Posts Tagged ‘free market’

The flags of Canada and the United States of A...

Some highlights, from Daily Bell regular contributor, Ron Holland, in his article, You’d Have to be Crazy To Start A Global Business in the USA — As a Public Company:

I’ll bet you don’t know that I may be the first person in recorded history to move voluntarily from the warm beach and golf resort of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina to cold and snowy Toronto, Canada. But Steve Wynn and many other entrepreneurs forced to deal with the multitude of regulatory agencies at the federal, state and local level would likely agree. America’s growing number of bureaucrats – all with their hand out to exchange fees for paperwork – can make it impossible to compete in the global economy from the US.

Frankly, I’m excited to pay equal or higher taxes to a new nation that never attempted to draft me to fight in Vietnam, doesn’t harass me or my wife when getting on a plane or crossing a border and has never made my life miserable. Also, Canada is sort of like Switzerland as the nation isn’t exactly the terrorist magnet of the world like the US and their economy is booming and its sovereign debt level is reasonable.

Note: Federal taxes are lower in Canada than in the U.S., overall. As of January 1, 2012, the top marginal personal income tax rate is 29% compared to 35%, top capital gains tax rate of 14.5% for all capital gains compared to 15% only for gains acquired over at least a year in the U.S., a top corporate tax rate of 16.5% compared to 35%, and no inheritance tax, compared to the top rate of 35% in the U.S.

Anyway, we continued to argue bureaucracy, tax-rates, crime, friendly law enforcement, victimless crimes, the Patriot Act and how the American sovereign debt, the dollar and the nightmare of our political institutions – except for the Ron Paul Campaign – threatens every American citizen and business. I lost the argument so I’m now moving to Canada to become CEO of a new start-up company with a viable solution for people suffering from the effects of unwanted hair loss and baldness – both males and females.

For more on why Canada is more pro-business than the U.S. these days, see:

1) Canada more economically free than the United States for a third year in a row: Heritage Foundation
2) Canada the best place for business in 2011: Forbes
3) Still think Canada is more socialist than the United States? The joke’s on you

Read Full Post »

A small size $100 United States Note of Series...

In The Daily Bell’s November 6, 2011 interview with Ingo Bischoff, he said (emphasis mine):

“Free-market” thinking, termed by Murray Rothbard as “Anarcho-capitalism,” argues for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity.

To maximize individual liberty and prosperity, the “Free Market” distributes “wealth” by a system of arbitrage where the discovery of prices is based on marginal utility analysis, and in which “Money,” the commodity with constant or nearly constant marginal utility, is the standard of value against which the value of any other commodity or service is measured. To have a “Free Market” in “Money,” therefore, is a contradiction.

As a further blow to their opposition to government-issued currency (especially debt and interest-free currency, as opposed to free banking where banks will want to continue charging compound interest), Bischoff responded to their question about his praise for Benjamin Franklin’s Bank of Philadelphia with this (emphasis mine):

Despite the lack of redemption promise, the impeccable and honest way in which the Bank of Philadelphia was run caused the value of the Pennsylvania Pound never to drop below the value of monetary coin. This remarkable fact was cited by Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776.

For more on government-issued currency, see my articles:

1) Three prominent hard money advocates endorse the temporary issuance of fiat money

2) Michael Badnarik on issuing interest-free fiat money like Lincoln did: “That’d be a step in the right direction”

3) The Constitution doesn’t prohibit both the states and federal government from issuing fiat money

4) “The fiat money system works well if it’s tightly controlled:” Dr. Stan Monteith

5) The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin

6) The Constitution doesn’t insist on a gold or silver-backed currency

7) A fiat currency that lasted more than a few hundred years

Read Full Post »

Flag of the United States Federal Reserve Bank

On February 6, 2011, The Daily Bell featured the interview, “Richard Maybury on the Collapse of the Anglo-American Empire and What It Means for You.

In it, I noticed an attempt to discredit interest-free United States Notes, which, as  I have previously documented, the privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel lies about.

At first glance, it indeed seems like strange bedfellows for a privately owned central banking cartel and a self-described “free-market” site to both be discrediting a particular form of currency, which the Federal Reserve lies in claiming to “serve no function that is not already served by Federal Reserve notes.

However, once you “follow the money,” the picture becomes more clear.

Posted by FauxCapitalist on 2/7/2011 12:33:56 PM
Mr. Wile,

It says on your bio that you are a staunch advocate of free banking, yet I also see that you worked for ScotiaMcLeod, the investment division of one of Canada’s Big Five government-enforced oligopolistic banks. Their investment company, ScotiaMocatta, Canada’s largest precious metals bank, is Chair of the London Fix, which fixes the price of gold and silver every day.

Since you asked Richard Mayberry, “What do you think of the Brownian green backer movement? Is US Intel actively promoting it?”, my question for you is, is the Greenbacker movement being actively demoted by the very “large international banks” your own bio says you continue to consult for?

Read Full Post »

Gary North speaking at the Mises Institute aft...

In my December 29, 2010 article, Gary North: “A government-guaranteed gold standard is a fool’s gold standard,” I argue that North has set the stage for a face-saving retreat of support for the gold standard that has gained so much support and sway among many alternative economics circles and individuals in the past few years.

From his article, I can find no standard set relative to gold, and after some discussion with members of a prominent libertarian forum, that has become even more apparent.

North writes:

Something close to a free market gold standard existed in California in 1849-54. That is about the only place it has ever existed.

Note how he says “something close” to a free market gold standard, and how it only lasted five years in a single sparsely populated (at the time) state of the U.S.

That is hardly a representative sample to make judgments about gold being adopted as a free market standard in 2010 or beyond.

He also said there would be a silver coin standard, so why didn’t he call it a free market silver standard? It seems to me that would be equally valid according to his logic, but for some reason he decided to call it a free market gold standard.

North writes:

But advocates of “the gold standard” almost always mean “a government-guaranteed gold standard.” Therein lies the problem. Governments lie. They cheat. They steal.

Human nature leads people to lie, cheat and steal, on occasion, and some more than others. Governments are compromised of people, so they will also lie, cheat and steal on occasion. It’s nothing unique to government. You will find the same thing in any association of people.

In his characteristics of his free market gold standard, North lists:

3. The enforcement of contracts by the government

That is, enforcement by the very government he says lies, cheats and steals. According to him, government can’t be relied on to enforce contracts, and by his own words, his so-called free market gold standard is no free market standard at all, and is therefore also a fool’s gold standard.

Read Full Post »

On December 27, 2010, Gary North set the stage for a face-saving retreat of support for the gold standard that has gained so much support and sway among many alternative economics circles and individuals in the past few years, as its deficiencies continue to be exposed.

But advocates of “the gold standard” almost always mean “a government-guaranteed gold standard.

Over and over, I have returned to this theme: a government-guaranteed gold standard is a fool’s gold standard. I have had great trouble in getting this idea across.

That’s because the free market standard you advocate isn’t a gold standard, since there’s no standard being set relative to gold itself.

In my opinion, I think you’re trying to save face for the notion that a gold standard is a sound economic alternative to the current system, by co-opting the vast majority of gold standard backers who have advocated the government-guaranteed gold standard you admit is a fool’s gold standard. That way, they can continue to feel secure in advocating a gold standard, so long as it’s the one that you allege is a proper gold standard.

Conservatives who have never read Mises or Rothbard on money nevertheless regard themselves as free market economists, because they favor a government-guaranteed gold standard. Such a standard has not existed anywhere since 1933, and did not exist anywhere else, 1914-1933.

Thank you, Gary, for setting the record straight that the gold standard prominently promoted as a return to “honest money” and “sound money,” has barely existed throughout history, and is a proven failure.

Read Full Post »

From first-year economics, I remember a glaring omission by the textbook authors in their criticisms of free market interventions.

According to their models, they demonstrated how:

  • A minimum wage higher than the lowest market wage results in higher unemployment.
  • Quotas and duties on imports reduces overall global trade.
  • An increased government share of a country’s GDP results in less overall economic activity.

But they failed to criticize the biggest price control and intervention in the free market — a central bank. Ask yourself why that is.

Check your economic textbooks and let me know if they’re any different from the ones I’ve seen.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts



Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury