Posts
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Subject: Re: New Debit Card Rules
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:27:20 -0500
Re: New Debit Card Rules
Dear Sirs:
The new debit card rules are nothing more than price fixing by government, with all the adverse consequences ignored as a matter of course--fewer merchants able to accept debit cards; fewer bank customers who qualifiy for debit cards; fewer debit card sales; and lower merchant profits. But the bigger question is this: Where in the Constitution lies the power of Congress to intevene in the relationship between merchants and their banks? The commerce clause? If this is the answer, then it is turning the commerce clause on its head, for the commerce clause was intended by our Founders to ensure free markets among the states.
Patrick Barron
Friday, December 17, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
My Letter to National Review re: The Welfare State
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Why Jim Manzi is Wrong about the Welfare State
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:58:34 -0500
Dear Sirs:
Jim Manzi's fairly typical prescription for how to reign in the welfare state--Unbundle The Welfare State--will fail because his premise about man and government is wrong. Manzi says that some men demand government interventions to relieve them of their anxieties and that it is government's legitimate role to decide where to draw the line. It is clear that Mr. Manzi has not read Frederic Bastiat, who explains that welfare is both illegitimate and impractical. It is true that some men desire to plunder others, but government's endorsement of some form of "legitimate plunder" validates this essentially criminal demand rather than regulate it and make it harmless. As Bastiat explains in the first dozen or so pages of his classic The Law, all men are born free and have a legitimate right to defend themselves from the plunder of others. Since government is a product of cooperative men, it can have no other powers except those that these men possessed themselves. Since free men do not possess the legitimate power to plunder others, they cannot pass that power to government. Therefore, government welfare is illegitimate plunder. Furthermore, rather than mitigate some men's desire to live off the fruits of others' labors, government welfare exacerbates this human weakness of character and divides men rather than unite them. We can expect all welfare states to implode under their own self-contradictions, as the ranks of the plunders grow and those of their victims shrink.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Why Jim Manzi is Wrong about the Welfare State
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:58:34 -0500
Dear Sirs:
Jim Manzi's fairly typical prescription for how to reign in the welfare state--Unbundle The Welfare State--will fail because his premise about man and government is wrong. Manzi says that some men demand government interventions to relieve them of their anxieties and that it is government's legitimate role to decide where to draw the line. It is clear that Mr. Manzi has not read Frederic Bastiat, who explains that welfare is both illegitimate and impractical. It is true that some men desire to plunder others, but government's endorsement of some form of "legitimate plunder" validates this essentially criminal demand rather than regulate it and make it harmless. As Bastiat explains in the first dozen or so pages of his classic The Law, all men are born free and have a legitimate right to defend themselves from the plunder of others. Since government is a product of cooperative men, it can have no other powers except those that these men possessed themselves. Since free men do not possess the legitimate power to plunder others, they cannot pass that power to government. Therefore, government welfare is illegitimate plunder. Furthermore, rather than mitigate some men's desire to live off the fruits of others' labors, government welfare exacerbates this human weakness of character and divides men rather than unite them. We can expect all welfare states to implode under their own self-contradictions, as the ranks of the plunders grow and those of their victims shrink.
Patrick Barron
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Let the Revolution Begin in Ireland
The latest crisis in the European Union—the Irish financial crisis--is the result of the socialization of money, the Euro. The EU has been using the Euro as an enticement for bribing recalcitrant nations into accepting its top-down rule. If governments would not accept the EU’s harmonization policies of high taxes, high regulation of business, and high farm subsidies, they would not get funding at cheap European Central Bank prices. For governments addicted to deficit spending, this was an easy bribe to accept.
In an honest world, one in which money is sound and the rule of law governs commercial transactions, no government would be able to spend beyond its means. If a government threatened default, its bondholders would be able to take possession of assets, to the extent practicable, and then suffer losses. But there would be no bailout. For many years thereafter the government would be forced to live within its means, because its financial reputation would have been ruined. Of course, the very thought of a government being restrained by anything is anathema to modern Progressives, who view government action as the panacea to all of society’s ills. And nothing enables government action like money that can be manufactured in unlimited amounts, if one only adheres to the manufacturer’s demands.
The Irish people may not believe it, but temporarily staying on the Euro is the only thing standing between them and their government’s determination to spend the nation into bankruptcy. Leaving the EuroZone and returning to their own currency would mean hyperinflation and starvation. The Irish government would give in to the demands of powerful constituents that it shower the nation with enough new money to forestall the necessary economic correction. The money printing presses would be running full tilt.
But the Irish should not incur more Euro debt, no matter what terms are offered, for this merely makes the eventual day of reckoning even worse. No, better to face facts now and do what is right. Let the banks go bankrupt. Slash welfare spending. And, most importantly, free the Irish economy from all economic restrictions, even if it means ignoring EU mandates.
Staying on the Euro should be viewed as an intermediate step before returning to the gold standard. At least the Euro provides some restraint on money production, whereas there would be no restraint on punt (the former Irish currency) money production. But gold money is the sine qua non of fiscal discipline. It cannot be inflated and it cannot be destroyed. Governments must tax or borrow honestly for every expenditure. The people are in charge, for government must go to the people for funding rather than to the operators of the money printing press.
The Irish crisis is just the latest indication that the end of the era of fiat money is fast approaching. Despite the daily financial scares, this can be a good thing, for fiat money is the enemy of the peoples’ liberties everywhere. Let the revolution begin in Ireland.
In an honest world, one in which money is sound and the rule of law governs commercial transactions, no government would be able to spend beyond its means. If a government threatened default, its bondholders would be able to take possession of assets, to the extent practicable, and then suffer losses. But there would be no bailout. For many years thereafter the government would be forced to live within its means, because its financial reputation would have been ruined. Of course, the very thought of a government being restrained by anything is anathema to modern Progressives, who view government action as the panacea to all of society’s ills. And nothing enables government action like money that can be manufactured in unlimited amounts, if one only adheres to the manufacturer’s demands.
The Irish people may not believe it, but temporarily staying on the Euro is the only thing standing between them and their government’s determination to spend the nation into bankruptcy. Leaving the EuroZone and returning to their own currency would mean hyperinflation and starvation. The Irish government would give in to the demands of powerful constituents that it shower the nation with enough new money to forestall the necessary economic correction. The money printing presses would be running full tilt.
But the Irish should not incur more Euro debt, no matter what terms are offered, for this merely makes the eventual day of reckoning even worse. No, better to face facts now and do what is right. Let the banks go bankrupt. Slash welfare spending. And, most importantly, free the Irish economy from all economic restrictions, even if it means ignoring EU mandates.
Staying on the Euro should be viewed as an intermediate step before returning to the gold standard. At least the Euro provides some restraint on money production, whereas there would be no restraint on punt (the former Irish currency) money production. But gold money is the sine qua non of fiscal discipline. It cannot be inflated and it cannot be destroyed. Governments must tax or borrow honestly for every expenditure. The people are in charge, for government must go to the people for funding rather than to the operators of the money printing press.
The Irish crisis is just the latest indication that the end of the era of fiat money is fast approaching. Despite the daily financial scares, this can be a good thing, for fiat money is the enemy of the peoples’ liberties everywhere. Let the revolution begin in Ireland.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
My Letter to the WSJ re: "Africa needs aid, not flawed theories" by Bill Gates
Re: "Africa needs aid, not flawed theories" by Bill Gates
Dear Sirs:
Poor Bill Gates. He is finding that even he cannot put the entire continent of Africa on the dole; therefore, government--meaning the rest of us--must chip in. Nor can he stop global warming all by himself (or is it "climate change"?), therefore, the rest of us have to submit to top down restrictions. His evidence of the efficacy of such top down policies is "declining air-pollution emissions in the U.S. ...that...has come about because of government regulations based on publicly funded science..." Well, Mr. Gates can spend his vast wealth in any way he desires, but he will find few of us common folk who share his optimism that aid to Africa will cure what ails it or that reducing our standard of living will do anything except, well, reduce our standard of living. Africa needs capitalism; that is, free markets, private property, protection of such property from criminals in and out of government, entrepreneurs, and most of all freedom. Mr. Gates can help Africa most by building Microsoft plants and offices there, employing Africans in the digital economy and training them in the methods of successful business. This is Mr. Gates' expertise. Then a modern Africa will be able to afford clean water and clean air. And Africa and the rest of the capitalist world will easily adapt to whatever change Mother Nature throws at us.
Patrick Barron
Dear Sirs:
Poor Bill Gates. He is finding that even he cannot put the entire continent of Africa on the dole; therefore, government--meaning the rest of us--must chip in. Nor can he stop global warming all by himself (or is it "climate change"?), therefore, the rest of us have to submit to top down restrictions. His evidence of the efficacy of such top down policies is "declining air-pollution emissions in the U.S. ...that...has come about because of government regulations based on publicly funded science..." Well, Mr. Gates can spend his vast wealth in any way he desires, but he will find few of us common folk who share his optimism that aid to Africa will cure what ails it or that reducing our standard of living will do anything except, well, reduce our standard of living. Africa needs capitalism; that is, free markets, private property, protection of such property from criminals in and out of government, entrepreneurs, and most of all freedom. Mr. Gates can help Africa most by building Microsoft plants and offices there, employing Africans in the digital economy and training them in the methods of successful business. This is Mr. Gates' expertise. Then a modern Africa will be able to afford clean water and clean air. And Africa and the rest of the capitalist world will easily adapt to whatever change Mother Nature throws at us.
Patrick Barron
Friday, November 26, 2010
My Letter to the WSJ re: Behind Gold's New Glister
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Subject: Re: Behind Gold's New Glister
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:20:58 -0500
Re: Behind Gold's New Glister
Dear Sirs:
GLD created a market for a product that was growing in demand. It is not true that it somehow created demand that was not there in the first place. It is evident to all that fiat monetary systems the world over are nearing the end of their usefulness, because governments have inflated their supply and are promising even more inflation. Thusly, the people are flocking to the one commodity that always retains it value--gold. It is important to remember that the so-called price of gold is nothing more than a relationship of a known commodity that cannot be inflated to something of absolutely no intrinsic value and which can be inflated to infinite amounts.
Patrick Barron
To: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Subject: Re: Behind Gold's New Glister
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:20:58 -0500
Re: Behind Gold's New Glister
Dear Sirs:
GLD created a market for a product that was growing in demand. It is not true that it somehow created demand that was not there in the first place. It is evident to all that fiat monetary systems the world over are nearing the end of their usefulness, because governments have inflated their supply and are promising even more inflation. Thusly, the people are flocking to the one commodity that always retains it value--gold. It is important to remember that the so-called price of gold is nothing more than a relationship of a known commodity that cannot be inflated to something of absolutely no intrinsic value and which can be inflated to infinite amounts.
Patrick Barron
Sunday, November 21, 2010
My letter to the Philadellphia Inquirer re: What would the founders do?
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: inquirer.letters@phillynews.com
Subject: Re: What would the founders do?
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:13:34 -0500
Dear Sirs:
The headline of Stephan Salisbury's review of Jill Lepore's book about the Tea Party movement, titled The Whites of Their Eyes, asks the question "What would the founders do?". I think I know the answer. They would tell us to read the Constitution.
Sincerely,
Patrick Barron
To: inquirer.letters@phillynews.com
Subject: Re: What would the founders do?
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:13:34 -0500
Dear Sirs:
The headline of Stephan Salisbury's review of Jill Lepore's book about the Tea Party movement, titled The Whites of Their Eyes, asks the question "What would the founders do?". I think I know the answer. They would tell us to read the Constitution.
Sincerely,
Patrick Barron
Friday, November 12, 2010
My Letter to National Review re: "Red Scare" by Kevin D. Williamson
From: patrickbarron@msn.com
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Re: Red Scare by Kevin D. Williamson
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:08:03 -0500
Re: Red Scare, by Kevin D. Williamson
Dear Sirs:
Many thanks to Kevin D. Williamson for his eye-opening and sober assessment of the Chinese economy and our government's fatuous policy of using China as the all-purpose whipping boy for problems of our own making. A common theme that ran through Mr. Williamson's essay is the harm done to ordinary people in every country by their governments' incessant economic interventions. Economics knows no political borders--a little understood rule of life that bears much repeating. It makes absolutely no economic difference if a product I buy is manufactured by my next door neighbor or a Chinaman. We both benefit from the exchange of my money for his good or service and do so at no cost to anyone else. No nation is somehow better off when other nations suffer economic disruptions. It is not true that Americans were better off at the end of WWII because our manufacturing base was undamaged by war while much of the rest of the industrialized world lay in smoking ruins. We enjoy a much higher standard of living by the spread of the specialization of labor which has occurred in the world since then. The only thing standing in the way of an even higher standard of living for all men everywhere is the foolish idea that economic gains for citizens of some nations come at the expense of others. Mr. Williamson is right to warn us that the policies that flow from this false view of the world can "lead to a trade war--or a war war." Instead of brow-beating our G-20 trading partners into agreeing to some new mercantilist agreement that will stifle trade with monetary and capital controls, the U.S. should renew its dedication to free-market capitalism.
Patrick Barron
To: letters@nationalreview.com
Subject: Re: Red Scare by Kevin D. Williamson
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:08:03 -0500
Re: Red Scare, by Kevin D. Williamson
Dear Sirs:
Many thanks to Kevin D. Williamson for his eye-opening and sober assessment of the Chinese economy and our government's fatuous policy of using China as the all-purpose whipping boy for problems of our own making. A common theme that ran through Mr. Williamson's essay is the harm done to ordinary people in every country by their governments' incessant economic interventions. Economics knows no political borders--a little understood rule of life that bears much repeating. It makes absolutely no economic difference if a product I buy is manufactured by my next door neighbor or a Chinaman. We both benefit from the exchange of my money for his good or service and do so at no cost to anyone else. No nation is somehow better off when other nations suffer economic disruptions. It is not true that Americans were better off at the end of WWII because our manufacturing base was undamaged by war while much of the rest of the industrialized world lay in smoking ruins. We enjoy a much higher standard of living by the spread of the specialization of labor which has occurred in the world since then. The only thing standing in the way of an even higher standard of living for all men everywhere is the foolish idea that economic gains for citizens of some nations come at the expense of others. Mr. Williamson is right to warn us that the policies that flow from this false view of the world can "lead to a trade war--or a war war." Instead of brow-beating our G-20 trading partners into agreeing to some new mercantilist agreement that will stifle trade with monetary and capital controls, the U.S. should renew its dedication to free-market capitalism.
Patrick Barron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)