As the Liberty Report continues to grow, the crew gets together to discuss a significant development in the program: show sponsorship. Watch what we're so excited about...
What are the implications of the "Fourth Turning" as Neil Howe and William Strauss discuss in their 1997 book of the same title? It seems the millennial generation will face crises the likes of which have not been seen for decades. What might they be?
By Ron Paul
It's ironic watching Republicans be on the receiving end of the treatment that I received from the Republican Party four years ago at the national convention. Are Trump and Hillary equally bad? Find out my answer below:
Dramatic events over the weekend in Turkey underscore the fragility of the region -- primarily driven by destructive US foreign policy. Is the coup really over, and what will its aftermath mean for US policy in the region?
By Ron Paul
Opponents of a central bank should take advantage of the post-Brexit vote revival of secessionist sentiments to promote a secession from central banking, or “Fed-exit.” Ending the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money is the key to restoring and maintaining our liberty and prosperity.
By manipulating the money supply to fix interest rates, the Federal Reserve engages in price fixing. After all, interest rates are nothing more than the price of money. Like all prices, they communicate information about economic conditions to market actors. Federal Reserve attempts to override the market rate of interest with a Fed-favored rate distort the price signals sent to businesses, investors, and consumers. The result of this distortion is a Fed-created boom, followed by a Fed-created bust.
The Fed’s action affects the entire economy and impacts the lives of all Americans, as well as of people around the world. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the attempt to fix interest rates is the most harmful example of price fixing.
Many who normally oppose government intervention in the marketplace claim that central banking could work if only the Fed adhered to a monetary rule. Supporters of a “rules-based” monetary policy claim that a rules-based approach will bring stability and predictability to monetary policy, and thus put the economy on a path to permanent prosperity. But under a rules-based monetary policy, the Federal Reserve retains the power to manipulate interest rates. So under a rules-based approach, investors and entrepreneurs would still receive distorted price signals, which would still result in a boom-bust cycle. No rule can fix the flaws inherent in our system of monetary central planning.
In recent years, many progressives have joined libertarians and conservatives in criticizing the Federal Reserve. Progressive Fed critics often focus on the ways the Fed’s policies benefit big banks, Wall Street, and other special interests, and how the policies harm average Americans. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, many progressives do not want a free market in money. Instead they want a more “democratic” Fed. Thus, progressives favor, for example, requiring that more members of the Fed’s board be confirmed by the US Senate. They also favor putting representatives of “public interest” groups on the Fed’s board.
The Fed’s progressive critics are correct that big banks together with powerful financial institutions have too much influence on monetary policy. While implementing progressive reforms may reduce Wall Street’s influence on monetary policy, it will likely also strengthen the influence of the deep state — that network of crony capitalists, lobbyists, congressional staffers, and others who work behind the scenes to control our economic and foreign policies.
Many progressives believe that middle- and working-class Americans would benefit from a more “stimulative” (meaning inflationary) monetary policy. Saying that inflation would help the average American turns reality on its head. Middle- and working-class Americans are the main victims of the Fed’s inflation tax. Average Americans also suffer the most when the bubble created by the Fed’s inflationary “stimulus” inevitably bursts. The true beneficiaries of inflation are crony capitalists and big-spending politicians.
Instead of fruitless efforts aimed at “reform” of the Fed, those concerned with restoring a true free market, reducing economic inequality, and promoting peace and prosperity for all should work for a “Fed-exit.” The first step, of course, is to pass Audit the Fed.
Once Congress and the people learn the full truth about the Fed, they can begin to consider the best ways to Fed-exit. There are a number of steps that can and should be taken toward that goal that I will outline in a future column.
Call Monday-Friday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM (PST)
By Chris Rossini
When government's indoctrination "schools" are in session, millions of kids get the ideas of democracy drilled into their innocent little minds. They supposedly have a "sacred" right to vote and a chance to "make their voices heard". They're told that democracy is the "peaceful transfer of power." And to top it off, by age 18, a vast majority have been trained to believe the ultimate myth that "we" are the government.
Of course, none of it is true.
Even the widely read hyper-statist Matthew Yglesias is willing to admit:
Voting, after all, isn’t really an instrumentally rational thing to do — the odds that your vote will be decisive are miniscule. People vote because they would like to be part of some kind of collective action that they can feel good about.
This is one of the few times that a libertarian can agree with Yglesias. Voting isn't rational. The politician that you're voting for doesn't know you, will have no idea that you or anyone else (specifically) voted for him or her, and is not legally bound to do anything that was promised while campaigning.
That's why politicians lie repeatedly while campaigning. There are absolutely no consequences for doing so. Lies are an asset to the politician. They get people to pull that lever.
But let's putting aside the "we are the government" and "making your voice heard" silliness for a moment. Let's focus on the "democracy is the peaceful transfer of power" line.
It has been reported that both the FBI and Homeland Security chiefs are preparing for violence at this year's political conventions.
Well isn't that interesting...
Why would anyone resort to violence? Why are Republican bullies and Democratic bullies now beating each other up?
Could it be that the U.S. government has become so intrusive, so perverted, and so violent that even the veneer of democracy is starting to wear off?
After all, government has a monopoly to use violent force, which is a very peculiar idea in and of itself. But that's what enough people still believe should exist, so it exists.
Now, the libertarian says that if you permit such an institution to exist, it better be very limited as to when it unleashes its violence. The moment that this institution creeps into various aspects of life, the more incentive everyone has to get that violence to work in their favor.
Logically, if government violence is used to favor one, it's also used at the expense of another. This creates resentment and a desire for revenge for those on the receiving end of the violence.
Libertarians preach for the peaceful road to be taken instead of this.
People should deal with one another on a voluntary basis. No single individual (or group of individuals) are allowed to initiate violence against another. Only defensive force is permitted to ward off and defend against those who choose to break this principle.
We're far from living in such a free and peaceful society. We're far from liberty, no matter what the words of the "national anthem" say.
We instead live under the biggest welfare state and biggest military empire in the history of the world! Is it any wonder that people are losing their minds? Everything centers around getting in control of government violence so that it can be used to benefit you at the expense of everyone else.
It's time to plant some better seeds into American minds, seeds that will produce peace and liberty. We've been on the wrong path for quite awhile now and that wrong path has been legalized and institutionalized.
This is a bad philosophy, and it's reaping very bad results.
Call Monday-Friday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM (PST)
US politicians did not waste a second to use the Nice attack to push their own political agendas. It was radical Islam, some said. Deport foreigners, some said. Declare war, said others. War against who? Who benefits from attacks like this? The national security state, to be sure.
By Simon Black
Two months ago I was with the former President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, at his home outside of Medellin.
He was telling me some hilarious stories about his interactions in the early 2000s with Hugo Chavez, who had recently seized power in Venezuela.
Chavez was a fanatic socialist. He believed so strongly in the idea of redistributing wealth from rich to poor.
Yet even when it was clear his policies weren’t working and Venezuela was rapidly sliding into economic chaos, Chavez’s only solution was to double down and redistribute even MORE wealth.
It was the classic definition of insanity.
Chavez failed to understand what Uribe told me so succinctly: “If there’s no wealth creation, there’s nothing left to redistribute.”
We know how Venezuela turned out; its failed socialist experiment led to today’s infamous shortages of food and toilet paper.
But here in Russia is perhaps the most famous example in our modern times.
Marxists came to power in a bloody 1917 revolution with the goal of eradicating poverty and redistributing wealth.
Yet like Venezuela, the only equality the Soviet Union managed to achieve was making everyone equally poor to the point that this vast wasteland of destitution finally collapsed in the late 1980s.
These economic disasters almost invariably start with a rising gap in wealth and income– a growing percentage of the population feeling left behind who rally behind someone promising to “spread the wealth around.”
As Historian Will Durant wrote in his incredible 1969 book Lessons from History:
“The concentration [of wealth] may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich. . . which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or byrevolution distributing poverty.”
This is exactly what’s happening in the West now.
The statistics are obvious: the wealth gap is bigger than it’s been since the Great Depression.
Middle class wages, when adjusted for inflation, are stagnant.
2015 was the first time in years that the average wage increase in the United States actually surpassed the rate of inflation.
But on a longer timeline, household incomes haven’t kept pace with either productivity or the cost of living.
We can see the effects of this anecdotally.
Thomas Piketty’s 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which criticized such inequality and advocated a global wealth tax, was an explosive best-seller.
A 2011 Pew Research Center poll showed that 49% of US respondents had a favorable view of socialism.
And of course, Bernie Sanders made wealth and income inequality major issues in his presidential campaign, resonating with tens of millions of people.
On the way over to Russia I was reading an article in Newsweek about Uber, the ride-sharing pioneer that is currently worth around $70 billion.
The author was upset because the company’s stock isn’t publicly traded like Apple or Facebook, meaning he’s not able to own any Uber shares for himself.
He complains that the founders of these tech companies have been “actively deciding to keep as much for [themselves] as possible and shut out the rest of the populace by avoiding public stock offerings.”
According to the author, we’re apparently all entitled to our “fair share” of other people’s businesses and private property.
He’s not alone– there’s a growing chorus of politicians beating up on Uber, evidenced by Elizabeth Warren’s statement in March 2016 that “all the benefits [of Uber and related “shared-economy” companies] are floating to the top 10%.”
What an ignorant comment to make.
Uber loses billions of dollars each year.
So if anything, investors’ capital ends up in the pockets of the hundreds of thousands of drivers who use the app to generate extra income.
In reality Uber constitutes an enormous transfer of wealth from investors to workers and consumers. So her comment was totally wrong.
But what was more amazing was that she was complaining about how it benefits the top TEN percent.
Usually these people whine about the top 0.1%, then the top 1%. Now it’s the top 10%.
When will they start complaining about the top 20%? Or those evil people in the top 55%, i.e. the percentage of households that actually pay US federal income tax.
Wealth and income inequality is real, and the gap is growing. So is the consequent rise of socialism.
People know they’re getting screwed. And they are. They just don’t know why.
They have no idea how central bankers who conjure money out of thin air have rigged the entire economy against them.
So instead they blame “capitalism” and naturally embrace its opposite.
Seven centuries ago when Europe was just a plague-infested backwater, glimmerings of economic freedom began to appear on the continent.
The West adopted core values, like the sacrosanct protection of private property; the ability for an individual to work hard and build wealth; and spirited intellectual debate.
This is how western civilization became the most prosperous that history has ever known.
But this is all changing.
Being wealthy used to be a virtue worthy of widespread aspiration.
Now it’s met with skepticism and derision.
Similarly, intellectual dissent used to be embraced.
Now it’s increasingly considered “hate speech” that must be banished from university campuses and their infantile ‘safe spaces’.
And the entire west, it seems, is moving towards an ever-expanding, fiscally unsustainable welfare state that creates swelling masses of dependents.
This is a complete breakdown of western values, and that has serious consequences.
It’s incredible how rapidly this trend has unfolded– it’s a very steep line from the economic chaos of the 2008 financial crisis to where we are today.
And given the speed of this pro-socialist trend, just think about where it’s going to be in a few more years.
More than likely, it will progress straight into your wallet.
This article was originally published at Sovereign Man.
According to a recent poll, when Americans were given information about the extent of US military spending, a solid majority favored a reduction. Why do we think the propaganda machine wants to keep Americans from hearing the facts?