The Treasury has decided to market its first new product in 15 years: Floating-Rate Notes. The newly conceived-of notes are described as both a haven and an investment, as the interest paid on these notes will reset periodically to match prevailing rates measured by a market index; the notes will also supposedly have a maturity of two years. This move comes as one hoping to bring more demand back to buying government bonds.

In the later 2000’s, it became evident that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries had fallen greatly; investors were staying away from the long-term bonds and, therefor, the U.S. Dollar. The Federal Reserve temporarily remedied the situation by buying long-term bonds from the Treasury (and a lot of them) with the Quantitative Easing programs. The Treasury has now come to a point where they are trying to figure out how to mitigate such a problem in the future by attracting investors again, but the financial condition of the U.S. Government may have reached a point of no return. The current U.S. bond bubble will burst, and when it does the government will print its way out of matured obligations, will monetize the debt further, and hyperinflate the economy.

Even if the crisis at hand is avoided, there is a major downside to these new Treasuries: it could leave more of a burden for taxpayers. Given the unlikely circumstance that the U.S. Economy makes a long-term recovery, the interest to be paid on these notes will be on the rise. Already the government is having trouble raising the money to pay off its current obligations (and ultimately it will fail unless debt is liquidated immediately), but it will now be required to gain more in revenues to pay off its investors.

banefulbastion replied to your post: “The reason I side with capitalism is because it’s, in my view, far more efficient and more innovative as well.” Typical fucking capitalist. Efficiency and entrepreneurship is what you desire most out of society? You know what’s really efficient? Slavery. Where do we draw the line? Lolbertarians.

Here’s one way to look at it: voluntary communism can occur within a total market “an-cap” system. The reverse - an-cap societies within a communist superstructure - cannot. That simple test tells us which is more restrictive.

Thank you for saying this. And you know, I’ve said this for a while now. While I am not an anarcho-capitalist, I see the possibility of, even in a Minarchy, collectivist groups forming communes. 

I’d rather you have the freedom to live in a commune collectively (which you really don’t have the freedom to do so right now) than impose the use of that freedom to prevent those wishing to voluntarily participate in the Capitalist system.

I think a system like that would allow for a much evolutionary nature of society. Shane Morris was talking about how he wants money to just go out of existence. Personally, I am against this; in fact I think it to be impossible and a regression. And I am certainly against the forcing of this. But if we gain the freedom for societies to evolve and decide this for themselves, then so be it. And if it extends to everyone within our borders? Then so be it.

You know, my wording before was poor. It’s not that I view it as flawed, it’s that I view Praxeology as inferior to econometrics/a Positivist approach to economic theory. Praxeology entails a much larger proportion of psychology/sociology to solid mathematics, whereas the use of Positivism ensures a much stronger argument on behalf of really any theory. But make no mistake, I’m not foolish enough to say that the use of econometrics involves no psychology. Economic theory as a whole is rooted in sociology, so to say that Positivism is 100% objective would be disingenuous at best.

In order for Austrians to be able to compete with mainstream economics, it needs to enter the same playing field. You’re not going to win a baseball game inside of an arena while your opponent is in the outfield of a stadium. Praxeology, I feel, holds the Austrian school down to an “Economics 101” basis. It uses sound logic to reach its conclusions, but is seldom justified by equations. There are certain aspects of Austrian economics that do make use of “facts and figures” (the first one coming to mind is Roger Garrison’s modeling of the Business Cycle Theory), but it is far too infrequent for me to be comfortable with.

Where I will give merit to Praxeology is Hayek’s and Mises’ “Economic Calculation Problem”. It’s true that central planners will never have the means of collecting perfect market information to act on (even though the market will always abide by these unknown variables), but it is also true that we will know the exact numbers of policy changes via government. And it is very possible the plot out, through econometrics, the known policy changes and prove why they could be beneficial or detrimental.

I’ve seen some books that have justified Austrian theory in a Neoclassical, even a Keynesian, framework, and I think it will be most beneficial to soak in those theories thoroughly. Yes, even if it means possibly swallowing the dreadful Rational Expectations Hypothesis in certain cases. In certain cases only. Possibly. Who knows? My purpose is to learn more about the reasoning behind the theory in opposition to Praxeology. It’s going to bring me to the same conclusions, but maybe bring me to a different reasoning of why.

I understand that Anti-Gay Christianity is ridiculous. I understand that Creationism has almost no scientific backing. Trust me, I get this. But why do we care about who donates to Invisible Children? I’d much rather judge and tackle an organization because of its “achievements”, goals, and messages. Not who gives the organization money. 

Do I judge Obama for receiving money from the Black Panthers? No. I don’t like him for a plethora of other reasons. Do I think it’s correct to judge Ron Paul off of the fact that his donors consist of KKK members? No. If you don’t like an organization or a politician or a pundit, back that argument with something that is relevant. This being used as a complaint, to me, has no substance; it’s 100% immaterial. 

In fact, we make our arguments weaker by using “fun-facts” like these in a debate. Not just because the argument doesn’t prove much of a point, but because you alienate groups of people who happen to be Christian and also in agreement with you. When you start alienating people, you start blowing up bridges. Blowing up bridges is never a good thing. The most valuable lesson I’ve learned is that coalitions and across-the-aisle-friendships are your best friend.

thoseboringpolitics:

Well… looks like I’ll have to do this again. For any of you who didn’t notice before, I made a post debunking a picture regarding Republicans and their spending habits as well as one regarding Obama’s accumulated debt. It’s a shame that these thoughtless pictures won’t stop. Let’s, once again, analyze these numbers.

From Clinton’s inauguration date to the end of his presidency, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 3,256.81 to 10,587.59. The percentage increase under Clinton was pretty much what the picture suggests: it’s about 225%. This boom occurred chiefly because of loose monetary policy in the late 80’s (and later in the mid 90’s) by Alan Greenspan; it was the perfect breeding ground for the NASDAQ bubble (which carried the Dow up with it). Though when the bust came, the NASDAQ felt most of it, as the Dow only dropped to about 8,000. 

Now if we truly want to credit someone with that boom, it should be to Alan Greenspan: the man in charge of the money. Not Bill Clinton. But hey, I’ll play it both sides. Let’s go ahead and credit Mr. Clinton with that 1990’s boom. Wouldn’t he then be the reason the economy busts? 

This is where we bring in George W. Bush. Here comes in Mr. Bush to a still-booming economy that is on the brink. In the first year of Bush’s presidency, the burst of the Dot-com Bubble came, and we experienced the Terrorist Attacks on 9/11.

So, let me tackle 9/11 real quick. 9/11’s effects on the stock-market was what is known as a “real shock”. There was no real fiscal reasoning behind its drop there; it was just investors becoming afraid about more attacks and their money. No one can pin this blame on George W. Bush. At all. Al-Qaeda and its friends hated the United States since Gerald Ford. It actually goes even further than that. Then Clinton instigated Bin-Laden in 1993 with the Gulf War as well! So the actions of multiple presidents brought attacks on our soil, and it happened to be within Bush’s very first year. 

Now people really love to say “Obama inherited Bush’s recession!” It’s true. But it works both ways. Bush inherited Clinton’s busting economy. So this in combination with the real shock of 9/11 sunk the economy hard. How can one fault the blame to him for that? You can’t. The economy was near it’s then-all-time-high when Bush entered office, and that’s tough to recoup after someone else’s economy busts.

The graph is right on it’s numbers here, too. From inauguration to the very end, the market changed from 10,587.59 to 8,077.56. Which is a 23% change (but in the negative). Like I said I’ll play it both ways: the massive boom under Bush (and the inevitable crash) must be blamed on Alan Greenspan. His monetary policy allowed for the Housing Bubble and the bust that followed. Bush doesn’t deserve that blame so much. In fact, many blame Clinton for the Housing Bubble (because of his signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). But I don’t really fault him for that. 

Moving on, let’s say it was Bush’s fault. Bush tried to recover from Clinton’s bust. And he did (if you credit him with it). But the issue here is that President Obama entered office at the low of the stock-market in 2009. So of course it’s going to be easier to recoup 56% of an economy on the brink of Depression. Obama just regained what was already lost not on his time. 

My summation is this: The numbers on this are correct. But are we really going to ignore the actions taken in each man’s presidency and the timing of stock changes? Clinton’s economy busted at the start of Bush, and Bush’s economy felt 9/11 on top of that! Then, very unlike Bush, Obama comes in at the very low of the recession. Of course it’s going to look like Bush is the “baddie”! And, by my view, the “recovery” isn’t Obama’s doing, it’s Bernanke’s. And it’s just going to deliver us another bust very soon. As always.

For my 100 new followers. These posts are what I usually do besides arguing for libertarianism, because I really do love tackling all fallacies. And if you search through my posts you will probably see many denouncing militant anything. 

I said this about a million times before and I’ll say it again: If “the other side” actually believed what we said they believed, then no one would believe it. As in, try to have a thorough and complete understanding of opposing ideologies before you argue against them. And when you argue against them, you best be showing humility. Geniuses compose these ideologies and can surely kick a Tumblogger’s ass in a debate, so don’t act like everything you don’t agree with is idiotic. 

In summation: I debunk fallacies, regardless of whether the proposed argument is for or against “my side”; I will always show respect and empathy for your ideas, because I understand that a lot of thought and reason went into them; I generally expect the same amount of humility from other people, and not necessarily to me, but to all others; I will argue on behalf of libertarianism when I find a good debate/idea to post. 

So there you have it, I hope you all enjoy your stay! Ask box is open to all for any questions, comments, insults, debates, etc.

Well, the first thing we need to realize is that the situation in Central Africa is not restricted to Uganda. In fact, the LRA is relatively inactive in Uganda now. The main affected areas are Sudan and the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo). The war being waged right now, between the LRA, the SPLA, the Sudanese government, the Ugandan government, and the DRC is chiefly over cultural differences; the main focus here is the strain between the Acholi/Langi people and the rest of Central Africa (in reality).

History teaches the best lessons: 

What must be learned is how this war came to be. How did the belligerents come into existence and where did they get their resources from? That’s always important to ask. Well, it’s simple really. There was a tug-of-war at Uganda’s initial independence from Britain. First, Milton Obote took over (after leading Uganda to independence); he was Acholi. Then, Qaddafi, receiving aid from a U.S. propped-up Egypt sent aid to Amin to take over. Well, he did. He was then overthrown in the late 70’s by an Acholi-dominated military. The regime established was ruled by, again, Obote. Later, Tito Okello would take Obote’s seat.

Well, the National Resistance Army wanted to overthrow the Acholi government in the mid-80’s. This Army was backed by Qaddafi. Again. After they took over, they instated Museveni as their President. He is still in office today, and is commonly regarded as a dictator. He doesn’t like the Acholi people too much, and they don’t like him. 

Enter the Lord’s Resistance Army, a.k.a. Kony’s Army. They view themselves as, still, the rebels. They want to overthrow the current dictatorship and replace it with another dictatorship. Though, they would be no where without the help of the Sudanese government. Sudan funnels money into the LRA. Where does Sudan get their money? I’ll say it again: Sudan gets billions per year from the U.S. We are inadvertently strengthening the LRA. 

Sudan does this because, well, they’re in a bit of a civil war as well. The Sudan People’s Liberation Army opposes the current Sudanese government. So how does Sudan want to combat that? By fueling the LRA to help them in the fight against their rebellion. There’s a very similar situation in the DRC. Invisible Children exploits these differences by redirecting the focus of the SPLA to the LRA.

So the turmoil is in all of Central Africa. Invisible Children has perpetuated the problem in a few ways: (i) they called for a ceasefire. Such a ceasefire was achieved in 2006. All that Kony did with this was shift his armies around and build up his forces. Good progress for him. (ii) they lobbied to Obama to take action and send 100 elite military-men to train the Ugandan Army and the SPLA. He did so in October of 2011. This really only enraged the LRA and Kony. (iii) they’ve pulled other factions into war.

That’s just the brief history. 

What must be taken from the history: 

If you notice, the current conflict stems from British colonization and U.S. Middle-Eastern intervention. U.S. intervention and foreign aid gave fuel to these armies, while British intervention caused cultural disputes in the first place. So we know that intervention is bad, okay.

The Solution:

Stop propping up dictators. Stop sending foreign aid to these countries that go on their own conquests. Invisible Children is helping a dictator as is. And the SPLA and Ugandan Army are guilty of the same war crimes as the LRA. These consist of rape, looting, and recruitment of child soldiers. 

So… Invisible Children helps a dictator, and uses evil armies to fight other evil armies in a civil war that was created by intervention. And their solution is more intervention. No. Not going to fly. 

Stop the funding and you stop the wars. Really, all our intervention would do is bring more people into the war, destroy what little infrastructure these places have, displace more people, leave us at higher risk for attack, bankrupt us more, kill more people, and perpetuate the never-ending problems the region is in. 

Hurts themselves by suggesting the U.S. military should train the Ugandan and Sudanese forces. This is chiefly because these same armies have been raping and looting! Invisible Children defends them because they are well-armed, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are also guilty of war crimes. 

The only hope for the Kony 2012 movement is to suggest that the United States intervene itself and find Kony (who isn’t even in Uganda anymore). This of course entails a full-out war, which I’ve already made the argument against. Well, the argument is against all intervention. Intervention has only gotten us into a deeper ditch. Seeing the solution as digging down deeper is foolish. You won’t come out the other side of the Earth, you’ll kill yourself before you even reach halfway to the center.

Invisible Children supports the dictatorship of Uganda. It therefore supports its military. Hey, did you know the Ugandan military also recruits kids in their fight? It also works with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. Did you know they rape, loot, and recruit kids? 

In fact, the reason that the LRA receives funding from the Sudanese government is because the SPLA exists. The SPLA is a rebel group fighting against the government of Sudan. So of course Sudan funds the LRA to fight its common  enemy. By the way, Sudan receives funding from us every year. 

Now let’s talk about the fact that Invisible Children has been caught lying in their videos. How about the way that Invisible Children is trying to drag another war into America’s scope using these video techniques? Or it’s offensive oversimplification of Central Africa’s strained history since its colonization by Britain! It’s a good thing that the knowledge of IC’s poor ratings are available to the public.

The founders of Invisible Children, posing with weapons, with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army.

I quote r-i-o-t (via cliffordthecorrupt):

First off, this campaign will NOT free 15,00 children. Even if Kony was shot dead 15,000 children would not be free. This problem does not stem from one guy, no matter how evil he may be. It’s so short sighted to think that killing/arresting one guy will free child soldiers. Child soldiers are rooted into the African conflict which are rooted into a history of imperialism which annihilated the country and poverty which continues to ravage it.

Uganda was colonized by the English. Now my knowledge of Ugandan history is very limited, but the people of the North, the Acholi, were enslaved by the British and suffered all the things that come with enslavement under the Empire. The LRA are an Acholi group. And now, Invisible Children want to fund militaristic intervention. Cant we see what colonialism has already done in Africa?

Also, IC supports the Ugandan Army and Sudanese PLA which themselves violently rape, kill, loot etc. Even though Kony himself is widely understood not to be in Uganda, IC is supporting military forces which kill the child soldiers he recruits. Not only that, but the interventions aimed at killing him have led to reprisals which damage local people and kill many.

I understand that the goal here is not colonialism, but intervention and colonialism will have the same effects. And, agreeing with r-i-o-t, killing Kony will not free “15,000 children”; this is as absurd as saying that killing Bin Laden will stop Al-Qaeda. The Army would be going to war with children too, so keep that in mind. But I think the most important thing to understand, as I said before, is that this intervention will cause blowback to us by angering others. 

Let’s face the facts: the existence of the LRA itself is a bi-product of US activity. Did you know that Kony and his Lord’ Resistance Army receive money from the Sudanese government? Well, who gives billions a year to Sudan? The United States. Did you know that the LRA was started in opposition to the National Resistance Army? The NRA was the army that overthrew Tito Okelli. Okelli was Acholi (as is the Lord’s Resistance Army trying to reinstate their ideal government). Now who on Earth supported this NRA? The answer is Qaddafi. 

We have ties to Qaddafi’s rise to power (through our intervention (funding) in Egypt). This gave him a good deal of aid. Him inciting that overthrow of Okelli created this current-era mess. That all stems from us, him and the British colonization. So we really need to assess history and where our actions of interventionism has gotten the Middle-East. The answer is perpetuated war.

The Invisible Children has good intentions, but will ultimately fail the battle of diplomacy. People cheered when IC achieved a ceasefire between Uganda and Kony. Do you know what Kony did with this ceasefire? He used the time to shift his armies and build them up. It helped him. Now he’s stronger, and is pissed off at us because, hey, we’re now involved. We’ve learned that our involvements created an worsened this mess, so why would any further action be different?