Libera Voce

Looking For Trouble

“When you get into trouble five thousand miles from home you’ve got to have been looking for it.” Will Rogers

Will Rogers is one of America’s most iconic figures; what he did most famously was simply to observe and comment, without rancor, but with perception and an uncanny wit. He spoke out against America ever getting involved again in conflicts like the Great War, cautioning us to avoid entanglements in foreign interventions.

It is clear that Russia will invade Ukraine; it’s not a question of if but when. It is also clear that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress favor some kind of action against Russia should they invade. As previously discussed, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, nor are there any treaties extant that involve the US in anything having to do with Ukraine. Even if Ukraine were a member of NATO, the US excluded from its signing of the NATO Treaty any military action without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war; unfortunately that has not stopped some presidents from violating that, and we can only hope this is not another occasion.

There exists no territorial or security threat to the US should Russia invade Ukraine. Please note that in my 12/10/21 post “Meddler”, I wrote “….Ukraine, which has been a part of Russia for nearly 200 years, from 1793 to 1991.” Thankfully a reader advised me that this was incorrect as first we have the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav, the 1667 Treaty of Andrusovo and then the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686, all of which involved the end of conflicts over Ukraine between Poland and Russia. While there are many complications and subsequent conflicts with those treaties, the essence is that Ukraine has been a part of Russia for more than 300 years, longer than the US has even existed.

This is not said as a justification for Russian aggression as clearly Putin’s intentions are to have Ukraine back as part of Russia by any means necessary; it is said against American intervention of any kind as this is not our fight, and any action on our part is a violation of our principles against intervention in the affairs of other nations. If we were to intervene in what is solely a European affair, it would be yet another example of hypocrisy, and Biden would be added to the list of presidents that acted unconstitutionally in regards to intervention.

However, that is exactly what he and his administration appear to be doing. We had about 70K troops in all of Europe prior to the recent Russian buildup along the Ukrainian border. Late last year we put about 8.5K troops on alert for deployment to eastern NATO areas, and just yesterday another 2K. Do we really think that this is a deterrent to Russia’s plans to take over Ukraine? The Joint Chiefs of Staff have estimated that Russia has about 130K troops along Ukraine’s border; putting so few of our soldiers in that area is like putting canaries in a coal mine. You do not play chicken with a gambler that has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. Militarily, if you want a deterrent you ante up, but understand that if Putin calls your hand you will have the US in another European war.

So assume that the deterrent doesn’t work and Russia takes back Ukraine. Unless you want war with Russia, which hopefully is not Biden’s play, you are left with the threatened sanctions. How lame to threaten the Tsar with something that means nothing to him. All Putin has to do is put his hand on the gas valves that Europe lives on and NATO blinks, and you stand alone; add this to the administration’s embarrassing missteps.

While we have countless conferences between the EU, US and Russia, all we get is diplomatic jargon, threats, accusations, and heightened tensions among all parties. Will Rogers once observed that “Every war has been preceded by a peace conference. That’s what always starts the next war.” The best thing for the US to do is simply say to our European allies that this is their sphere of security and concern; they need to decide what is in their best interests and act accordingly. It’s long past a reasonable time for the US to have a military presence in Europe so they need to provide for their own security. If Ukraine represents their line in the sand, they need to divorce their reliance on Russian energy to avoid territorial blackmail. Alternatively, they need to live with what Russia wants back and move on.

What can Americans do in order to avoid involvement in another Great War, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? Newsweek reported today that only 15.3% of Americans would support US military intervention in Ukraine, and only 31.1% would even support military aid. Benjamin Franklin famously described that “War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.” Perhaps there’s hope as the latest poll shows a revolution among Americans away from such disastrous policies.

Hypocrisy

“What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

In a recent Biden press conference he spoke about his choice for a nomination of a justice to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer, and that his choice would be limited to a black woman. In making the criteria for selecting a candidate based on both race and gender, the President of the United States acted so contrary to the principles he is supposed to uphold that all his pompous words about his respect for the constitution rang hollow compared to his actions.

While it was expected that Biden would nominate someone aligned with his party, it is unacceptable for anyone to construct such exclusionary criteria that is both sexist and racist. Add to this that although Stephen Breyer had made clear over the last year that, despite the Democratic establishment’s inappropriate pressure for him to retire, he had no intention of doing so. Yet they persisted on the partisan reasoning that given his age there was the possibility of his retirement or passing while a Republican was president, Biden needed to make his mark on the court; apparently that pressure became irresistible and as it was based on Breyer’s age, also discriminatory. Further, consider Biden’s and his party’s threats to pack the court because it was out-of-touch with where society needed it to be, despite the principle of the separation of powers isolating the Supreme Court from any such consideration save constitutional jurisprudence.

There are many definitions given to hypocrisy depending on how many dictionaries you have, but essentially what they all come down to is the act of claiming to have moral standards to which one’s actions do not conform. With all the virtue signaling that we are constantly bombarded with in mass and social media, the contradictions are the one consistency we can find. Biden’s extraordinary action to exclude all others who do not meet a racial or gender qualification is not the only example of hypocrisy we can find in the polity of American society today, but it is one of the most egregious given his position as our president and his professed belief in our civil rights. However, there is a consistency in his hypocrisy when you recall his statement during a campaign interview on radio when he said “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Racism is not limited as a partisan trait, and neither is hypocrisy.

Confusion

“It’s funny. All you have to do is say something nobody understands and they’ll do practically anything you want them to.” J.D. Salinger

The media coverage of the recent memorialization of the January 6^th riots at the Capitol provided a lot of commentary, much of which was a very confused collection of terms and interpretations. The main issue that I found was the lack of differentiation between a riot and an insurrection. Regardless of the political partisanship of the various commentators, all seemed to have one thing in common, and that was to say things nobody could understand in order to get their particular group to believe whatever that was; amazingly, and sadly tragic, that really does seem to work.

A look at American history and simple word definitions can help clear up some of that gibberish, together with listening to what was said on the day this horrible event occurred. Let’s start with what President Trump said to the crowd at the rally that led to the violence. Now keep in mind that his supporters have used such ridiculous descriptions of what followed his speech as an “unscheduled tour” or a “peaceful protest”; we shouldn’t dismiss such obviously absurd statements without understanding similar stuff from those that criticize Trump and his followers deeming that riot as an insurrection, an attack on democracy, or an existential threat to our constitution; none of these factually or accurately define this event.

Trump’s speech was inciting to riot, a fact that your ears could tell you just listening to it. The fact that he called upon the crowd to go to the Capitol to prevent the constitutional process of electoral confirmation is clearly an attempt to cause a riot by urging other people to commit acts of violence; the results showed he was successful as regards the riot, unsuccessful in preventing the electoral confirmation. The question arises as to whether or not his actions also constituted sedition, and even further, insurrection.

An element involving both sedition and insurrection is conspiracy. It is obvious given the recent Congressional committee’s subpoenas that they are looking for evidence of conspiracy; while many documents have been obtained, such evidence has so far eluded them. Those that they have subpoenaed for testimony have either refused or agreed to do so but only under the protection of executive privilege. This later condition has been challenged as only applying to the President, but countered with the argument that it would be impossible for it not to extend to those that the President confides in or there would be no point in it; resolution to be determined, likely in time by the Supreme Court.

According to the statutory definition of sedition “It is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States to take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.” There’s that conspiracy thing that the committee would so want to have proof of. What becomes a little vague then is when does sedition become an insurrection, or is there a difference at all? Apparently there’s no hard and fast rule for that; we can consider both Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, both of which were technically insurrections, or if you wish “rebellions”, and both of which actually achieved their goals against debtor prosecutions and taxes, leading to the constitutional convention due to the former, and the founding of the original Republican Party with the later.

Then of course we have the ultimate insurrection of American history which we call the Civil War. As this blog has discussed before, technically and as recorded during the Convention, the Constitution by design has no prohibition against secession. What we know is that contrary to Lincoln’s actual statements regarding slavery, the Confederate States seceded on the premise that he would end it. If they simply stopped at that point, Lincoln would have been left with no legal basis for war against secession; however, in declaring themselves a sovereign nation, the Confederacy committed an act of war by attacking Fort Sumter.

From its inception, insurrection is an integral part of American history and its political DNA. However, in all three of the above examples we have the element of “conspiracy” in that two or more people planned and executed an organized armed rebellion against established governments to achieve a specific goal. So in addition to conspiracy, we find a plan to organize and execute armed rebellion. In the case of January 6^th, should evidence be found that further to sedition, we have an organized armed rebellion, the goal was already stated at the rally where Trump incited the riot, i.e. prevent the Congressional confirmation of the electoral process.

Now if we look at all the video footage of that day, we can’t say that we see anything approaching a planned and organized armed rebellion. What we have is a bunch of crazed rioters breaking windows and doors, trespassing, vandalizing, assaulting guards, and in general acting moronically at the behest of a narcissistic loser. Since then, we have various reports of his family, friends and staff urging him to ask his crazed followers to desist, which he only did some three hours later, and at no time called in help for the police and guards to remove the rioters.

While we to this day still have to wait to see if any evidence can be found that supports sedition and insurrection, the House elected on January 13, 2021 Articles of Impeachment, charging Trump with “incitement of insurrection”. That’s a very confusing charge, something akin to the cart before the horse. Predictably given the lack of votes in the Senate, there was no conviction on that charge; however, putting aside the obvious partisan outcome, the charge actually provided cover for acquittal. I am left wondering why he was not charged for inciting to riot, which alone would constitute a felony charge and, by his own words, evidence of guilt and eliminate him from ever running for elected office again. Why such a repeated bungling like Trump’s first impeachment when in fact the House is mostly composed of representatives who are lawyers is confusing.

What the country really needs is to close the book on Trump, but apparently neither political party has an interest in that. The GOP shamefully continues his leadership while the Democrats bungle their attempts to convict him. It almost seems like both parties find him a useful foil to use in the upcoming mid-term elections; this will not serve the interests of the Republic, its constitution and the liberty of the people, but only the power lust of our two major political parties. Is that confusing? Yes, it is, but then again you’re only confused if you’re paying attention.

Paying Attention

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Mark Twain

We can all remember those times in school when we would get distracted, not really paying attention. Paying attention is a vital part of learning and in understanding what is actually going on. It doesn’t always mean what you are being told is true, or in the case of the media even accurate. The most important thing that defines a good education is that you learned how to think for yourself, the skill of critical thinking; if you have that you are capable of arriving at concepts empirically without some robotic acceptance of someone else’s theories; in life, one needs to be a good detective to find what is true, and just as important, what is not.

Having that skill will enable you to come to your own conclusions and having the means to change them when additional facts provide you better information. However, having that skill will not insulate you from those that don’t. When presented with statements that you find wrong and question them, but receive arguments that are irrational or factually wrong, you can still have a civil discourse provided the other party is acting in good faith. However, if the arguments are based on a claim of expertise, greater good, superior education, virtue or vision, or otherwise dismissive, then the other party is not acting in good faith; it’s not about the merits of their position, but their egos. What you learn from people like that is that they’re narcissistic and can only listen to their own voice, a trait honed by years of experience.

The attitude that the public in general is way too stupid or uneducated to understand what is best for them usually means you’re dealing with partisanship, an elitist attitude, or as often is the case, a politician. When it involves politicians, it is easier to understand the pattern of crises we have had, especially ever since the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, with wars and economic chaos, much of it self-inflicted wounds; as Congressman Ron Paul once observed “It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” Throughout history, such leaders are attracted to war as the ultimate ego trip; they all wanted to be a wartime President. There is much truth in Isaac Asimov’s observation that “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

War is expensive, and financing it through taxation would cause opposition; the easier way is to monetize debt, but to do so would require the tools of central banking. Please see my post entitled “Remember Hyde” of 09/25/20 regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve. This same process that supports the “Warfare State” also serves well for the “Welfare State”. Over the last century we can see the evolution of the US from a nation of production to what Murray Rothbard described: “The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively ‘peaceful’ the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.” Taken together, as is historically the case, the synergy between the “Warfare State” and the “Welfare State” will eventually impoverish a nation with a voracious appetite for its wealth.

Biden ran for President on the proposition that he would heal the polarizing divisiveness and end the chaos that Trump created. He promised to bring bipartisanship back to Congress, but instead has had to manage the divisiveness within his own party created by the personalities and agendas as conflicting as that in the Republican Party. We have Sanders and Manchin as clear examples of the enormous divide among the Democrats as we have Trump and Romney in the Republican Party. This political pandemonium may well result in the fracturing of both major parties, and maybe that’s a good thing given that the Biden administration set out a series of policies requiring the most expansive programs in US history, and at a time when we’re recovering from a pandemic and bringing our economy out of a devastating lockdown; coupled with a crushing debt already exceeding $29T, such policies seemed like the rantings of fools. To be told that this would all be paid for without raising taxes, except of course on those evil rich people, had Americans wondering why they were being treated like idiots; we’ve seen this movie before.

At the same time, the Fed proceeds with a QE so expansive that the one from the Financial Crisis of 2008 appears hawkish by comparison; add to that the UST expanding the currency by 348%, and you have the witches brew for serious inflation. Contrarily, the administration downplays inflation as transitory, a phrase recently abandoned even by the sycophants at the Fed. Senator Warren tells us that inflation is merely businesses price gauging. The President’s staff attempts to set up Senator Manchin as having agreed to the grotesque socialism of the “Build Back Better” plan, which he has repeatedly and publicly stated he doesn’t support. Secretary Buttigieg of Transportation holds a press conference to explain how drastic government spending will result in greater production and not add to an already crushing debt. Chairman Powell reverses course on monetary accommodation but continues to delay tapering or raising interest rates. President Biden continues rattling sabers in Putin’s and Xi’s face over issues that are neither a territorial nor security concern of the US. Illegal immigration has reached the highest level in US history. The President issues mandates like a king would edicts, ignoring the very constitution he is sworn to uphold; if he really had a good idea, he wouldn’t need a mandate to begin with.

Biden’s approval rating over the last year has declined dramatically, and continues to do so as inflation erodes real wage growth, now down 1.9% from 2020, and inflation 8%, contrary to what the administration predicted, and this despite all the “free” stuff government provided. Any intelligent person knows that there is no such thing as free; someone’s got to pay, and that someone, in some way, shape or form, is the US taxpayer. While we await a new tax bill, where does all that free stuff come from? It comes from the most insidious tax there is, known as inflation. Surprisingly it is a few members of Biden’s own party that thankfully stand in the way of making matters even worse with the passage of “BBB”, but for how long?

The administration’s accounting gimmicks to make the programs appear less costly are so obviously deceptive that even politicians find it hard to disguise or ignore. Regardless, it’s likely that the administration will take a phased approach in the coming years by including various elements of BBB as part of other legislations, a political sleight of hand meant to deflect attention. This seems to work well as it has been shown that most in Congress fail to even read a bill’s text. Many say that trick has a time limit as the November 2022 midterm elections are likely to cost the Democrats control of the House or Senate, maybe both. Of course, that assumes that Republicans will be better caretakers of our tax money than Democrats; don’t bet on it.

Both parties when in office have shown the ability to use a crisis as an excuse to expand and retain power through financial gimmicks and economic manipulations, and ended up with a nation the poorer for it. While the public responds to polls on approval ratings, including how the president is “managing the economy”, it ignores the essential question as to why we assume that government should be doing so to begin with, especially given the horrific results of that over the last century. The same holds true with foreign policy, which has devolved from a congressional to a presidential power, more often resulting in violence than diplomacy, and usually against the wrong parties, squandering the lives of many and the resources of our nation.

We now have an administration in a similar chaos as before, and at a most dangerous time. The planners have changed, but the plans remain the same, just wrapped in different language in order to deflect or even conceal the truth, what we should call propaganda. What Americans need now more than ever is critical thinking. We need to understand that due to these failed policies over such a long period of time, the Fed and the UST have painted themselves into a corner; if they end “accommodation” with currency reduction, tapering and/or raising interest rates, we will have a recession, but if they don’t we will have extreme inflation, which will cause a recession. We need to face the reality that there will be pain that we will have to endure due to the policies of those that we have put in positions of power. Before we put them in that position again, think twice – critically.

Meddler

“Now if there is one thing that we do worse than any other nation, it is try and manage somebody else’s affairs.” Will Rogers

There are two international hot spots on the current administration’s radar that urgently need reassessment, Ukraine and Taiwan. Neither represents US territorial interest or spheres of influence, neither are existential security issues for the US, and both are best left to the protagonists to sort out without the US doing its usual crises baiting to get their allies or their citizens concerned about. In other words, we don’t need another Afghanistan or Iraq adventure that not only represents no benefit to Americans, but more misery and a loss of resources we are better off employing for ourselves.

Take first the Ukraine, which has been a part of Russia for nearly 200 years, from 1793 to 1991. Much of the population is ethnically Russian, few even speak Ukrainian, and the majority of the people have no interest in a bloody conflict to decide which authoritarian heel will be on their necks. The EU has no interest in confronting their major source of energy so Putin can shut off the gas valves, and the trade value between the EU and Russia is far more important to Europeans that the US going on another crusade to make the world safe for democracy while creating a refugee crisis on their eastern borders. Given the US track record of incompetence in such interventionist escapades, we should not be surprised. Even if US actions against Russia are limited to just more sanctions, the destabilizing effect on some teetering European economies is unwise, and likely to have little impact on Putin. We should heed the words of retired Congressman Ron Paul who said “Sanctions are not diplomacy. They’re a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade.”

Except for a fifty year period of occupation by the Empire of Japan, Taiwan was ruled by China from the Qing Dynasty of the 17^thC until 1949 when the Republic of China withdrew from the mainland after losing the Civil War to the Communists. In 1973 the US recognized the PRC’s claim to Taiwan under the One China Policy. Here we have a country that has become a world power, second largest economy, ever growing military, that not only has a legitimate claim on that territory, but one that the US formally recognized. So why then has the Biden administration made moves to divorce us from the One China Policy? What business is it of ours to dictate to China contrary to what we have already acknowledged? Consider how Americans would feel if Mexico disputed Texas as a part of the US despite the treaty that ceded its claims.

Eisenhower warned us about this plague that has haunted and infected us for generations, what he called the Military Industrial Complex. It is a narcissistic phenomenon of blood for money, a pathological condition of thinking we are the answer to the world’s problems when we can’t even manage our own. This hubris will be our ruin as a warfare state, and domestically the same as a welfare state; the two seem tied at the hip in a dance that we keep tripping our feet over.

The US really has to move on and recognize that we as a people are not obligated to provide our youth and resources as the world’s police, and ethically should avoid doing so. To meddle in the affairs of other countries is not an honorable policy, deserves no glory, usually results in the opposite outcome than intended, and leads to more conflict than peace.

Sleight of Hand

“Don’t steal, the government hates competition.” Ron Paul

Social Security beneficiaries received their COLA notice recently, which explained that 2022 benefits will be increased by 5.9% to keep up with the cost-of-living; this was the highest COLA increase since the 2008 Financial Crisis. This may seem like a considerable increase in benefits until you read on and compare to the prior year, current inflation and the historical record of COLA increases and inflation.

Back in 09/19/19 I wrote a post entitled “What is the Worst Ponzi Scheme Ever?”; in it I outlined why Social Security was by far the worst of such schemes, beating all others with a total of $42.1T in unfunded liabilities. According to the Oxford dictionary, “A Ponzi scheme (also a Ponzi game) is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources.” As the whole purpose of the Social Security Act was to require Americans to invest in the future when they retire, or are otherwise limited or disabled from earning an income, such a scheme qualifies as particularly onerous.

Considering now the current COLA adjustment, we find a further sleight of hand. Inflation as of the notice was running about 6.2% and rising. It is estimated that this will increase to 6.7% by years end. Further consider that the two most affected and essential areas for consumers are food and energy, accounting for 5.3% and 30% respectively for this inflation. Please remember that when you go to the grocer or gas station and experience even higher inflation, understand that these are government figures that are intended to fit a narrative and not reality.

Now it’s not just the .3% shortfall and counting at issue, we need to consider what they did to the Medicare deductions; for 2021 that was $148.50/mo., but for 2022 that will increase to $170.10/mo., i.e. an increase of 14.5%. Please note that this is not IRMMA, just the standard; depending on what your total earnings are you will be assessed additional deductions that will also be at a higher rate than last year, but let’s ignore that for now to keep this simple.

In effect, considering what inflation and increased deductions do to the COLA, but ignoring IRMMA as that will vary, the net effect is an increase in benefits of 3% to 3.2%, or less than half of what you need to keep even. If you are fortunate to make enough income to get you on the IRMMA charts, you will net even less. To add to these concerns, keep in mind that this does not consider what inflation will likely be in 2022, and it’s not what the Fed tells us. What’s even more an insult on injury is to hear our Chair of the Banking Subcommittee on Economic Policy and the Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth (now that’s a government title for you), Senator Elizabeth Warren, tell us that inflation is simply price gouging by corporate America. Obviously an understanding of basic economics is not what got her the chair on that group.

Inflation’s all-time high was 13.5% back in 1980; the COLA then was 14.3%, and there was no IRMMA or income taxes on benefits. Since 1980, not only have FICA deductions increased and IRMMA added, but 85% of benefits are subject to income tax. Imagine the outrage if a private insurance company operated such a scheme as what our government does; the only difference is Social Security is mandatory.

Dumb is Dangerous

As Clarence Darrow once observed, “History repeats itself. That’s one of the things wrong with history.”

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein

Einstein’s genius was not only his ability to see the obvious, but to then use his imagination to understand what it meant. While we may lack Einstein’s boundless imagination, we have the human ability to perceive reality if we allow ourselves to simply observe in order to understand. However, if history tells us anything, it is that we seem more capable of repeating our mistakes than learning from them; the insanity about this is that such dumb repetition inevitably becomes very dangerous.

Given all the bluster from Republicans about the failures of the Biden administration, little is clear or cogent about the reasons for their euphoria. True, Biden’s party now seems as fractured as the GOP under Trump, and Biden’s ratings are even worse than the former president’s; but these are results, not causes. While there are some principled voices on both sides of the aisle voicing concerns if not objections to Biden’s agenda, especially the financially disastrous “Build Back Better” plan, sound financial and economic policies are rarely being discussed, let alone proposed.

Many recent local elections showed the makings of what the media calls a “Red Wave”, which may point to a disastrous showing for the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections. While much has been made of a popular reaction to the extreme left policies of the Democratic administrations in the country, the characterizations, and to some extent, some legislative actions from various GOP leaders are as dangerous a threat to liberty as those they purport to oppose.

Take for instance Texas Governor Abbott’s banning censorship on social media, supposedly in support of free speech. While it’s true that such censorship is detestable, unfortunately the governor forgot, or chose to ignore the fact that these are private companies, and as such protected under the constitution to publish what they want. Another instance of failures in support of liberty goes to that same state of Texas, and also Mississippi, both of whom have passed draconian and onerous laws about abortion in the hope of getting the challenges to them to the Supreme Court for an overturning of Roe v. Wade. In the case of the Mississippi law, the Supreme Court has agreed to take it on. So far, the media and both major parties are playing to the Choice v. Life divide, ignoring both the vulnerability of the SCOTUS ruling of the 1973 case or the inherent natural and constitutional rights of every American to the life and liberty of their own selves; little judicial prudence or principled debate is on display, with much being made of respect for precedent and precious little about a women’s right to her own biological decisions, as if her physical being is subject to the arbitration of the state.

Americans are rightfully fearful about their economic wellbeing, and the confusion created at the Federal Reserve, and its partner in crime at the Treasury Department. Recently Chairman Powell has had to flip flop on his prior narrative of inflation being transitory as reality has exposed that awful fantasy. Between the Fed’s QE (4, 5, 6, 7…what number are we up to?) policy, and Treasury hyper-printing money to the tune of an increase of 348% in dollar currency since early 2020, the official inflation rate is currently at 6.2%; that’s suspiciously low considering the huge price increases in building materials, food, energy, etc. Even accepting the official account, use it to provide what economists call the “Misery Index”, the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates, which together is 11.2 as of 10/31/21, the highest it has been since the Financial Crisis. Despite this, the administration and the media continue the narrative of a healthy economy; unfortunately for Joe Biden, that Cool Aid is not selling very well.

It’s also increasingly apparent to more and more Americans that the policy of spending from empty pockets has led to ever increasing deficits and massive debt making us more vulnerable to economic failure than any pandemic or natural disaster could. While the administration, through their Office of Management and Budget, tries to sell us on a no cost program with “Build Back Better”, the non-partisan (maybe, sometimes) General Accounting Office shows this is hardly the case, and that increased taxes for all Americans would result. The former relies on its parasitical policy against the rich, the definition of which broadens as the need for revenue increases, and of course the printing press; the later relies more on actual analyses of proposed policies. Given the track record of failed government programs, the former will likely occur. As Will Rogers once quipped, “Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closet our country has ever been to being even.”

Add to these troubles the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, the massive increase in illegal immigration, the divisiveness of racially focused agendas, the rise in international tensions and strained foreign relations, and we have an administration that is seen as a continuation of the Trump chaos that Americans hoped a seasoned political hand would provide the leadership to correct. The failure to do so raises an alarming concern based on historical precedents; when political leadership fails it often looks for ways to deflect and distract, with a focus on crises even where there may be none. We have the COVID pandemic, and while there are and always will be variants, we have the science to address that; instead we get more fear mongering. Then we have China, whom we blame for just about everything. Consider the supply shortage narrative, especially in microchips, as a China issue; reality is that half the world’s chips are made in Taiwan and other Asian countries. Then there’s the oil issue, which of course is OPEC’s fault, even though the US imports only 18% of its oil from them; add to that the inexplicable and contrarian policy of curtailing American oil production at the very time we need it the most.

However, the most troubling deflection, and potential distraction from what really matters, is again the focus on China, the rising and categorically adversarial bogeyman we should all realize is the cause for all our woes. China’s humanitarian, environmental, diplomatic and trade policies show a record of bad faith and aggressive overreach, but rattling sabers to focus blame away from your own failed policies will not lead Americans to a good place, and likely to a very dangerous place where violent conflicts can arise. Unfortunately the same playbook on China is in the Republican library as well. This same scenario existed between the U.K. and Germany that eventually resulted in the Great War. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that the foibles, failures, and competition between the world’s two current superpowers can easily go from distraction to disaster. As Clarence Darrow once observed, “History repeats itself. That’s one of the things wrong with history.”

Human

We would be well advised to consider Benjamin Franklin’s observation that “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

“To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.” Bertrand Russell

What does it mean to be human? This was not my question, but that of my seven year old granddaughter at the zoo when we saw a family of Silverback gorillas. She was amazed and asked why they were behaving so much like humans? Some of the answers were actually noted on the displays about the gorillas, like the fact that they have 98% of the same DNA as humans, are herbivores, highly social but fearfully avoid humans, and apparently with good reason as they are near extinction. This last point confused my granddaughter because if they are so much like humans, but not human, then what does it mean to be human?

Now if you think there’s an easy answer to give a seven year old as to what it means to be human, be my guest, but think very carefully; according to Buddha, “What we think, we become.” My granddaughter was the thinker when she observed their behavior, and that is one of the primary characteristics of being human as she saw them as they were, i.e. Silverback gorillas acting like humans, but that’s as far as it goes. As the exhibit explained, gorillas form social units, each needing about 10 to 15 square miles for foraging in order to live. In the gorilla habitats in the mountains of Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo, the African people are expanding agriculture so they can feed an ever increasing population. Over the course of the last century, this expansion has depleted gorilla populations more than 80%. It is no surprise that the trend of human population growth is supplanting the habitats of these animals. If you ask the African people what needs to be done, they will tell you that they need food more than they need gorillas.

So what does this have to do with what it means to be human? The answer is everything as the natural evolution of humans is based on thinking about and acting on that which provides for the propagation and preservation of our species, and therein lies the balance of the DNA that Gorillas don’t have. While that does not necessarily mean the reduction and destruction of other species, it seems more often than not to be an unintended consequence, but is it inevitable? Does this really define what it means to be human? I do not think that is the case.

The exhibit went on to say that here have been studies that show humans can communicate on a primal level with gorillas and teach them behavior; gorillas can’t think to do that with us. I’m talking about just thinking like my granddaughter about what you observe. Granted she was making a reference to other observations about how humans acted, but that’s the same thing. One of the beautiful things that thoughtful people do is not just dream of things that could be but actually find a way to do them. Art and science are all about thinking and not being afraid that what you think may be different to what other people believe, or being afraid of making a mistake. This is the essence of being human; you may never reach perfection, but you will never be human if you don’t try. Ultimately, I think that humans will find a way to provide for the propagation and preservation of our species without the destruction of others.

Mark Twain once observed that “The two most important days in your life are the day you’re born and the day you find out why.” Well that first day is obviously critical if you are ever to get to the second important day when you realize what it means to be you; that day will either make you a happy human being or a fearful shadow of what it means to be human. Often the difference is between being a thoughtful person, or one burdened by beliefs forced on you. It’s often said that belief is when someone else does the thinking; if you accept that, then you have become someone who does not think for themselves, and perhaps does not think at all.

It should concern us all that the world has become driven by fear; social justice, climate change, and pandemics are issues addressed not with civil discourse and consideration of various ideas. These fears are more often than not the imaginings of those in our society who present themselves as experts in just about everything, often based on perceptions with no subsequent thought. Consequently, these beliefs become a mantra promoted in social media and government policies. It’s not the issues themselves that these beliefs address that should concern us, but the negativity and absolutism in how they are approached. There seems to be more fear incited than thoughtful and civil discourse on solutions. This is not what it means to be human but it is not that new a phenomenon; as Montaigne observed, “He who fears he shall suffer, already suffers what he fears.”

The worst consequence of the proliferation of fear through social media and government policies is the indoctrination rather than the education of our youth, providing a perpetuation of this fear mentality; this is not conducive to the propagation and preservation of our species as it reduces us to the level of the Silverback gorillas. Conformity to fear beliefs is the message and the medium is pervasive; these fear beliefs create a dystopia where thinking differently and free expression are disdained. The very nature of being human, of being a thinking person, seemingly no longer has any value. We would be well advised to consider Benjamin Franklin’s observation that “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

To Each Their Own

As Justin Amash put it “Centralization multiplies the costs of human errors.”

To Each Their Own

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” Tacitus

It is estimated that the Federal Government has created so many laws against crimes without victims that the average American can’t avoid at least three felonies or misdemeanors each day. There is a method to this madness and it is not to preserve and protect the liberties we cherish. It is in fact the means to subjugate the people and a cause of the polarization that infests us.

Back in April of last year I wrote a post titled “The Balkanization of America”. Since that time I have come to realize that the polarization I spoke of then, and feared would cause the fragmentation of this country, has reached a critical point. The issue now is not only how that process can be reversed, but what to do if it can’t with the inevitable choice between a violent or non-violent resolution.

What did the Founders intended regarding the issue of secession? As noted in the prior post referenced above, the constitution is silent on secession; this was not an oversight, but intentional. Madison et al made clear that the union was intended as a voluntary institution; as the principal author Madison records that there were proposals during the constitutional convention for a prohibition against secession that were rejected as contrary to the principles for which the Revolution was fought. The colonies had chosen to secede from the British common wealth, a treasonous crime against the king punishable by death; therefore they could not then compel a state to remain in the union against the wishes of its people. They also noted that the 1783 Treaty of Paris declared the thirteen colonies to be free, sovereign and independent states, each of whom signed the treaty.

While secession is often cited as the cause of the bloodiest war in American history, that is not so. The Civil War was ultimately about slavery. However, it is a fact that Lincoln was determined to preserve the union at all costs, and often stated that he would tolerate slavery in order to do so. Most of the North, even the abolitionist, did not support going to war over secession. So was there an alternative resolution to the death of 620,000 Americans? We may never know the answer to that as that option became moot. The Confederacy was formed February 4, 1861 among states that actually declared independence the prior year. During the time from the secessions until war started efforts were made to avoid it. However, if you declare being a sovereign state, and attack another sovereign state, then you have committed an act of war as the attack by the Confederacy on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 made war inevitable.

There are those that argue that the omission of such a constitutional prohibition does not necessarily constitute an accommodation for secession; that fails logically given the simple fact that compulsion to remain in the union is not an enumerated power. This fact was not lost on those in Congress who proposed constitutional amendments to prohibit secession; apparently Congress was aware that there was nothing unconstitutional about secession, otherwise they would not have proposed such amendments to begin with.

How does this history relate to our current dilemma? The late Walter Williams wrote “Now is not the time to pine for the days of agreeable politics. In recent decades, the US has gone through radical political and cultural transformations that are making the country progressively ungovernable. Any kind of national election from here on out will be viewed as illegitimate by the losing side due to the perceived high stakes of these affairs. No longer do America’s partisan coalitions treat each other as respectable competitors, but rather as existential threats that must be vanquished at the ballot box. As America’s social fabric continues withering and polarization intensifies, it’s only a matter of time before this kind of tension turns violent.”

Williams’ statement was proved prescient given the riots in the spring and summer of 2020, the 2020 presidential election and the January 6^th riot at the Capital. While looting and arson are not part of a peaceful protest, neither is murder a part of making an arrest. Those events were not the underlying causes for polarization as is so often the case in history, just the matches that lite the fuse.

To reverse this dangerous process of polarization we need to decentralize power, the disease behind the symptom of polarization. No matter how those in power try to spin their various ideologies, when power is concentrated at one source, you create the means to alienate more people. As Justin Amash put it “Centralization multiplies the costs of human errors.” He went on to say, at the time he was forced to leave the Republican Party because he believed Trump committed impeachable offenses, that “No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions.”

The constitution addresses this very concern of centralized power by specifically stating that the Federal government is limited to those powers as enumerated, all other powers being delegated to the people, i.e. the states. Unfortunately, that is not the way things have gone; as the French delegate to the US, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1831, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” That day came in 1913 when the 16^th Amendment was ratified; since then, Congress has had the means to do just that.

Politicians have always made outlandish promises to the electorate, but having the money to deliver on those promises became a powerful and dangerous tool; who can resist the promise of free healthcare, free education, free internet, free rent…essentially a welfare state. Those who understand that “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” see through such obvious shams as ultimately someone pays, and in this case, it’s the American tax payer, the “public” in Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation.

This creates resentment among those who pay of those who promote such ideas, and those who benefit from them. Politicians realize this, and so need to provide cover for such larcenous behavior; the most effective ways are to promote their ideas culturally, and enforce them legislatively. As Thomas Sowell observed, “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” However, when such methods are seen for what they are, that incites more resentment to the imposition of culture, laws and attitudes dictated from above; the “above” is the Federal Government, and the imposition comes from the politically elite.

The resulting social and political dynamic is polarization. There have been about a dozen movements for secession, ranging geographically from Vermont to Hawaii; the impetus for such movements is cultural, social, political and economic, and the advent of social media creates a chimeric growth with an even more alienating result. Add to this the efforts by politicians to censor those that object to the imposition of their cultural and social agenda and you have a threat to the very foundations of liberty so essential to a free society. Clearly in politics today hypocrisy has become a bona fide occupational qualification.

The reason to understand where the constitution stands on secession is not to promote the idea, but to consider it as the ultimate recourse to avoid violence. Following the 2016 presidential election, the people of California proposed secession and with the 2020 election, the people of Texas and some other states did the same. At some point such threats will become reality; we can then resort to violence to preserve a union no longer viable, or we take advantage of our own constitution to avoid that and provide for a non-violent resolution.

“Persistently Transitory” (?!?!)

This morning the financial news talk was centered on the inflation reports, which were at 5.4%, and rising quickly. There was a focus on the looming energy crises around the world, both on extremely high inflated costs, and shortages from all sources, with particular emphasis on natural gas in Europe. Other basic commodities like food, lumber, cooper and other necessities are all experiencing huge surges in prices with corresponding shortages in supply.

The phrase that had many of the interviewers and interviewees stumped was what the Fed and the administration spin the inflation story now as “persistently transitory”; of course such a phrase would confuse anyone paying attention as it is a contradictory construction of opposite meanings. Anything that is persistent is by nature not transitory, and anything transitory is by nature not persistent.

The debates that ensued were predictably about when the Fed will and/or should raise interest rates in order to curb what is obviously apparent as an inflationary trend that is no longer “transitory”. Even so, there were those that still cling to this transitory narrative based on causes that “… are not fundamentally economic in nature.” Now there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one as how can inflation not be an economic issue? True that the cause may be anything ranging from natural disasters, civil unrest, or distortions caused by policies, but all have economic consequences.

One economist who has consistently shown a clear headed understanding of the issues is Mohamed A. El-Erian, President of the Queens College School of Economics at Cambridge University. He correctly cites various government policies that have contributed to inflation, and cautions against the forever bromide of placing everything on the pandemic, i.e. crises come and go, but it is policies that have a persistent effect. He has been interviewed by various media and has repeatedly warned about the looming threat of inflation, the lack of central bank attention to it, and the concern that inflation will spike so egregiously as to force central banks like the Fed to react with a precipitous rise in rates so as to cause a recession.

Such would be the formula for stagflation, a phenomenon many in the US have not lived through given that more than 50% of the US population was born after 1980.For those who were born after that time, and even for those like me who are Boomers, but may not recall the “Volker Shock”, Paul Volker was the Fed chairman from 1979 to 1987. He was brought in by Jimmy Carter to control the double digit inflation the US was experiencing caused by Nixon ending the US Dollar’s gold standard and issuing wage and price controls, both disastrous policies leading to drastic inflation. At one point inflation rocketed to more than 11%, causing a loss of confidence in the USD such to the extent that the US was forced to issue UST notes denominated in Swiss Francs. In 1980, Volker raised the Fed rate to 20% which, while eventually but effectively bringing inflation under control through monetary contraction, also resulted in the Recession of 1981.

Thankfully, Regan reappointed Volker and followed his budgetary advice, as did Bush and Clinton subsequently, such to the extent that during Clinton’s administration the US had a balanced budget and a surplus for the first time since 1849. Since 2001 it’s been a tragic history of skyrocketing deficits and debt resulting from bad fiscal and monetary policies; it’s déjà vu Nixon Era.

Now we are faced again with the results of 20 years of fiscal irresponsibility and the monetizing of debt, such to the extent that we face the prospect of either the dollar’s default and demise, or another “Volker Shock”, this one perhaps even more painful. Yet in the face of that we have the Biden administration proposing the most irresponsible spending programs of such magnitude as to be laughable if it weren’t so tragically dumb, a literal case of spending from empty pockets.

Obviously, the US will be forced to yet again raise the debt ceiling in order to pay its current bills, but DC seems to be ignoring the thousand pound gorilla in the room. They need to face the reality that we can’t afford the dollar’s default and demise, and face the reality of depoliticizing the debate, cut spending, allow the Fed to raise rates and prepare for the inevitable Volker Shock II.

Do Americans have the courage of the 1980’s to accept the results of bad policies, and claw our way back at least to some degree of fiscal and monetary sanity? Consider the fact that if the US allowed interest rates to rise to normal market levels, the total of all revenues would not provide the funds to even service our current debt, a debt to GDP ratio that now exceeds 78%, placing the US 8^th in the highest debt of all nations; so what are we waiting for, getting to be first?

Some Fed experts cite the “sluggish” inflation over the last decade, one at a paltry 2% or less, as the basis for judging that this current spike is transitory, as if inflation was a good thing. They need to start understanding that inflation is like that old Lenin saying, “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.”

What is also at stake is losing the reserve currency status of the USD, a metric establishing a currency’s stability, convertibility, credit worthiness, central bank independence and therefore its dependability in world trade transactions. Considering the fact that the US has inflated its currency 26% over the last 1 ½ years, resulting in a serious devaluation, the USD’s stability is an issue. When that happens, currency exchange becomes skewed impacting convertibility. Add to this the fact that UST auctions often result in the Fed having to buy much of the issue, which in turn inflates its own balance sheet, and that all impacts credit worthiness. On top of all this, the politicization of appointing the Fed chairman hardly speaks to an independent central bank. Little wonder that China, the world’s number two economy, and a nation with a debt to GDP ratio better than the US, is looking at a higher reserve status in the near future.

So when we hear such glib but dumb spinning like “persistently transitory”, and when you go to the grocer or the gas pump to see ever rising prices, remember that it’s not monetary and fiscal expansion that causes inflation, it’s that monetary and fiscal expansion is inflation. In the end, Americans need to understand that inflation is a thief and we need to call out our politicians for harboring and abetting the perpetrator.