easy way.

This is worth remembering as businesses, jobs and life as we know it vanish thanks to politicians imposing their force on us. Why allow them to do that? People should be free to do as they wish with their property. Period. This includes Twitter and Facebook if they choose to censor comments and commenters. If Amazon chooses to not do business with certain people or companies, that’s its right. If bakers choose not to bake cakes for events that offend their personal morality, that’s their right. Business owners who want to meet the needs of willing customers while a virus is spreading should be free to open up as they see fit.

Interesting and happy about scenic, seaside Carlsbad is that in a state that is largely locked down, in a state where most restaurants can’t even serve customers outside, Carlsbad is open. Its restaurants and bars are open outdoors and indoors. Some of the bars are packed. Please learn more about this happy story of protest against what is ridiculous. Please support it.

Of course, the owners of the bars and restaurants in OPEN (!!!!!) Carlsbad are far more diplomatic than yours truly. They’re calling their exercise of their property rights a “peaceful protest.” And peaceful it is. Nothing could be more peaceful than operating a business that can only succeed insofar as its patrons are pleased for having patronized it, only to come back over and over again.

Furthermore, the protest is one lodged under desperate circumstances. These businesses can’t not be open. If they remain shuttered by decree, or limited in their ability to serve their customers by decree, they will close for good. Though some business owners may have political leanings, this is not political. It’s about survival, and it’s something all who consider themselves decent should cheer. This includes those who’ve not been out in public or inside a public venue since March. Freedom is its own virtue.

Arguably the most important supporters of the beautiful story unfolding in Carlsbad would be other business owners. They must open if they feel inclined to re-open. The simple truth is that the power-mad can’t arrest everyone. If restaurants and bars open en masse in California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and every other city and state overseen by authoritarians, what can the authorities do? There aren’t enough jails and handcuffs, and there aren’t enough guns to subdue a mass, nationwide, owner, employee and customer protest against a tragic lapse of reason.

Crucial about what’s happening in Carlsbad, and that should happen everywhere, is that there’s nothing violent about it. It’s much more than just a “peaceful protest.” It’s reasonable. It’s common sense. It’s businesses, workers, and customers exercising their right to operate, work, and live as they want. They’re not forcing their values on others. Businesses that choose to stay closed should do just that. Worried employees should stay home. The people fearful of the virus should similarly stay home.

For the rest of us who feel inclined to resume living, it’s time for us to do that. Again, those who are sickeningly intoxicated with power can’t incarcerate us all. As for the businesses terrorized by the political class in Carlsbad, they decided they no longer have any choice. Given the choice between going out of business and defying politicians, they chose the latter. Good for them.

Let’s again support what’s happening in Carslbad, including purchasing gift certificates from its restaurants and bars. Let’s also emulate them. May Carlsbad be a national model!

*****

John Tamny is editor of Real Clear Markets.  This article was published on January 22, 2021 by The American Institute of Economic Research,  AIER and is reproduced with permission.

VIDEO: Florida Patriots Rally in Support of My Pillow Guy!

/in , , , , , /by


We told you the other day that the cancel-culture was busy at work and had pressured major retailers to drop My Pillow from its shelves because of Mike Lindell’s support of President Donald Trump.
Fight back!
This is the kind of peaceful protest we all need to be doing more of!
From Steve Bannon’s War Room: Karyn Turk on censorship and disparagement of patriot Mike Lindell

Patriots Rally in Florida for My Pillow

Karyn Turkreports live from the rally to support My Pillow in Boca Raton, Florida where patriots are standing up against Big Tech oligarchs and the left who are trying to cancel Americans.
Turk says the key is for patriotic Americans to unite together. “The left does a very good job of sticking together, we as conservatives need to do the same…and say we’re not going to tolerate this.”
Mike Lindell’s completely American-made business is under attack from the left since he has been an outspoken voice against the fraud that occurred on Nov. 3. Big Tech tyranny has led to My Pillow being dropped from Bed Bath and Beyond, Wayfair, Kohl’s, and Kroger. [Kroger is new to the list since I reported on the mean trick being done to Lindell–ed]
The War Room has contact phone numbers, so go get ’em.
Here is what I did today.  I took one of the many 20%-off flyers I get from Bed, Bath and Beyond and sent it back to the company with a note—told them I will never shop there again because of their political views and what they did to Lindell.
By the way, I put my post the other day on my Refugee Resettlement Facebook page and got a great response. See it here. (And, I don’t monitor comments there, so join in!).

RELATED TWEET:


EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

3 Harmful Consequences of Biden Killing the Keystone XL Pipeline

/in , , , , /by

From CO2 emissions to jobs to investment, the president’s move will have the opposite of its intended effect.

President Joe Biden wasted no time after Wednesday’s inaugural ceremonies before getting to work. He signed 17 executive orders and memorandums—by far the most in history on a president’s first day—one of which halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried crude oil from Canada through the US.

“Construction on the long disputed Keystone XL oil pipeline halted Wednesday as incoming U.S. President Joe Biden revoked its permit on his first day in office,” the Associated Press reports. “The 1,700-mile (2,735-kilometer) pipeline was planned to carry roughly 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.”

This is just the latest—but likely final—development in a long fight over this project. The Keystone pipeline was first commissioned in 2010, but this part of it, the XL pipeline, was blocked by the Obama administration in 2015. Then, President Trump reversed course in 2017 and, after lengthy legal challenges, finally paved the way for it to proceed. But sadly, Biden’s latest decision is likely the end of this years-long fight.

“We will begin a safe and orderly shut-down of construction,” Keystone XL President Richard Prior said.

Biden’s rationale for shutting down the project is clear. He believes that carbon emissions and climate change pose a grave threat to the environment and the economy. Thus, the president hopes to block more use of fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions by thwarting this project.

“The Keystone XL pipeline disserves the U.S. national interest,” Biden wrote in his executive order. “The United States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be met with action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.”

“Leaving the Keystone XL pipeline permit in place would not be consistent with my Administration’s economic and climate imperatives,” the president concluded.

Biden’s “solution” here is to use the power of the federal government to spike a massive economic project years in the making. His benign intentions will not ameliorate the lasting fallout from the many unintended consequences this intervention will surely bring.

Here are three key ways Biden’s move to block the Keystone pipeline will backfire.

Blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline May Actually Increase CO2 Emissions

Even those who share Biden’s goal of reducing CO2 emissions shouldn’t support his move to block the pipeline. Blocking its construction will, most likely, lead to higher emissions, not a reduction.

Why?

Well, Keystone had already promised to use green technology and eliminate all CO2 emissions from its operations by 2030. And it’s not as if blocking this pipeline will actually mean the oil doesn’t get transported. It will just have to be transported by more costly, less efficient measures like rail shipping.

“The Obama State Department found five separate times that the pipeline would have no material impact on greenhouse gas emissions since crude would still be extracted,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board explains. “Shipping bitumen by rail or tanker would result in 28% to 42% higher CO2 emissions and more leaks.”

Ironically, this unintended consequence will likely mean that more carbon gets emitted—the exact opposite of Biden’s goal.

Any time the government steps in and squashes economic investment, job losses are sure to follow. Biden’s blocking of the Keystone XL pipeline is no exception.

If allowed to go through, the pipeline project would have created 11,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in wages, according to Fox Business. These gains will all now be lost. Biden regularly says he wants his environmental policies to create good-paying, union jobs— but what the president just did will accomplish the opposite. This is why even left-wing elected officials like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau oppose Biden’s decision.

Regulatory Uncertainty Will Discourage Future Business Investment

If there’s one thing that’s bad for investment, it’s uncertainty. And that’s exactly what Keystone has faced thanks to the federal government’s knee-jerk reversals and regulatory whiplash.

Yes, you can build it. Wait, no you can’t. Yes, actually you can. Wait, never mind, now it’s blocked again.

“It is impossible for American businesses to make big, long-term investments in a political environment in which every project is up for renegotiation — or summary economic execution — every time the White House changes hands,” the National Review editorial board wisely warns. “Surely, in a continental nation as vast as ours, with an economy as complex as ours, it shouldn’t be possible for one man serving a short term in a temporary elected office to undo years of work and billions of dollars in investment. This is pure foolishness, and it will cost us.”

Biden says he wants to promote economic growth and investment. But if this kind of whipsawing regulatory reversal pervades the new president’s tenure, businesses will—quite understandably—end up reducing their investments to account for such uncertainty.

The Big Picture: Big Unintended Consequences Will Always Plague Big Government

Even the smartest and most brilliant bureaucrats and elected officials will never be able to issue sweeping economic diktats from offices in Washington, D.C. without incurring massive unintended consequences. It’s simply impossible for any centralized authority to have enough knowledge of vast industries and complex situations across the continent to effectively account for all variable and potential outcomes.

“Every human action has both intended and unintended consequences,” economist Antony Davies and political scientist James Harrigan explain. “Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended.”

The Biden administration’s decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline will, no doubt, provide a poignant example of when big government goes wrong. But it would be a mistake to think these shortcomings are specific to President Biden, environmental policy, or oil pipelines.

Central planners will always end up missing the nail when they swing the hammer—because they’re working while blindfolded.

*****

This article was first published on January 21 2021 by the Foundation for Economic Education, FEE and is hereby reproduced with permission.

The Checkmating of America

/in , , , , /by


We’re now learning why our Founders placed freedom of the press and freedom of speech—among other key rights—in the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights. For it is the chicanery, sabotage and subversive propaganda of the American media that has landed us where we are today.
To prove this point, let me illustrate what our mainstream press—say the New York Times—should have been trumpeting as soon as the theft of our election became evident:
Headline: WORLD WAR III RAGING! AMERICA IN THE CROSSHAIRS!
Subtitle: THE INTERNATIONAL GLOBALIST CABAL, AIDED BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, SELL-OUT POLITICIANS AND OFFICIALS, AND THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY, NOW IN OPEN ASSAULT ON AMERICA
First paragraph: President Trump has been proven right—the 2020 election was stolen in a flagrant act of treason by both Democrats and their globalist allies. This coup d’état to take over America was part of a Soros-funded “Color Revolution” revolving around a contested election, with the aim of turning America over to Communist China under the Davos elites’ plan for One World Government.
Anyone see that headline in the Paper of Record? In any of our mainstream press? On MSNBC? How differently do you think your friends and family members who are loyal, unquestioning Democrats would be viewing world events and our present crisis if the Gray Lady had vouchsafed articles like that?
But perhaps you’ll find that headline hyperbolic, so let me explain why I believe it expresses the very real situation in the last weeks of Trump’s presidency.
We’ve been under attack by enemies foreign and domestic for quite some time, as the Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations were primarily about enriching high level office holders—e.g. Hillary, Biden, Obama—the kleptocrats in Congress, fueling wars overseas, and selling out our jobs and our country to China. That’s why Trump won in 2016—he stands for the opposite of all that corruption. But let’s focus on the past year and the multi-pronged war being waged against us.

The Plandemic’s Attack on Our Middle Class

We remember only too well the mysterious flu virus that struck China in December 2019 and January 2020. We saw videos of people apparently dropping dead in the streets, and bizarre “lockdowns” turning huge cities into empty ghost-towns seemingly overnight. What we didn’t know then:

  • Those videos were psy-op propaganda to condition us to follow suit and shut down our own cities, businesses, economic engine, and systematically weaken our nation and our people.
  • The virus had been engineered in a Chinese bio-weapons lab.
  • Even though the “novel coronavirus” was a bioweapon and intentionally spreading it to the U.S. was therefore an act of war, it turned out to be essentially no more lethal than the seasonal flu, which also kills many people every year—especially the elderly.
  • The Globalist Cabal was behind the psy-op, and got plenty of help from China, the UK, Bill Gates, Italy, the corrupt media in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere, so it seemed to most people to be legit. After all, how could a conspiracy this big take place?

Answer: with massive planning, billions of dollars, and evil genius.
This is why those who are wide awake call Covid-19 the “Plandemic” or the “Scamdemic.” If we forget about the eensy weensy virus narrative and just look at the results, this is what we see: China and the domestic enemies of America—the radical Progressive Dems and RINOs—have weakened America nearly to the point of no return, by wiping out at least half of our small businesses or more, which means they’ve decimated our once thriving middle class. And the middle class is America! Most countries have a small, superrich oligarchy on top, and masses of poor people beneath them. Only in America can everyone potentially thrive as members of the middle class pursuing their happiness. That happiness has been largely destroyed by our America-hating enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The Theft of Our Election

Anyone with functioning brain cells must have recognized that Biden was a sure bet to lose the 2020 election, and Trump, as both the incumbent and a yuugely popular President who campaigned like a human dynamo, was a sure bet to win. I feel sorry for the gamblers among us who lost their very safe bets on POTUS. Yet, as it turns out, there was plenty of dirty money on Sleepy Joe.
In fact, Wayne Allyn Root, a Republican-conservative syndicated columnist, best-selling author, and renowned political commentator who has also been a Las Vegas odds maker and sports gaming expert for decades, offers a unique analysis of election night. We all knew Trump had won his re-election that night, but were shocked when Fox News called Arizona for Biden at 11:20pm, with under 60% of the vote in, and nearly a million ballots still uncounted. Wayne Root points out that immediately following that premature call, all the swing states stopped counting. That was unprecedented. And when the lights came back on, Trump’s 8-to-1 odds of victory had plummeted to 2-to-1, which Root calls not just fishy, but impossible. He believes the Arizona early vote call was both a signal for the Dems to pull out all the stops in their cheat-machinery, and to tip off crooked insiders to place bets on Biden at that moment to capture the 8-to-1 odds in favor of Trump which made Biden the long-shot who’d pay off big time. He explains it this way:
It was as if someone had decided in advance to give Arizona to Biden- whether he won it, or not. It was as if the secret code was known to only a few billionaire gamblers, ‘Fox News awards Arizona to Biden.’ Six magic words. Someone was ready for that call. Someone waited until Trump was a prohibitive 8 to 1 favorite, then knew to bet millions of dollars on Biden at the longest odds of the night. Someone knew the fix was in. Someone made a fortune.
The only way the odds could have fallen so precipitously in a few hours would have been due to massive betting on Biden while the counting was stopped. Just think—with those odds, a complicit globalist billionaire bets 10 million on Biden and walks away with a cool 80 million as a sure thing, adding insult to America’s injury.
We all know what happened next, as we awakened to bewildering, gut-wrenching news: the winner of the 2020 election was absentee candidate Quid-Pro-Joe. I don’t need to recite all the anomalies or the fact that all indicators, including that of bell-weather states and counties pointed to a clear win for Trump. We are, however, blessed by the hubris of the cheatin’ Dems who failed time and again to accurately assess Trump’s popularity with the voters. The first time, in 2016, they cheated aplenty for Hillary, but not enough to score. This time they were bound and determined to win…at any cost. So they created a vote-switching algorithm sure to push Basement Biden over the finish line. Only once again, they underestimated our remarkable President. But this time, just in case, they had another of their famous “insurance policies”: hundreds of thousands of fake, never mailed out ballots, hidden away in suitcases or ready to be trucked from state to state as needed.
Luckily for us, their overconfidence in their unscrupulous vote-flipping algorithm resulted in their desperately and openly conducting the rest of their fraud as we’ve seen in videos and testimonies of firsthand observers.
So we have both homegrown cheating: use of vote harvesting, dead people voting, felons and illegal aliens voting, people from out of state voting, and pristine mail-in ballots counted—even multiple times.
But they also used more sophisticated techniques that involved other nations. In fact, this time round, we really did have “foreign interference in our election”—the Dems’ battle cry after Trump won in 2016.

Cyber Warfare

The brilliant attorney and great patriot Sidney Powell undertook a Herculean task of documenting the fraud conducted internationally that handed Trump’s win to Beijing Biden. She released the Kraken—including a 270-page document filled with factual evidence of the theft of this election. You’d think this would have been enough to save the day, but the Swamp is deeper and wider than anyone knew, having long since seeped into our judicial system.
And just this January, information has come to light that an IT worker in Italy had been instructed to ratchet up the failing algorithm in the wee hours of the morning on November 4th, so he could send the pro-Biden-skewed results from Italy’s Leonardo SpA satellite to the servers in Germany where the votes resided prior to being sent back to the U.S. Here’s a quote from his attorney, Prof. Alfio D’Urso: “Arturo D’Elia [former head of the IT Department of Leonardo SpA] has been deposed by the presiding judge in Naples and in sworn testimony states on 4 November 2020, under instruction and direction of US persons working from the US Embassy in Rome, undertook the operation to switch data from the US elections of 3 November 2020 from significant margin of victory for Donald Trump to Joe Biden in a number of states where Joe Biden was losing the vote totals.”
Anyone see that bombshell breaking news in the New York Times? Me neither.

“A Republic, if You Can Keep It!”

Assuming Italy did indeed take part in fixing the race, we can tally the international interference thus: Italy (though manipulation of the computing algorithm), Germany (through sending faulty, manipulated data to the U.S.), Switzerland (home of Scytl software), Spain (where the votes are counted), the UK (MI-6 allegedly involved in the scam), Canada (home of Dominion voting machines), along with Trump’s—and America’s—sworn enemy: Communist China. In fact, John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence, had this to say in a signed statement, “the People’s Republic of China sought to influence the 2020 U.S. federal elections.”
Watching one’s country go down in flames through a Chinese Communist and Soros-funded globalist Color Revolution is a tragedy of gigantic proportions. We’ve seen it happen to other countries around the world, but never imagined it could happen here. In fact, most Americans who actually voted for Biden have no idea that it has happened here.
We the People may have thought we were merely witnessing a presidential election as we do every four years, when what was actually transpiring was an international cyber-warfare attack on the sovereignty of America by toppling a legitimately elected and hugely popular President. This is why I believe we should acknowledge this coup d’état against our nation as World War III—fought in cyberspace and through psy-ops instead of with bombs and bullets. The stakes were astronomically high—the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
And sadly—make that tragically—we’ve just lost.
Coming out of the hall in Philadelphia where the Constitution was written, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman who’d been waiting nearby, “Sir, what have you given us?” “A Republic, ma’am—if you can keep it!” Today our question is, after letting it slip through our hands, can we get our Republic back?
© Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.

Biden Admin To INCREASE Drug Prices – Reversing Trump Policy Designed To Lower Insulin Prices

/in , , , , , , , /by


President Trump’s policies continue to reveal what destroyers and enemies of the people the Democrats are.
President Biden has been reversing or pausing some rules put in place under former President Donald Trump this week, including one designed to bring down the price of insulin.


https://twitter.com/PamelaGeller/status/1352819738410446848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1352819738410446848%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2021%2F01%2Fbiden-admin-to-increase-drug-prices-reversing-trump-policy-designed-to-lower-insulin-prices.html%2F

Biden admin freezes Trump HHS rule meant to lower insulin prices

The rule has been put on hold for 60 days pending review
By Brittany De Lea | Fox News January 23, 2020:
Is Biden’s rush to reverse Trump policies in nation’s best interest?
FOX News Washington correspondent Rich Edson details the foreign policy concerns on ‘Special Report’
President Biden has been reversing or pausing some rules put in place under former President Donald Trump this week, including one designed to bring down the price of insulin.
The Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday announced that the directive would be put on hold among a number of other measures that were passed under Trump, but are not yet in effect.
The measure, signed off on in December, aimed to require some community health centers to deliver savings to low-income patients for insulin and epinephrine in a bid to bring down unaffordable prices.
The rule was scheduled to go into effect on Friday but has since been delayed until March 22.
On Wednesday, White House chief of staff Ron Klain directed agencies to pause orders signed towards the end of Trump’s term so they could be reviewed.
The order directs the administration to immediately withdraw rules that have been sent to the Office of Financial Research but not yet published in the Federal Register. For those that have been published, but are not yet effective, members are directed to “consider postponing the rules’ effective dates for 60 days.”

EDIOTRS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.