Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

Armed Hero Prevents Bloodbath at Texas Church

Tragedy struck on Sunday, December 29, 2019, when a gunman killed two parishioners at the West Freeway Church of Christ near Tarrant County, Texas. More bloodshed could have resulted had it not been for the efforts of armed citizens who immediately responded to the assailant. One of them, Jack Wilson, was able to take out the shooter. “The events at West Freeway Church of Christ put me in a position I would hope no one would have to be in, but evil exists and I had to take out an active shooter in church,” Wilson posted on Facebook. Other parishioners drew out their weapons, but Wilson was the one who was able to neutralize the gunman. Wilson’s heroic actions were well-received by members of the church and Texas political officials. “We lost two great men today, but it could have been a lot worse,” the church’s Senior Minister Britt Farmer asserted on Sunday. “I’m thankful our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves.” “The citizens who were inside that church undoubtedly saved 242 other parishioners, and that might get swept aside,” Texas Department of Public Safety Director Jeoff Williams stated. “It was miraculous. The true heroes in all this are the people who were sitting in those pews today and responded, the immediate responders … it was truly heroic.” Texas’ gun laws afford considerable Second Amendment freedoms compared to other states. Although many gun rights activists, like myself, have voiced my displeasure with the Texas legislature’s reluctance to embrace more extensive pro-gun measures, such as constitutional carry, the state still remains relatively friendly to gun owners. In fact, Texas’ current gun laws allowed for an individual like Jack Wilson and other armed law-abiding parishioners to intervene and prevent a possible bloodbath. Further, a 2017 law championed by former state representative and pro-gun advocate, Matt Rinaldi, allowed churches to have armed volunteer security. Such a law may have played a role in preventing a much larger massacre from taking place, although Texas does allow for churches to set their own policies in determining who gets to carry and who doesn’t. The killer, Keith Thomas Kinnunen, had an extensive criminal record of aggravated assault, theft, and illegal weapon possession. This incident is a firm reminder that even the most common sense of gun control laws — prohibiting felons from acquiring firearms — will likely not stop evil people from committing heinous acts. Additionally, we need to start talking about criminal justice reforms that keep the most dangerous people away from the rest of society. Regardless, no laws are perfect, and evil will find a way to slip through the cracks. That’s why there must be fallback measures such as personal defense. Armed citizens like Jack Wilson highlight how law-abiding individuals can be the last line of defense against deranged criminals.
Florida gun rights red flag laws

Violent Crime Dropped In 2018 As States Embraced Pro-Gun Policies

America’s First Freedom — the official journal of the National Rifle Association — posted an article last month highlighting a recent report from the FBI regarding national crime rates. The FBI’s 2018 “Crime in the United States” report collected crime data from law enforcement agencies across America. From the looks of it, the news is good. The FBI highlights that “[In 2018] violent crime offenses decreased when compared with estimates from 2017. Robbery offenses fell 12.0 percent, murder, and non-negligent manslaughter offenses fell 6.2 percent, and the estimated volume of aggravated assault offenses decreased 0.4 percent.” The report noted that violent crime rates bottomed out in 2014 to their lowest point since 1970. Furthermore, the 2018’s violent crime rate was the third-lowest since 1970. During the last three decades, America has experienced significant changes in its gun laws throughout the country. Curiously, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, which many predicted would lead to bedlam in the streets. The data proved this wrong when the FBI noted that murder rates went down by 3.6 percent from 2003 to 2004, contrary to people’s fears. However, most of the change regarding gun policies took place in state legislatures. While some states tightened up their gun control, others relaxed gun restrictions and even implemented policies such as Constitutional Carry — which allow law-abiding Americans to carry firearms without having to obtain a government permit. Increased carry has continued into the present. A study on the number of concealed-carry permit holders released by gun expert John Lott indicated that “In 2019, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to now over 18.66 million—a 304 percent increase since 2007. About an 8 percent growth over the number of permits since 2018.” Additionally, per capita, gun ownership increased by 56 percent from 1993 to 2013. If we had taken the media at their word, we would have expected gun crime to skyrocket. Nevertheless, gun crime continued to plummet according to the FBI, which highlighted a 49 percent decrease. Conventional rifles like the AR-15 have been largely demonized in recent years, being portrayed as a frequently used tool for carrying out attacks. As usual, the data contradicts media assumptions. For starters, AR-15s only accounted for 173 deaths in mass shootings from 2007 to 2017. Whereas, rifles of all categories were involved in 439 deaths on an annual basis. Putting this in perspective, rifles constituted 2 percent of homicides in 2018. On the other hand, knives (11 percent), hands, fists, and feet (5 percent) and blunt instruments (3 percent) were used in more homicides than rifles. It’s safe to say that the current gun violence debate is mostly based on hysterics and not a careful analysis of the facts. Stripping the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners is both unethical and an invitation for criminals to prey on victims whom they know will be defenseless. Indeed, there’s gun violence in many of America’s urban centers. Solving the problem does not require implementing gun control of any type. More local forms of policing – that target areas where criminals tend to cluster and renewed civic engagement – will do much more to stop crime than passing new gun control laws. If the political circumstances permit it, many of these areas should entertain the idea of making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. No matter how we slice it, increased legislation is not the quick fix to gun violence problems in America.

Union Boss is Forced to Resign Due to Corruption Scandals

A few weeks after the United Auto Workers union reached a deal with General Motors, the union’s president, Gary Jones, ended up resigning, on November 20, 2019. Jones’ stewardship of the UAW had gained notoriety for corruption and trouble was brewing in UAW-land throughout 2019.  Last August, the FBI raided the president’s home during an ongoing investigation into the union’s corruption scandal. The UAW was under the microscope during the prolonged strike with General Motors, which ended on October 25, 2019 — marking the longest strike in America in the last 50 years. ZeroHedge reminded its readers about the ongoing corruption with the UAW. On November 20, 2019, General Motors sued Fiat Chrysler, alleging that the car manufacturer tried to bribe high-ranking UAW officials as a means of getting more favorable terms during labor negotiations. On the day the lawsuit was filed, the UAW took initial steps to remove Jones and kick him out of the union. Jones abruptly resigned that same day. Jones was already under tremendous pressure since the start of November due to scandals involving the misuse of union funds and bribery. As of now, ten people have pled guilty to federal criminal charges concerning the aforementioned scandal. Most of these individuals are former union officials. Jones is not facing criminal charges. Under normal circumstances, he would have gone through a union trial, which would have taken the charges against him into consideration. The union boss was not exactly hurting for cash. According to ZeroHedge, his total annual compensation stood at $260,243. In some of the federal charges against Jones, there are accusations of Fiat Chrysler executives bribing union officials. General Motors sustains that Fiat undermined collective bargaining agreements between GM and the UAW during 2009, 2011, and 2015, through its bribery of union officials. The concept of labor unionization is not bad in of itself. It’s simply a group of people banding together to form a bargaining unit in the workplace — freedom of association if you will. However, things get prickly when these types of organizations use coercion against employers and other workers who refuse to unionize. Even worse, when federal bureaucracies like the National Labor Relations Board get into the mix, these entities can then receive political privileges that shield them from accountability. The UAW serves a purpose in bringing accountability to the workplace; however, it has become drunk with power in recent decades thanks to its ongoing politicization. The Jones saga illustrates the corrosive nature of unionization ever since the federal government took a more proactive role in the matter during the New Deal. Going forward, organizations like the UAW should consider distancing themselves from the federal government while exploring non-state solutions to negotiate with employers like GM. History has proven time and time again that corruption and state interference go hand-in-hand.

Deregulation Goes to the Land Down Under

A new wave of deregulation is likely coming to the Land Down Under. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, has recently embraced the Australian federal government’s new policies that are a part of its deregulation agenda and she looks forward to cooperating with the task force to see these policies through. “The next wave of deregulation reform, announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, is a step in the right direction to make it easier for small businesses to employ staff and invest in growth,” Carnell stated. She also stated the following: “Of particular interest is the government’s plan to deal with the degree of regulatory complexity, the length of time for approvals and duplication across levels of government. This has the potential to be a game-changer for Australia’s 2.3 million small businesses and family enterprises. We will continue to work with the government to achieve the best possible outcomes for the small business sector.” Once implemented, this program will be good news for Australia. Australia seems to be following in America’s positive footsteps by pursuing a deregulation agenda. The Trump administration has already set a positive tone on deregulation by signing an executive order which repealed regulations by a 2:1 ratio. This has allowed businesses of all sizes to operate with less bureaucratic rigmarole and expand their operations. Australia’s is already one of the freest economies in the world, with an envious 5th place in the Heritage Foundation’s 2019 Index of Economic Freedom. Australia’s ranking in this index is no coincidence. It has an Anglo-Saxon origin similar to the United States’ which promotes strong property rights, the rule of law, commerce, and the respect of basic civil liberties. Since 2016, there has been a notable shift to the Right in the Anglo world. Although the Right has historically been disappointing when it comes to living up to its limited government marketing, it appears that the current iteration is slightly more faithful to their principles than their predecessors. Deregulation would represent a good start for these parties. Not only are these policies in line with the vision of limited government, but they also legitimately help people of all economic backgrounds and create a new stakeholder class that is now able to build businesses with greater ease. If Prime Minister Morrison is able to see these deregulation reforms through, Australia will keep its place in the top 5 freest economies in the world and possibly move further up the ranks. A more economically free Anglo-Saxon bloc can serve as a strong moral example for the rest of the world to follow.

A New Approach is Needed With Iran

Last month, Tahmineh Dehbozorgi, a campus correspondent for Campus Reform, penned an interesting piece on how America should deal with Iran. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has been a thorn in the side of the American political establishment. This has prompted politicians from both parties to take harsh action against the country. In 1979, sanctions were slapped on Iran as a means of trying to punish the newly-formed Islamic government. Since then, the U.S. has maintained these sanctions and has added even more pressure on the country in order to force regime change, with little to no avail. As former Congressman Ron Paul wisely observed, sanctions only strengthen the countries being targeted, while everyday people suffer. Although President Trump campaigned to stop the never-ending wars, his administration has maintained and expanded upon the same failed sanctions against Iran. Even worse, the administration has continued sending troops over to Saudi Arabia — Iran’s geopolitical rival — to try to counter its influence and intimidate it. This worries some people considering how American troops are in a hot zone and any kind of attack on American assets could provoke a hot war, something no one should be asking for at this moment. Dehbozorgi raises an interesting point about the Iranian ex-pat population, one of the most skilled immigrant groups in the country. She notes that “Even though many disagree with the actions of the Iranian government, they favor better relations between Tehran and Washington and dismiss the dangerous rhetoric of war hawks like John Bolton, Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Lindsey Graham.” New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker has even urged that the United States should “be more vigilant than ever in fighting Iranian aggression.” However, there is still some prospect for peace with the Islamic Republic. Certain elected officials, like Congressman Thomas Massie, have not bought into D.C.’s hawkish ways. Massie voted against the extension of U.S. sanctions against Iran, is the only member in Congress to do so back in 2016. Similarly, Massie joined Congressmen Justin Amash and John Duncan Jr. to vote in opposition to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. It’s becoming apparent that Americans have allowed defense contractors and ivory tower foreign policy bigwigs to call the shots on foreign policy for too long. Instead, the U.S. should heed the advice of retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor and pursue diplomatic options with Iran because a direct conflict could create a global conflagration. Let’s be real. Neoconservative regime change fanatics and their neoliberal cousins portray Iran as the next Nazi Germany, but Iran is nowhere near the superpower they suggest. When factoring in how militarily advanced Israel is — it is also rumored to be a nuclear power that can counterbalance Iran. Additionally, Iran is in an alliance of convenience with China and Russia — who will likely play a mediating role in keeping Iran from pursuing irrational belligerency — the likelihood that Iran will cap off a hot war is increasingly small. A more proactive way of dealing with the country is to open up dialogue and directly appeal to Iranian activists that yearn for reform. Trying to launch another regime change campaign in the Middle East would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Florida Voters to Decide On $15 Minimum Wage in 2020

In 2020, Florida voters will decide whether to raise the state’s minimum wage, which now sits at $8.46 per hour. The 2020 ballot initiative, Amendment 2, would increase the hourly minimum wage to $10 per hour on September 30, 2021, and subsequently raise wages by $1 annually until it reaches the $15 per hour goal on September 30, 2026. With the exception of Washington D.C. which has a minimum wage of $14.00 per hour, the average state minimum wage is $8.68 in 2019. The highest minimum wages mandated by law are $12.00 in California, Massachusetts, and Washington. States like California are expected to reach a $15 minimum wage by 2022. However, its gradual move to a $15 wage is starting to have a negative impact in the restaurant industry, which is expected to lose 30,000 jobs from 2017 to 2022. When an artificial price floor is set above the market rate, business owners are faced with tough decisions which generally consist of firing workers or reducing work hours. This is a bad scenario for the low-skilled cohorts in the labor market no matter how you look at it.  However, there must be some empathy displayed in approaching this discussion. It’s not just enough to scoff at the advocates of higher minimum wages. Freedom advocates must offer a solution. These obviously include free-market alternatives. For example, many major cities have incredibly unaffordable housing markets not because of greedy capitalists, but due to restrictive land-use regulations. A more reasonable way of addressing this issue is to advocate for relaxing zoning restrictions, which ultimately lead to more housing units being built at more affordable rates.  On a more controversial note, let’s also talk about easy money. The cost of living increases observed throughout America only show one part of the story. In the background, there is a monetary policy that is largely being ignored. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost its value by 96 percent thanks to the continuous money-printing operations. We must recognize this one harsh reality about inflation: it’s not about rising prices. Inflation actually refers to increases in the overall money supply. The rising prices are just the consequence of money printing. This is the nature of central banking, which few political pundits or elected officials. It would also help that we gut the current federal tax system and reduce regulatory burdens for businesses of all sizes. Not only will this allow for businesses to thrive, but workers will reap many benefits as businesses would be able to expand operations and increase productivity, thus resulting in higher wages for American workers. All of these alternatives have one common thread, however. They don’t involve passing arbitrary laws that tamper with fixed laws of economics. Once people understand that there are market-based options in solving these problems, they will be able to reject the impulse to turn to the state to solve them. 

Medicare for All: Headache for All?

No matter who wins in 2020, calls for Medicare for All will simply not go away. The program, which Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is promoting in his 2020 presidential campaign, would have the state take on a greater role in America’s economy. According to his campaign website, Medicare for All would establish a single-payer, national health insurance program that would allow all Americans to receive “comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service.” It’s no exaggeration to say that the U.S. healthcare system is a mess. According to Julian Adorney in an article for the Mises Institute, healthcare costs skyrocketed by 118 percent from 1992 to 2012. But will Medicare for All be the silver bullet healthcare reform plan that advocates are making it out to be? For starters, the costs of Sanders’ pet program are steep. Certain estimates have Medicare for All adding $32 trillion to federal budget commitments during its first ten years. Keep in mind that Medicare is already incurring massive losses of upwards of $130 billion since 2008, along with unfunded liabilities that sum up to $30 trillion. Advocates argue that the legislation will achieve the goals of reducing drug prices and administrative costs. Sanders’ Medicare for All plan will allow patients to hold off payments when they receive treatment. All of this would be thanks to people having to pay taxes to fund the system, regardless of their overall usage. Patients would be incentivized to make more frequent visits to the doctor’s office and the emergency room, even for the most trivial of treatments, because there wouldn’t be any cost associated with doing so. Some of these unnecessary visits will put a tremendous strain on the healthcare system. The American Association of Medical Colleges already expects a shortage of 120,000 doctors by 2030, largely due to the nation’s aging population. To make matters worse, the 2016 Physicians Foundation survey revealed that 48 percent of physicians have plans of cutting hours, retiring, or taking other steps that reduce patient access to their practices.  Additionally, a 2018 Physicians Foundation survey demonstrated that 80 percent of physicians claim to be “at capacity or overextended.” One can only imagine how much worse this situation could be under a Medicare for All system where doctor visits are further encouraged. Given that there will be greater demand for healthcare services with taxpayers footing the bill, real constraints will emerge. Not to mention there is an already decreasing supply of doctors. This will inevitably lead to much longer waiting periods. A major problem with the overall healthcare debate is how much the role of government intervention in the economy is overlooked by critiques of the industry. Yes, medical care cost concerns have their place and should be taken into account, however, it would be unwise to ignore the root cause of this mess — state intervention. From stiff occupational licensing standards that the state imposes, to the FDA’s lengthy approval process, healthcare in America has more than enough regulation as it is. The talk about healthcare policy is all too reminiscent of education debates. Like education, healthcare is somehow viewed as a service that must be provided by the state. At least, that’s the narrative that opinion-makers have impressed upon us for decades. However, the history of education and healthcare in America shows that free market and civil society institutions are more than capable of providing quality services in these areas. For the devoted statist, these scenarios seem almost unthinkable. But dusting off the history books will show that anything is ultimately possible when people are allowed to voluntarily interact in the marketplace.

Understanding the Costs of the War on Terror

Jessica Corbett of Common Dreams reports that the War on Terror, which the U.S. waged after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, has cost 801,000 lives and $6.4 trillion. A pair of reports from the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs revealed the steep human and financial costs of these military excursions. According to the Costs of War Project co-director, Brown professor Catherine Lutz, “the numbers continue to accelerate, not only because many wars continue to be waged, but also because wars don’t end when soldiers come home.” Lutz added that these reports “provide a reminder that even if fewer soldiers are dying and the U.S. is spending a little less on the immediate costs of war today, the financial impact is still as bad as, or worse than, it was 10 years ago.” She argued, “We will still be paying the bill for these wars on terror into the 22nd century.” The updated Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars report counts the number of “direct deaths” in major war zones. It divides people into civilians — humanitarian workers, NGO workers, journalists and media workers— and military forces — U.S. military members, Department of Defense civilians, contractors, members of national military and police forces, allied troops, and opposition fighters. The direct death totals are divided into six categories: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria/ISIS, Yemen, and “Other.” Added together, the number of civilians who died in these conflicting regions is 335,734. Notably, this report did not include “indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, water, and/or infrastructure, war-related disease, etc.” Costs of War board member and American University professor David Vine argues that indirect deaths are “generally estimated to be four times higher” than those reported. He added, “This means that total deaths during the post-2001 U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen are likely to reach 3.1 million or more —around 200 times the number of U.S. dead.” Vine finished by asking, “Don’t we have a responsibility to wrestle with our individual and collective responsibility for the destruction our government has inflicted?” Vine reveals an unsavory truth that our, “Our tax dollars and implied consent have made these wars possible. While the United States is obviously not the only actor responsible for the damage done in the post-2001 wars, U.S. leaders bear the bulk of responsibility for launching catastrophic wars that were never inevitable, that were wars of choice.” Indeed, American policymakers have much to answer for regarding foreign policy. Global democratic crusading has been the M.O. of American policy since World War II. The U.S. has become the de facto World Police and is expected to solve all of the world’s problems. Making the world safe for democracy sounds great and all, but it comes with massive costs. The amount of blood and treasure the U.S. must expend along with the collateral damage that inevitably results from these conflicts is daunting. A constant state of war also facilitates the expansion of the state, as the defense sector grows larger and the government gains more power to spy on people. As the great writer, Randolph Bourne proclaimed, “War is the health of the state.” Although the justification for these wars sounds noble, there are insidious political forces in the shadows behind them. More often than not, these wars are total cash grabs for defense contractors. By intervening non-stop, our political class overstretches American resources and leaves many servicemen vulnerable to attacks in hostile regions. No matter how we slice it, other countries will have to pick up the slack and defend their own interests. The paradigm of foreign interventionism is heavily facilitated by central banking and income taxation. Under a system of sound money and no income tax, it would be much harder for the political class to launch these wars of choice. Donald Trump was elected in 2016 on a platform to end these conflicts. Sadly, there is strong institutional inertia within his own administration preventing withdrawal from hotspots like Afghanistan. This is where the U.S. finds itself these days. Endless wars run contrary to the Founding Fathers’ vision of a non-interventionist foreign policy that emphasized the avoidance of entangling alliances. The U.S. will need to take a radically different foreign policy path soon, lest it ends up like previous empires which imploded due to their zealous overreach.
America dollar cash dollars

Federal Reserve Chair Warns About America’s Increasing Debt

America is currently facing a fiscal crisis that even its political elites are starting to notice. Last month Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell declared that the federal budget is on “an unsustainable path” due to the national debt’s vast size — now at $23 trillion. Powell informed the Joint Economic Committee that the “high and rising federal debt” could make future recoveries from economic downturns much more difficult. “Over time, this outlook could reduce fiscal policymakers’ willingness or ability to support economic activity during a downturn. In addition, I remain concerned that the high and rising federal debt can in the longer term restrain private investment and thereby reduce productivity and overall growth,” Powell added. The fiscal chickens are coming home to roost in America and this may not look pretty for future generations. Last month the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the deficit stood at $984 billion. This was $205 billion more than the “shortfall recorded in 2018,” according to the CBO report. Frankly, both parties don’t care about the issue anymore. Big spending— be it for domestic goodies or democratic crusades abroad — are what’s fashionable among political elites. It’s no coincidence either, it’s the product of systematic public policy. The disastrous decade of the 1910s brought us policies such as direct taxation and central banking which ushered in an unprecedented expansion of the U.S. government. To this day, federal taxation and easy money are the linchpins of the seemingly irreversible trend of our gargantuan spending and constant government overreach. Indeed, tax overhauls and a move toward sound money are some of the biggest fights that must be taken up at the federal level. Much to the dismay of freedom lovers, there are very few people in Congress —with the exceptions of Congressman Thomas Massie and Senator Rand Paul — that are willing to rise to the challenge. The Federal Reserve Chair’s recognition of D.C.’s largesse is a good start. However, this must be followed up with concrete action. Far too often we see political figures recognize a valid problem, yet never do anything to actually solve it. This is the D.C. way: Lots of talk, very little action. Nevertheless, this is a good time for advocates of fiscal restraint to join the discussion and offer real solutions, such as spending cuts and a move toward a market-based currency. The conversation has to start somewhere.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Get $15 Minimum Wage Wrong

The $15 minimum wage discussions look like they’re here to stay. 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have thrown their support behind the McDonald’s employees striking for a $15 minimum wage and union rights. Even freshman congresswoman Rashida Tlaib joined workers last month in Detroit to celebrate their cause. Many of the protestors complained about their measly pay raises and their precarious financial situations. Unions are a natural constituency of the Democratic Party. According to Open Secrets, unions contributed over $60 million to Democratic candidates in 2018, while they only donated nearly $10 million to Republicans. It makes sense that Democrats would try to appeal to them with minimum wage increases. Government-sponsored unions usually benefit from government privileges that shield from forces in the labor market, such as younger and unskilled laborers who are willing to work for less. That being said, none of the concerns driving these minimum wage protests should be callously dismissed. Many workers face precarious economic prospects due to the high costs of living and stagnant economic standards around them. Many people have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet and take unconventional routes of employment. For those with stable jobs in white-collar sectors, this kind of struggle seems foreign. However, this is becoming the norm for the working class around the nation. None of this is the failure of the free market, however. It’s the result of government policies that make it both more difficult for people to join the workforce and increase the overall cost of living. In a genuine free market, both unionized and non-union workers can become more prosperous without having to turn to the government for policies that benefit one group at the expense of the other. That being said, policies like the $15 minimum wage are not a serious answer to these problems. In fact, implementing a $15 minimum wage will only enhance certain problems we already see affecting younger workers. It really boils down to supply and demand. When the government imposes a price floor well above the market rate, businesses respond in kind by laying off workers or reducing their employees’ work hours. In some cases, more technologically advanced companies will transition to automation. Most companies can’t handle these increased labor costs, so they’ll have to cut back on their workforce or find other ways to avoid more expensive labor. In each scenario, workers—especially unskilled ones — get the short end of the stick. Instead, let’s look at another way of solving this issue. The U.S’s competing jurisdictions allow diversity in terms of state policy — from taxation to regulatory matters. States, not the federal government, can lead the way by rolling back bureaucratic red tape and making it easier to build homes by easing land-use restrictions. The common theme in all of these reforms is the decreased presence of the state. Having the federal government try to “save” workers through a $15 minimum wage represents another usurpation of federal power in the otherwise private affairs of business. Additionally, it will create distortions in the labor market at a national level. Even if we disagree with minimum wage laws on a policy basis, this kind of legislation should only be implemented at the state and municipal levels. At the very least, we then have a State A vs. State B comparison to reference when discussing the effects of such policies. However, top-down policies that are not rooted in economic logic are a toxic cocktail that could negatively impact millions of Americans. Americans should look to deregulation, not state control, as the answer to the problems workers currently face in America.

Ron Paul Warns of a Gigantic Financial Bubble

Ron Paul warned about “the mother of all bubbles” in a recent piece arguing that the U.S. may be on the verge of experiencing a catastrophic economic crisis. In his piece titled Is the ‘Mother of all Bubbles’ About to Pop?, Paul declared,When the sovereign debt bubble inevitably bursts, it will cause a meltdown bigger than the 2008 crash.” Paul specifically blames the New York Federal Reserve, which started to inject billions of dollars into the repo market in September. Initially, the repo pump was supposed to go on for a few weeks. However, the New York Fed added $62.54 billion to overnight bids on Wednesday, November 6, 2019. For clarity’s sake, repurchase markets are where borrowers looking for cash provide lenders with collateral—safe securities in this case. As economist Daniel Lacalle puts it, “The repurchase rate (repo) is the interest rate that is paid to borrow cash in exchange for Treasuries for 24 hours.” Repos are generally used to raise short-term capital and are one of the few instruments the Federal Reserve uses to conduct open market operations. Open market operations — where the Federal Reserve buys and sells U.S. Treasury securities — ultimately determine the money supply. By buying Treasuries, the Federal Reserve is able to increase the money supply, which is at the heart of the boom and bust cycles the U.S. has repeatedly faced. Paul blames the New York Federal Reserve for its continuous interventions in the market. Banking policy tends to fly over people’s heads, but understanding it is crucial in order to truly grasp the flimsy foundation of the U.S. economy. Paul ultimately believes in the eventual demise of the dollar. He has been warning about the dangers of easy money since he entered Congress in 1976. Like many adherents of the Austrian School of Economics, Paul understands how central banking enables massive increases in government spending and other forms of state expansion. Now, the U.S. might be reaching a fiscal tipping point. According to CNBC, the total deficit for the fiscal year 2019 stood at $984 billion. Just like everyone takes policies like the income tax as a given, the inflate-and-spend policies present in D.C. have tremendous support among both the public and the politicians. It will require a groundswell of support from the public or a grave external crisis to force the political class to act. However, the ideological dominance of statism may keep Congress from making the right decision. If history shows, demagogic politicians take advantage of political crisis to usher in their own interventionist schemes. One common tool they use is currency depreciation. In times of fiscal turmoil, increasing the money supply is a more politically palatable option than cutting spending or raising taxes. Of course, this brings even bigger economic problems as inflation comes into the mix and gradually erodes people’s savings. This economic nightmare is avoidable, but it will involve making tough decisions. That means cutting spending, lowering taxes, and moving toward sound money like gold. These steps are far-fetched at the moment, but they must be taken if we want to stave off a crisis that will condemn our posterity to economic misery. Future generations deserve better.

President Trump Wants Negative Interest Rates – Why That’s a Terrible Idea

In a recent meeting with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin discussed the idea of negative interest rates. They focused mostly on “economy, growth, employment, and inflation.” Trump has clashed with Powell in the past over his reluctance to lower interest rates down to zero or even into negative territory. Although the economy could be in much worse shape, Trump’s monetary suggestions should have Americans worried. Economist Peter Schiff raised valid points about Donald Trump’s claims that we have the “best economy ever.” If the economy is so good, why does the economy require more monetary stimulus? It makes one wonder how rickety America’s economic fundamentals are. Trump has gotten numerous deregulation and tax cut reforms right, which helps improve the health of the American economy and keeps the state away from the voluntary affairs of free people. However, this growth has come at a massive cost. In 2018, the national debt increased by $1.27 trillion. Putting this in perspective, this represented a twofold increase in the national debt when compared to 2005 — when it rose by $554 billion. The U.S. has essentially borrowed its way into growth. Eventually, fiscal chickens will come home to roost as deficits grow and the national debt balloons. The problem with this mission is that it ignores the pitfalls of central banking. Such interventions, such as expansionary monetary policy, cause the notorious boom and bust cycles that we have all been acquainted with. More fundamentally, expansions in the monetary base will ultimately lead to the devaluation of the currency, which puts the wealth of millions of Americans in jeopardy. Questioning central banking is something that never pops up on D.C. politicians’ radars, despite America’s early tradition of questioning central banks. After all, America has been in a great spot since 1945 as the preeminent military and economic power. The American political class has ridden this envious position high for decades. Given the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency, the Federal Reserve can print money away as it pleases, without seeing very pronounced inflationary effects in the short-term. Globally speaking, U.S. dollars are high in demand. However, violating economic laws can only go on for so long. Once the American welfare state implodes and people clamor for more benefits, the Federal Reserve will likely be called upon to crank up the printing presses. Monetary expansion will most certainly bring about inflationary scenarios and place the country in uncharted economic waters. And if history is a good indicator, an America plagued by inflation will be a poorer America.