. . . and make the results public, say 74% of Americans in a national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports.
HT to Mike Stern of Auburn University.
. . . and make the results public, say 74% of Americans in a national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports.
HT to Mike Stern of Auburn University.
A recent New York Times article bemoans the rise of populist parties in European countries, which are stridently nativist and nationalist. In Denmark, some polls show that the Danish People’s Party is now more popular than the incumbent Social Democrats. Likewise, a recent poll indicates that the National Front, founded by the notorious Jean-Marie Le Pen and now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen, is the most popular party in France. According to the article such “disruptive upstart groups” are also making inroads in Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands.
The article hastens to assure readers, however, that, aside from Greece and maybe Hungary, ”The trend in Europe does not signal the return of fascist demons from the 1930s.” Why no cause for concern? You see ”Europe’s populists want to strengthen, not shrink, government and see the welfare state as an integral part of their national identities.” These parties tap into ”a curious mix of right-wing identity politics and left-wing anxieties about the future of the welfare state.” In making such an argument the author of the article, Andrew Higgins, demonstrates his complete innocence of any historical or doctrinal knowledge of the phenomenon of fascism.
A strong government and a welfare state was precisely what the the European fascists of the 1930s promoted in their propaganda and instituted once they achieved power. For example, the 25-point program of Hitler’s National Socialist party, promulgated in 1920, called for an extensive welfare state enforced by a strong central government. Point 7 demanded “that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.” Point 11 sought “The abolition of all incomes unearned by work” and “The breaking of the slavery of interest.” Points 13-16 demanded, respectively: the nationalization of all trusts; profit-sharing in all large industrial enterprises; the “extensive development” of old age insurance; and the communalizing of large department stores and the subsidization and preferential treatment of “small traders” by the State. Point 20 demanded that the State reconstruct education “with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement.” It also demanded “the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.” Point 21 would require that the State “ensure that the nation’s health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.” Last but not least, Point 25 addressed the means for putting the whole program into effect and demanded ”the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations.”
Nor was the National Socialist program for a welfare state mere empty rhetoric. In his book, Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, Gotz Aly argues that Hitler created “a racist-totalitarian welfare state” that showered munificent benefits on the lower and middle classes and on farmers. Living standards for these groups remained elevated almost until the end of World War 2. The Hitlerian welfare-warfare state was paid for by punitive capital gains taxes on corporations, a 50 percent surcharge on all wages (50% of which was paid by 4% of the highest wage earners), and, during the war, by the plunder of Jewish property and conquered countries.
. . . climate change forecasting models are even worse than your own models. A paper published in the peer-reviewed Climate Dynamics ”amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.” Researchers Professor Judith Curry and Dr. Marcia Wyatt find that a natural cycle is responsible for the 17-year pause in climate change–as well as the previous period of warming–during which there has been no statistically significant rise in the earth’s temperature since 1997. As it stands today, the earth’s temperature is below almost all the predictions made by the 138 computer models relied upon by the enforcers of climate change orthodoxy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The natural “stadium wave” cycle of climate change discovered by Curry and Wyatt predicts that the pause in climate change will extend into the 2030s, in sharp contrast to the 0.3 to 0.7 C warming forecast by the IPCC earlier this year.
In a brilliant and entertaining new book, aptly titled Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences, Professor Michael Billig explains why social scientists typically write so poorly. For Billig, who is not an economist, the main point is simple economics:
If we want to understand why academics today write as they do, then we should bear in mind one simple fact: in current times academics are writing and publishing as part of their paid employment. We will not get near to understanding what might be going wrong in the social sciences unless we accept this. By and large, academics today are not writing in answer to a higher calling or because they have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of truth. We are, to put it bluntly, hacks who write for a living. . . . Given that our products are academic words, then we learn how to promote our academic words as part of our employment. These are conditions where the rewards do not go to those who only write when they have something to say and who then take trouble to write as clearly as possible.
In the past week Hillary Clinton netted a tidy $400,000 from two speaking engagements at Goldman Sachs-sponsored events. In July and September of this year she spoke at events hosted by private-equity firms KKR and Carlyle Group, respectively. Crony capitalism just keeps rollin’ along.
“. . . and That’s Terrifying,” writes Brendan Brown in the title of his recent Forbes op ed. According to Brown, Yellen is simply another in the line of deflationphobes and monetary authoritarians who have run the Fed in the last 20 years and are eager to please their political masters. Yellen’s choice as Fed chair thus presages an agonizing era of asset bubbles and crashes, stagnant recoveries, and an age of 1970s-style galloping inflation. Brown eloquently makes the case:
A doctrine of monetary authoritarianism has emerged through the past two decades which features the targeting of inflation (at 2% p.a.), a deep phobia of deflation, the systematic denial of asset price inflation and its monetary origins, an embracing of regulation as a key tool of macro-economic management and so-called prudential control, and the legitimization of currency warfare (by the US).
The doctrine is deeply flawed. Its pursuance has produced violent cycles of asset price inflation and deflation including the greatest financial panic and greatest recession in modern times and now the weakest economic recovery ever from great recession. Ahead looms the probability of a 1937-style crash and recession. And beyond that there is the specter of another age of high inflation. . . .
And so it is with the doctrine of monetary authoritarianism which pervades the Federal Reserve and is fully endorsed by its present political master, the Obama Administration. There are no grounds at all to imagine that the new nominated chief, Professor Yellen, will demonstrate any flexibility in applying the doctrine let alone experiencing a “road to Damascus” moment in which she doubts its validity.
So what drama can we expect in the theatre of the Yellen Fed?
Most likely it will open with some economic disappointment. The US economy may well enter one of its frequent growth cycle lulls (indeed it may already have done so). She will postpone QE tapering – indeed postponement could become indefinite. No doubt one element in the decision of the White House to nominate her was the belief that she could engineer a powerful growth cycle upturn ahead of the crucial mid-term Congressional elections (November 2014).
In a remarkably rambling article, minor Beltway pundit and dabbler in economics, Bruce Bartlett (M.A. History, Rutgers University) has taken to listing and trying to smear real scholars in economics who do not share his hysterical government default-phobia. Well, I have another eminent economist who may be a candidate for his hit list.
Ohio State economist J. Huston McCulloch actually challenges the conventional wisdom that the U.S. government has never, ever defaulted on its debts. McCulloch points out that the U.S. did indeed default on its debt in 1861 and again in 1933. In 1861, the U.S. Treasury issued “United States Notes” to aid in financing the Civil War. These Treasury notes, known colloquially as “Greenbacks,” promised to pay the bearer in “lawful money,” gold or silver at the government’s discretion, on demand. At the end of 1861, however, the government renounced its promise and suspended redemption as of January 1, 1862, putting it technically in default until 1879 when the notes were again made redeemable in gold. In 1933, President Roosevelt reneged on the promise to pay the interest and principal on Treasury bonds in gold at the rate of $20.67 per ounce, which once again put the government in technical default. In 1935, the right to redeem the bonds in gold was restored to foreign bondholders only, but at the depreciated rate of $35.00 per ounce, an option which was never offered to U.S. bondholders.
More important, the whole notion that an honest and explicit debt default by the U.S. government is an unprecedented event and the worst possible outcome in the current situation is ludicrous given that the U.S. has been continually and surreptitiously defaulting on its debt since World War 2 via inflationary finance. As McCulloch argues:
Governments often effectively default on their debts through inflation. Under a fiat money regime, they can always print enough legal tender money to pay off their debts. The only catch is that the money will not be worth as much as it was before. If it tries to cover too much deficit spending in this manner, more than a few percent of GDP, the inevitable result is hyperinflation in which money quickly becomes virtually worthless.
Disastrous though an explicit Treasury default would be, bringing down the entire economy with a hyperinflation or even a partial inflationary default would be even worse. But if we keep charging current deficits to future taxpayers at our current rate, the inevitable result will be a revolt in which they either explicitly repudiate all or part of the debt, or, worse yet, inflate it away.
Bruce, are you paying attention to this economics lesson?
The U.S. government and the establishment media are in a quandary. How are they to explain the heinous attack on a Kenyan shopping mall by Al Shabab a militant Somali group with links to al-Qaida which left 59 innocent civilians dead and another 175 injured, with the victims ranging in age from 2 to 79 years old? After all, since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, U.S politicians of all stripes have repeatedly hammered home the message that “fundamentalist” Islamists hate us and want to kill us simply because we are free and prosperous. But Kenya is neither. According to the Index of Freedom in the World that attempts to measure economic, civil, and political liberties, Kenya ranks 91 out of the 123 countries included in the index. As for prosperity, based on the CIA World Factbook 2012, Kenya’s per capita GDP was estimated to be $1,700 per year which ranks 192 out of 225 countries.
Could it be that Al Shabab was telling the truth about the reason for its murderous assault yesterday when it tweeted: “For long we have waged war against the Kenyans in our land, now its time to shift the battleground and take the war to their land.” After all 4,000 Kenyans troops invaded and have been occupying part of Somalia since 2011. But then this raises the uncomfortable possibility that terrorist attacks by militant Muslim groups on the U.S and its interests throughout the world were not motivated by envy and hatred of our freedoms and high standard of living. Maybe, just maybe, Ron Paul was right and they were provoked by incessant U.S. meddling in the Middle East since World War 2 through numerous wars and economic embargoes including on food and medicine and the billions of dollars sent to payoff and prop up tyrannical and oppressive regimes that do U.S bidding, e.g., the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt.
While incomes and living standards in the rest of the U.S. have been declining since the beginning of the new millennium thanks to the ever-increasing depredations of Big Government, Central Banking and Crony Capitalists on productive Americans, things have been going just swimmingly in the Imperial City of Washington, D.C. According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, average household (inflation-adjusted) income has jumped by 23.3% to $66,583 in D.C. between 2000 and 2012. During the same period median household income for the rest of the country has fallen by 6.6%, from $55,030 to $51,371. Disaggregating the data for the rest of the U.S., only 4 states enjoyed gains while 35 states suffered declines in real income.
When we expand the survey area a bit to include the D.C. suburbs in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, where most of the high-level Federal bureaucrats, government contractors, and lobbyists working in D.C. reside, median household income leaps to $88,233. This puts the D.C. metro area at the very top of the list of the 25 most populous metro areas in the U.S. in terms of median household income, revealing an even more glaring and growing income disparity between the political predators and their cronies on the one hand and the private producers of wealth on the other.
The establishment media and many economists and other social scientists continually bemoan the varying income differences generated by voluntary and ever changing consumer choices on the market. In fact, these differences are not a problem at all, but rather the necessary and benign outcome of a dynamically efficient market economy, which rewards all market participants according to their productivity in serving consumer wants. Furthermore, the obsession with “income inequality” obscures the enormity and the very existence of the real problem, which is ”income plundering” of the productive class by the political class. The latter class is composed of politicians, bureaucrats and their allied special interests in the private sector. In the U.S., the political class regularly and forcibly extracts a massive amount of income from productive workers, investors, and entrepreneurs via taxation and money creation (“quantitative easing” and “zero interest-rate policies”) and funnels these stolen funds into its own pockets and those of privileged financial institutions, giant agribusiness corporations, government military contractors, construction unions, etc. Recently, in the U.S. this plundering of productive incomes has grown to an enormous scale, enabled by the huge Federal budget deficits financed by the Fed’s money printing. Plutocratic exploitation, therefore, and not any kind of market failure, is the explanation of the impoverishment of the productive middle class which has been manifested so dramatically in the past decade.
University of Michigan Survey Research Center surveys consumers monthly. The Index of Consumer Expectations is one of two indexes compiled from consumer answers to these questions. One of the routine questions posed relates to expected inflation for next year and for 5 to 10 years from now. Judging by the average response to this question recent consumers clearly do not believe that the Fed either is aiming at or is capable of hitting its announced inflation target of 2 percent. For one year out, the index of inflation expectations has averaged 3.2 percent over the past year and 3.1 over the past 5 years. Consumer expectations of long-term inflation are roughly the same, averaging 2.9 percent over the past year and 3.0 percent over the past 5 years.
Caroline Baum of Bloomberg addresses the question of why consumers have ignored the Fed’s widely ballyhooed inflation target of 2 percent and the fact that CPI inflation has averaged only 1.5 percent over the past five years. Her answer is enlightening:
Consumers either don’t listen, don’t care or derive their expectations from their own shopping cart. Food and gas comprise a big part of the household budget, and energy prices, at least, have been rising much faster than inflation. Just as consumers vote their pocketbook, they use their pocketbook to make judgments on where inflation is today and where prices are headed.
This is exactly correct. In a classic passage written in 1949 (Human Action, pp. 23-24), Ludwig von Mises made this point and emphasized that consumers’ rough and ready assessments of the prevailing inflation situation are just as “scientific” as the arbitrary statistical constructs contrived by government economists to “measure” inflation. Wrote Mises:
The pretentious solemnity which statisticians and statistical bureaus display in computing indexes of purchasing power and cost of living is out of place. These index numbers are at best rather crude and inaccurate illustrations of changes which have occurred. In periods of slow alterations in the relation between the supply of and the demand for money they do not convey any information at all. In periods of inflation and consequently of sharp price changes they provide a rough image of events which every individual experiences in his daily life. A judicious housewife knows much more about price changes as far as they affect her own household than the statistical averages can tell. She has little use for computations disregarding changes both in quality and in the amount of goods which she is able or permitted to buy at the prices entering into the computation. If she “measures” the changes for her personal appreciation by taking the prices of only two or three commodities as a yardstick, she is no less “scientific” and no more arbitrary than the sophisticated mathematicians in choosing their methods for the manipulation of the data of the market. . . . In practical life nobody lets himself be fooled by index numbers.
Whether or not the Fed is pursuing a blatantly political agenda by manipulating inflation statistics is wholly besides the point, which is that inflation is a multi-dimensional phenomenon including systematic changes in: relative prices; the qualities of goods and services; the structure of interest rates; and temperatures on various asset markets. Even if we focus (too) narrowly on markets for goods and services, as mainstream economists do, there is no such thing as a uniform ”price level” moving up and down. There are only individual money prices changing at varying rates, at different times, and even in different directions. As long as mainstream macroeconomists and central bankers fail to understand this lesson, we will continue to have recurrent booms and bubbles inevitably followed by financial meltdowns and grinding recessions.
A newly released report by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that most Americans living below the bureaucratically designated “poverty line” enjoy most modern conveniences. For example more than 80 percent of U.S. households below the poverty line have a: refrigerator (97.8%); stove (96.6%); television (96.1%); microwave oven (93.1%); air conditioner (83.4%); VCR/DVD player (83.2%); and cell phone (80.9%). In addition, more than half of households beneath the poverty level also have a: clothes washer (68.7%); clothes dryer (65.3%); computer (58.2%); and landline telephone (54.9). Now, when we use these figures as a standard of comparison, most middle-class Americans families in, say, 1960, were living well below the poverty line. But this comparison obscures the important point that capitalism long ago solved the problem of poverty in a meaningful sense and in doing so radically transformed the very concept of poverty.
In order to understand the original idea of poverty, we need to go back to the era before the economic and social system of capitalism produced the much maligned ”Industrial Revolution” that began to transform Western Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Writing in the mid-20 century, Ludwig von Mises vividly described the plight of the true poor in the era prior to the emergence of industrial capitalism. According to Mises, in the allegedly paradisiacal pre-modern agricultural society with a growing population:
[T]he outcome is the emergence of a huge mass of landless proletarians. Then a wide gap separates the disinherited paupers from the fortunate farmers. They are a class of pariahs whose very existence presents society with an insoluble problem. They search in vain for a livelihood. Society has no use for them. They are destitute.
When in the ages preceding the rise of modern capitalism the statesman, the philosophers, and laws referred to the poor and to the problems of poverty, they meant these supernumerary wretches. Laissez-faire and its offshoot, industrialism, converted the employable poor into wage earners. In the unhampered market society there are people with higher and people with lower incomes. There are no longer men who, although able and ready to work, cannot find regular jobs because there is no room left for them in the social system of production. But [laissez-faire] liberalism and capitalism were even in their heyday limited to comparatively small areas of Western and Central Europe, North America, and Australia. In the rest of the world hundreds of millions still vegetate on the verge of starvation. They are poor or paupers in the old sense of the term, supernumerary and superfluous . . . .
Thus before modern capitalism one could not be living “below the poverty line,” because poverty was an absolute and irremediable condition in which the pauper had no regular income and no prospects of ever earning one. In order to keep body and soul together, the pauper had to subsist on alms or on robbery. It was capitalism that put paid to the universal belief that the poor would always be with us–and permitted a vacuous idea like the “poverty line” to gain currency.
“The quantitative easing program is like a giant roach motel with a big welcome sign.” So says fund manager Mark Feierstein, author of Planet Ponzi, in this short video interview. Although no Austrian, Feierstein has insightful things to say about the U.S. government’s lying statistics and the dire prospects for a world awash in Fed-generated debt. He also is not afraid to use the “D” word, as in Italy and Spain, with negative economic growth and 28% and 55% youth unemployment respectively, are in a depression.
The flood of dollar-denominated debt has risen in Turkey, Brazil, India, and South Korea since Bernanke turned on the monetary spigot in 2009. Now it appears, according to a perceptive article by Landon Thomas, Jr. in the New York Times, that the end of the boom may be in sight as rumors swirl that the Fed will soon be tightening money. As Tim Lee of Pi Economics remarked: “What we are witnessing is a huge bubble, a Bernanke bubble if you will.” And he believes that it is nearing it bursting point.
In recent days nervous investors have begun to pull funds out of developing Asian economies in anticipation, jolting stock and currency markets in India, Indonesia, and Thailand. In the pst few months, the Turkish lira has depreciated by 4.5% against the dollar, while Turkey’s dollar-denominated debt stands at $172 billion or 22% of its GDP. Goldman Sachs forecasts a further 15% fall in the Turkish lira, spurring a financial crisis as it becomes more and more expensive to buy dollars to service these loans, most of which are short term. Other previously fast-growing economies with large accumulations of dollar-denominated debt such as Brazil, India, and South Korea are also struggling right now and will likely be caught up in the impending financial crisis.
Furthermore — and not at all surprisingly — the real assets created by these loans were malinvestments that will not lead to sustainable growth and prosperity in the recipient economies and therefore will not generate a sufficient flow of income to service the loans. As Mr. Thomas points out,
Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the Fed’s largess were . . . among the politically connected elite in emerging nations like Turkey, where vanity towers, glitzy shopping malls and even grander projects to come — a third bridge across the Bosporus and a vast new airport — have become representative of the nation’s new dynamism, economic as well as geopolitical.
The silver lining in all this doom and gloom is that another global financial meltdown will deal a heavy, and possibly fatal, blow to both the Fed and the credibility of Ben Bernanke’s work on crises and depressions which has become the centerpiece of modern macroeconomic orthodoxy. This will clear the field for the return to prominence of the Austrian theory of the business cycle of Mises, Hayek and Rothbard.
Mark Gongloff of the Huffington Post responded to a surpassingly silly post of Christopher T. Mahoney’s, former vice chairman of Moody’s. Unfortunately, Gongloff’s post is almost as silly as Mahoney’s.
According to Mahoney, Protestants stink at monetary policy, you know, because of the whole Protestant work ethic thing that if you get something for nothing then it must be sinful. Thus Protestants believe that expansionary monetary policy and “reflation” are sinful precisely because they can costlessly cure depression and unemployment. Mahoney concludes therefore, “The only people who understand monetary policy are Jews and Catholics.” But instead of challenging Mahoney’s ludicrous premise that inflation is the miracle cure for what ails the U.S. economy, Gongloff offers as counterexamples Friedrich A. Hayek, who was born a Roman Catholic, and his Jewish mentor, Ludwig von Mises, whose valiant fight for complete separation of money from the control of politicians was also presumably driven by a theological aversion to inflation. But the narrow-minded dogmatists are not, of course, Mises and Hayek, but those like Gongloff and Mahoney who insist against all reason and experience that the creation of money miraculously begets real goods and services and ushers in an earthly paradise of plenty.
On Thursday, stocks suffered their largest tumble since June due in large part to a so-called “spike” in the yield on 10-year government bonds, which rose by a measly 11 basis points, from 2.712% to 2.82%. This is further evidence of the very shallow and extremely shaky foundations of the current economic recovery, as anemic as it is, which is based on the Fed once again artificially pumping up household net worth in financial assets and housing prices by relentlessly beating down the interest rate below its natural rate. But the Fed is playing a game that it can never win. Once confidence vanishes that the Fed is able to maintain its inflationary QE and zero interest-rate policies, the jig will be up and equity and real estate markets will come tumbling down pulling the still shaky financial system with it.
You can now enjoy a three-part lecture series on the basic principles of money from an Austrian perspective. The series was sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul and presented exclusively to Congressional staffers. The lecturers were myself, Constitutional lawyer Edmund Vieira, and investor, author, and financial commentator Peter Schiff.
DEF CON is the premier annual convention of the hardcore hacking community. It began yesterday and runs until August 4 and is being held at the Rio Hotel in Las Vegas. One of the popular events at DEF CON is a game that is similar to “capture the flag” in which contestants vie to mine information from the websites of large companies like AT&T, Fed Ex, and Target as well as profiles on LinkedIn. No personal data are stolen and the larger aim is to demonstrate the vulnerabilities of the target companies. Last year the winner of the contest demonstrated on stage how he was able to hack into WalMart in twenty minutes.
By the way, the fee to attend is $180–payable in cash only. The following statement appears on the DEF CON website
DEF CON 21 costs $180 USD cash. Do we take credit cards? Are you JOKING? No, we only accept cash – no checks, no money orders, no travelers checks. We don’t want to be a target of any State or Federal fishing expeditions.
Hmmm, I wonder why there’s no mention of payment in Bitcoin?
Those who still believe the hogwash that the the United States is a two-party, representative democracy should ponder the following. On Wednesday, the amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 proposed by libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) was narrowly defeated in the House by a vote of 217-205. The amendment would have ended the authority for the unconstitutional, police-state metadata-phone call spy program carried out by the NSA whose existence was leaked by the heroic whistleblower Edward Snowden last month. Interestingly, the amendment had bipartisan support, with 99 Republicans and 111 Democrats voting for it. Its opponents included the leadership of both parties, as both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) voted against it. This seeming paradox is easily unraveled if one follows the money. According to an analysis commissioned by Wired, over the past two years those representatives who opposed the amendment and supported the spy program received more than twice the amount of cash contributions from defense and intelligence firms (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, etc.) as those who did not. On average, House members who voted to uphold the domestic spy program received an average of $41,635 whereas those who voted to revoke authority for the program averaged $18,765. By the way, the leaders of the two “opposing” parties in the House, Boehner and Pelosi received $131,000 and $47,000, respectively, from the defense-intelligence establishment.
This is just another reminder of the thesis of the great Italian sociologist and classical liberal Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) that every democracy is inevitably transformed into a “demogogic plutocracy” that is run by a ruling elite of “fox-like” politicians and their corporate capitalist cronies.
HT to Wolf von Laer.
It all started one Saturday morning when Jarl Syvertsen, a 59-year-old disabled Norwegian man, purchased a PC, TVs, and washing machines for 80,000 kroner (roughly US$13,000) which he paid in cash. The store immediately alerted the police about the large cash payment. On Sunday a male and a female police officer appeared on Mr Syvertsen’s doorstep. Upon seeing them, Mr. Syvertsen at first feared that something may have happened to his mother, who is 86 years old and resides in a nursing home. But the police were there with a warrant to search his home, charging that the cash he had spent was money that “came from a criminal offense.” In fact, the money was actually part of an approximately one-million dollar advance on an inheritance he had received. Mr. Syvertsen attempted several times to explain to the officers where the money had come from and to show them a letter confirming that fact, but they would have none of it and proceeded to invade his home and his privacy. Eventually the police realized their error and left his home.
Although the police now admit that they investigated Mr. Syvertsen prior to the warrant being issued and found that he had never been implicated in any criminal activity, they insist that “there were reasonable grounds to suspect” criminal activity given the “sum of the information available,” that is, the large cash payment. As Mr. Syvertsen points out, however, had the police waited until Monday, the matter could have been resolved “in a single phone call to the bank.” But the police are unrepentant and have the unmitigated gall to lecture law abiding citizens against carrying large sums of cash on their persons for their own safety–against private thugs, not police thugs of course. According to acting station commander Jarle Kolstad:
It is far safer to pay such large amounts [with] cards than to go with 80,000 [kroner] in cash on the body. Not because you risk getting the police at the door [really?], but because it is safer to use the cards. . . .
Mr Syvertsen’s reply to such self-serving nonsense?
It’s not stamped on my forehead that I have 80,000 [kroner] on the inside pocket, so I judge [it] as quite safe. Besides, I have previously experienced not [being able to] pay because payment terminals are down. Therefore, I chose to pay with cash, and there is no prohibition [against it] in Norwegian law. . . .
In the aftermath of this egregious home invasion, Mr. Syvertsen is suing the police for compensation. In the meantime, his experience with such lawless and arbitrary police conduct makes him feel unsafe in his own home and leaves him wondering “How low the threshold is supposed to be for police to intrude into private homes”? Well Mr. Syvertsen,as in the case of any government war against its own people (e.g., the War on Drugs, the War on Terror etc.) the threshold is very low indeed.
HT to Vegard Notnaes.
Steve Hanke is a maverick free-market economist who for decades has tirelessly advised de-socializing and developing countries against following the disastrous monetary and fiscal policies foisted on them in exchange for bailouts by international bureaucracies like the IMF and World Bank. Hanke’s latest efforts have been directed toward debunking inflation statistics fabricated by governments of developing countries that are trying to cover up the consequences of their highly inflationary or even hyper-inflationary monetary policies. Such official statistics, of course, are accepted and parroted by the media and the aforementioned international bureaucracies. Hanke gives the following example:
In many cases, governments fabricate inflation statistics to hide their economic problems. In the extreme, countries simply stop reporting inflation data. This was the case in Zimbabwe, a country that recorded the world’s second-highest hyperinflation. Results of research determined that Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation peaked in mid-November 2008, at a monthly rate of 7.96 × 1010% — roughly 8 followed by 10 zeros.
But, the Mugabe government stopped reporting inflation data in July 2008, when the peak monthly inflation rate was “only” 2,600%. Unfortunately, these official July 2008 data are still used in press reports and by venerable institutions like the International Monetary Fund. There is, of course, a “little” problem. The hyperinflation actually peaked at monthly rate 30 million times higher than the official peak inflation rate. The true peak of Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation occurred 3.5 months after the government’s last release of official inflation data.
Many countries have followed this course — failing to report any usable monetary data and neglecting to report inflation data in a timely and replicable manner. Those data that are reported are often deceptive, if not completely fabricated. Yes, official economic data from countries with troubled currencies often amount to nothing more than “lying statistics” and should be treated as such.
To address this problem Hanke has started The Troubled Currencies Project under the joint auspices of the Cato Institute and Johns Hopkins University. The project collects data on black market exchange rates and then applies the purchasing power parity theory, which links exchange rates with price levels, to more accurately estimate rates of inflation for troubled currencies. The project currently includes Argentina, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela and will update the data and estimates on a regular basis. In the current chart that appears on its site, Syria reports an official annual inflation rate of 36.43% while the rate estimated from the movement of black market exchange rates is 336.50%; the respective inflation rates for Venezuela are 35.24% and 240.10%.
William Anderson Walter Block Per Bylund John Cochran Jeff Deist Thomas DiLorenzo Carmen Elena Dorobăț Gary Galles David Gordon Jeffrey Herbener Robert Higgs Randall Holcombe David Howden Jörg Guido Hülsmann Peter Klein Hunter Lewis Matt McCaffrey Ryan McMaken Thorsten Polleit Joseph Salerno Timothy Terrell Mark Thornton Hunt Tooley Christopher Westley