Does Scarcity benifit the economy ?


Some time ago I encountered a fallacy, (and I have put off discussing it here) which stated simply:

The increased scarcity of goods makes a nation richer.

I think it sounds ridiculous, but believe it or not, the principle has found its way into “legitimate” economic thought and even policy making. For instance, one of the focuses of FDR’s New Deal program was to, in an attempt to help farmers make more money, destroy crops to raise the value of the existing crops, thus allowing the farmers to make more money.

Never mind the multitudes that were unable to afford to eat before this policy was implemented. But at least the farmers were able to make more money, right? Nope, because the money they were suddenly making was not going as far as it was before, rendering the policy useless. Simply, it inflated the currency.

Let’s look at fuel for instance, no matter if its gasoline or coal. Its scarcity, according to those who are a part of the fallacy mentioned, would be a good thing, and the abundance of fuel would be fatal to the economy, because it would be CHEAP, and those producing it would make little money. But anyone who has to fill up their car knows that decreased gas prices are a good thing for the personal pocketbook, and it is the same for everyone (and in this case, other industries benefit from the decreased cost of fuel, pulling down costs universally.)

Let’s look at it at another angle. I am a big fan of Peach Ne Hi Soda. If my refrigerator only has a couple of bottles, it would be dearer to me, more valuable. Now let’s say the refrigerator is the food supply of a nation, and if there is less in it, the producers would be able to make more money, but the consumer would have to pay more, and we all know what happens then.

What good is more dollars in your bank account if you have to spend more of it to obtain scarce goods?

Let us take down the fallacy that states Scarcity is beneficial, because the wealth of a nation is not vested in the value of things, but rather, the existence and utility of goods in abundance.


“None of the Above” At the ballot… ?


It may not be an original idea of mine – anymore, who can have an original idea? But I got to thinking, at first as a joke, but then began to put serious consideration to this –

What if we put a “none of the above” option on the ballot? And if the total number of votes for none of the above exceed legitimate votes, then would it be reasonable to kick out the candidates and call a new election.

I think this is actually a very good idea because most everyone (not limited to the right wing or the libertarians) has been very dissatisfied with the candidates in the past few elections.

Who with a straight face could actually say they supported Mitt Romney whole heartedly? John McCain? Most everyone supported the candidates because it would be better than the alternative. (Would it have been? We will never know.)

And I think that the democrats were becoming somewhat dissatisfied with Obama in the last election. Not completely, but there was some wiggle room as compared to ’08.

Not just nationally, but in every election. For instance, in the upcoming Oklahoma governor race, a major issue is storm cellars for schools, to prevent the loss of lives during disasters such as the May 20th tornado. Both candidates (and in a future post I hope to put more thoughts on this subject) have a plan to raise funds for them – both of them place an added burden on an already fragile economy. So why not a “none of the above?”

So really, is a “none of the above” option on the ballot that unreasonable? No. But I know better. It’s sensible and there’s a ban on sensibility in this nation.

Communism / Socialism – good on paper…?

Now we all know that communism cannot work, and I hope that we are learning that Socialism doesn’t either (as we see it being implemented in our own United States) but I encounter this sentiment often: that communism and related systems are good in theory and is only not possible because of the human element.

 Now, certainly, there are many people that use such terms incorrectly and I don’t intend to increase their number. So, here is the definition that I will work off of (and also for sake of brevity):

  1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
  2. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Now disregarding the dictatorships which are often a result of such systems, let us look at these definitions. First, the collective ownership of property and the organization of labor – who is to organize this? Naturally, the government or legislative body, who is put in charge of the socialistic system, whether they be democratically elected or not, and do not forget: democracy alone cannot prevent tyranny.

Now as for property: a person, as stated in our charter of independence, is entitled to his property. The communists argue that all things come from the Earth, recourses which have been bestowed unto us without charge, so should they not be shared by everyone? However, most things that come from the Earth must be improved upon to be useful or practical to us, and when an individual or group of individuals are willing to do this, through the effort of their labor, it becomes their property. But communism, at least as described above, would allow some to live off the labor of some others, through the communal attitude of property.

Now the communists would respond, every man would, in a perfect world, do a part. Is that not what we have in a free market? In order to live, one must do his part, in order to eat. The advantage of the free market is that they have pure freedom to do as they wish where they wish. Labor, in a free market system, would be organized by default naturally, instead of artificially by a governing body, which seldom, if ever has the ability to see the full picture of the entire market and possible implications of governing decisions. So, then, what is the point?

That is the flaw, but only because the human element is factored. Let us take it out and what do we have left? A perfect system? Certainly not. Let us consider that not all employments are equal.

We see that more effort is put forth in construction than a cashier at a fast food restaurant. Perhaps you disagree, but what you must understand is that different employments require different amounts of effort and – are, in a free market, compensated accordingly.

But in a communist system, everyone is equally compensated for an hour’s work – but not all hours of work are the same.  Yet, all compensation is the same in a communist system. Hardly fair.

Disregard all systems or ideals and systems involving force, and only favor one, either in application or on paper – freedom.

“Training Programs” of today, the “National Workshops”of Yesterday … ?

In Obama’s State of the Union address last night, there was something that stuck out to me: the beginning of so-called training programs to train people for employment (and put Biden in charge of it, so it’s obvious on how well it will go…)

But it’s not even the fact that Biden was placed in charge that called my attention to it, it was the similarity between another instance in history – which, as it so happens, didn’t work so well.

France during the 1840’s was a very turbulent place, and when the new “republic” had been formed, the socialists, primarily following Louis Blanc, began a government program of job training/labor-workforce, known as the National Workshops.

Soon, thousands had become part of these national workshops, the insignia of which, a golden bumble bee, could be seen all throughout Paris. By May 1848, the members of the National Workshops clocked in at about 100,000 persons (!) and there was fear of even bringing up it’s problems in the assembly (after all, violent mobs formed quickly in Paris during that era…)

Finally, due to monetary problems, the issue reached a climax. When there was over a hundred thousand persons on the rolls of the national workshops, increasing every day, and because the National Assembly had promised also to lower taxes, a crisis was brewing. Quoting from the excellent biography on Bastiat, “A Man Alone” when the National Workshops were being threatened:

“At the May 15th meeting of the assembly, the Assemblymen suddenly realized that the streets outside the chamber were more quiet than they had been since the new chamber of deputies had begun its meetings. The group of legislators realized that they were surrounded by something more than 20,000 men when the crowd at last revealed its approach with a single terrible shout.”

Now for the sake of brevity, I will sum up what happened May 15th 1848 – there was a riot of angry workmen at the National Assembly, worried that the Workshops would be dissolved. They had become dependent upon the wages, which the Assembly could no longer pay for, because the people demanded decreased taxes.

Bastiat’s words in the aftermath of the uprising:

Once we start from this idea, accepted by all our political theorists, and so energetically expressed by M. Louis Blanc in these words: “The motive force of society is the government”; once men consider themselves as sentient, but passive, incapable of improving themselves morally or materially by their own intelligence and energy, and reduced to expecting everything from the law; in a word, when they admit that their relation to the state is that of a flock of sheep to the shepherd, it is clear that the responsibility of the government is immense. . .

Thus, there is not a single ill afflicting the nation for which the government has not voluntarily made itself responsible. Is it astonishing, then, that each little twinge should be a cause of revolution?

I will leave you to consider the problems (besides Biden) of our own Training programs, should they ever become a reality. Is it the place of government ?

Does “Censure” actually mean anything ?



….I don’t think so.

Read here about McCain’s recent censure :–election.html

The only thing that will work is Arizona coming to it’s senses and elect someone better next time around.

This censure, although it can’t hurt, certainly won’t help.

Say what you will about his service to the country – it seems those who defend him must always resort to playing the service card because there is nothing else they can use to defend him. Perhaps it is a blunt statement, but I would venture to say that he has hurt our country more during his time in congress than he could have ever helped by being in the service.

He is the ultimate establishment republican – from the tea party’s point of view, a democrat – from a libertarian’s point of view, a raging statist.

But I don’t want to bash it too much – it is a step, though small – in the right direction.

Now if New York would slap Peter King on the wrist . . .

Seperation of the Economy and the State – First part !

(This post is too long to put in one post, so I will break it up over as many posts as necessary)

 Thousands constantly speak of how the church and their beliefs must be extracted from government and public places in order to comply with the supposed separation of church and state. They all want religion out of the schools, and to protect everyone from the supposed evils of modern religion.

Very well then, while most complain about Christmas trees in public squares, I complain about something that is very fatal to free markets and freedom overall – the dangerous and fatal association of the economy and the state.

In our nation we are quite divided on this, and it is obvious to any person with ears or eyes. There is the left wing and the right wing, and within those factions there is further division, in the left wing there are the socialists, liberals, communists, moderate democrats, and in the right wing there are the moderates, the conservatives, the tea party, the partisans, and so on.

They all yell and scream as loud as they can without any attempt at harmony or sense wanting their opinions to be heard. For instance, the left wing in America wants more spending on green programs, social programs, simply, increased spending. And the right wing, though they want less spending, still advocate the spending of other people’s money. (And you will note that the establishment republicans, though they speak of fiscal conservatism, are not willing to translate their words into actions – the establishment republicans are basically democrats…)

 And we find that there are completely unreasonable demands which originate from both factions, of equal strength, in a perpetually gridlocked and chaotic game of tug-of-war. Enough, you miserable creatures! Where is the order and better yet, where is the sense in all this?

I call upon everyone to set aside the tomfoolery of the political parties in favor of something much bigger and better. This will encompass setting aside petty politics that seem to be brought up when issues of great weight are discussed. (A huge sacrifice, it would seem…) Are those the same petty politics that will end up in the history of the world someday? No, the only question will be, did we allow liberty for all individuals?

So what does this have to do with the separation of the economy and the state? Everything.

The economy, which is nothing more than a network of production, labor, selling, and buying, best operates under conditions of freedom. God has given us a great amount of natural recourses, available to us, free of charge, with one condition; that we must labor upon these products which lay upon the Earth in abundant numbers. And in doing so we must overcome many “obstacles” – some of which are natural obstacles – and artificial obstacles which are created by us, such as government.

(The rest of my remarks will be concluded in the next post)

Stance on Common Core . . .

The new educational curriculum, called “Common Core” has caused a great amount of controversy over the past 12 months or so. Some think that it is a conspiracy, a program of the new world order, a way to dumb down the students and to collect massive amounts of data on them, and so on.

Still others think that it is only a poor new curriculum which, like many of their kind, attempt to fix the problem by putting more emphasis on the thing which caused the problem in the first place (ehem, standardized testing…)

Personally I am against the implementation of common core simply because the government wants it implemented. As a general rule, if government embraces something, the best thing for one to do is run away from it as quickly as possible. If governments support such a program, there can’t be any benefit for anyone but themselves.

One thing is for sure, it’s an issue that will affect state elections greatly…

One is an oblivious, loud talker …



…arrogant and has no reason to be…and the other, is a character from a 1960’s sitcom.

In all seriousness, Obama has become more and more like Col. Klink. For instance, look here:

Obama, much like Klink, has no grip on what is going on in his administration – but likes to think he does. Like Klink, he thinks he is the smartest person around. I will grant that there are differences, but one has to admit, give Obama a monocle and you’ve got it.

Welcome to the Big Blog of Justice and Freedom . . . !

Hello…and Welcome to the big blog of Liberty and Justice!

 I have been putting off publishing one of these for a long while. Finally I have given into creating a blog.

Here you will find all my thoughts on politics and economics, everything about stuff that actually matters.

I support only the doctrine of Liberty, which happens to be the greatest political and economic doctrine there is. It’s also the simplest – it does not rely upon whims of politicians and whatever laws they may come up with. It only relies upon the freedom and the personal responsibility of the individual.

If it so happens that an opinion of mine happens to echo the platform of a certain political party, it is merely by coincidence. I will avoid, at all times, giving any sort of support to the American political parties. If we are ever to fix our problems, dissolving the political parties – and perhaps the government – would be a fine start.

If I ever start pulling out talking points and plastering them across these pages, by all means, electroshock me back to reality.

So please, feel free to contact me at the forum provided at the blog, if you have any questions or comments. Now let’s restore liberty and free markets to the entire world!