Sunday, May 28, 2006

Corruptio optimi pessima
If all the parts of the state do not with their utmost power promote the public good; if the prince has other aims than the safety and welfare of his country; if such as represent the people do not preserve their courage and integrity; if the nation’s treasure is wasted; if ministers are allowed to undermine the constitution with impunity; if judges are suffered to pervert justice, and wrest the law; then is a mixed government the greatest tyranny in the world: it is tyranny established by law; and the people are bound in fetters of their own making. A tyranny that governs by the sword, has few friends but men of the sword; but a legal tyranny (where the people are only called to confirm iniquity with their own voices) has on its side the rich, the timid, the lazy, those that know law, and get by it, ambitious churchmen, and all whose livelihood depends upon the quiet posture of affairs: and the persons here described compose the influencing part of most nations; so that such a tyranny is hardly to be shaken off.
—Sir William Devanant

Friday, May 26, 2006

The Political Wisdom of William Jefferson Clinton

We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.


The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.


You can't say you love your country and hate your government.


When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it.


In a nutshell, the classical Clintonian legal philosophy is simple: the government giveth, and the government taketh away. Do you see anything wrong with this legal positivist philosophy of state idolatry?

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

I am working on a forthcoming book

(FYI The screenshot below is an sample essay which will be in the book. It is not the title of the book. I have a tentative title in mind, but I am keeping it under wraps.)




I am working on my book... that is right, I'm writing a book for publication, probably to be released no earlier than late 2007. Having read and reviewed books voraciously over the years, and taken a leap into freelance journalism publishing articles in online e-zines and magazines, I have decided to put my knack for writing to use. The book itself will focus on topics related to political science and constitutional history and law. Its particular emphasis concerns republicanism and the federal polity—which is intersected by southern conservative thought or what scholars dub "South Atlantic republicanism."

I will write in a most straightfoward manner in terms understandable to laity, without the legalese that lawyers try to use to make themselves look smart.

Purpose

"Long before our time the customs of our ancestors molded admirable men, in turn these men upheld the ways and institutions of their forebears. Our age, however, inherited the Republic as if it were some beautiful painting of bygone ages, its colors already fading through great antiquity; and not only has our time neglected to freshen the colors of the picture, but we have failed to preserve its forms and outlines."
—Marcus Tullus Cicero (106 B.C. - 43 B.C.)


What I am looking at doing is piece together an anthology of free-standing essays on various topics of constitutional, political and perhaps cultural in nature. Likewise, I am considering adding an extremely selective compilations of letters, speeches, or writings from various founding fathers and antebellum southern conservatives for added perspective and historical context, which might encompass one-third of the book. Yes, the book will be imbued with a distinctively Old Republican or Jeffersonian perspective, reflective of Virginia's legal culture, and such thinkers as St. George Tucker, George Mason, Spencer Roane, John Randolph of Roanoke, John Taylor of Caroline, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, and Abel Parker Upshur. Likewise, the favorite sons of the Carolinas such as Nathaniel Macon, Robert Hayne, and John C. Calhoun are featured as well. As Calhoun esteemed the "old Virginia school of politics," it should noted that Virginia was the epicenter of that South Atlantic republicanism, and as Calhoun insisted the Commonwealth was blessed with "leaders of clearest discernment and purest patriotism," which he sought to consciously emulate in his older years. If the book is Virginia-centric it is for good reason. Virginia gave America Presidents for nearly a quarter of a century and was most influential in the America's affairs from 1801-1825. Also, occasional detours might touch on the statesmanship of John Dickinson of Pennsylvania for example. Engrained within the southern conservative tradition was a constellation of English conservativism, in particular the Burkean politics of prudence and prescription as well the Old Whig English libertarian tradition expressed in Cato's Letters by Trenchard and Gordon. My elucidation emanates from this tradition. That means I have an esteem for republican self-government, constitutional limitations on government, a true federal polity and an uncompromisingly strict construction of the Constitution.

The book itself is forward-looking and deals with issues facing us today as well as history. But the principles we should remember are timeless. I contend for states' rights and a decentralized federal polity. This entails a restoration of the true character of the Union within the constraints of the Tenth Amendment. Jefferson dubbed the Tenth Amendment as the "foundation" of the Constitution. Therein, I offer an erudite and well-documented history of states' rights and federalism, and the drift towards consolidation in the American Republic. "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," as the Jeffersonian maxim goes. Likewise, I illustrate how the federal judiciary and Progressives have rewritten the Constitution. Various conservative books today address the issue of dethroning the imperial federal judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court—"junior-varsity Congress" as Scalia calls it. However, the mistake is that they seem to think that somehow the Congress might be compelled to spearhead the movement. Congress isn't culpable for the asinine social engineering to the degree the federal judiciary is, but they have an abysmmal track record at curbing federal power. They have no interest in meaningful reform or the abdication of their power, patronage and influence. Such a movement would have to be grassroots in nature.

"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson


The book will deal with more than constitutional matters and will offer cultural criticism as well. I will also discuss political economy and the interplay between the market economy and and the polity, and why the nature of the political order is integral to the ideal economic order. My dialogue on political economy carries the distinctive influence of John Taylor of Caroline who criticized subsidized capital and the Hamiltonian mercantile system in his tracts such as Tyranny Unmasked. Likewise, the French classical liberal Frédéric Bastiat famous for his critiques of "legal plunder" and twentieth-century Swiss economist Wilhelm Roepke have proven influential as well. I esteem a "natural economy" in the words of Taylor, though this laissez-faire order functions best within a decentralized federal polity. Through decentralization of the political order, subsidiarity, and localism, one can best effectuate the humane economy.

"We can breathe the air of liberty only to the extent that we are ready to bear the burden of moral responsibility associated with it."
—Wilhelm Roepke


Essay Topics and Features

Here are just a few topics covered herein:

● Offers several biographical sketches of the Old Republicans and various southern conservative statesmen
● A examination of the principle of subsidiarity or sphere sovereignty, which is the foundation of a true federal polity
● Offers insights into the state ratifying conventions, which buoys the legitimacy of states' rights doctrine and illustrates original intent
● Features an erudite vindication of the true compact nature of the Union, as opposed to the dubious nationalist theory lauded by the Webster-Story-Lincoln school
● Provides a scholarly examination of states' rights doctrine from a constitutional and historical perspective
● Features an overview of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions—the so called Principles of 1798, and the doctrine of interposition.
● Presents an exposition on Calhoun's theory of concurrenct majority as embodied in his "Fort Hill Address," the "Disquisition" and the "Discourse."
● A brief overview and vindication of the right of secession

And on more issues of concern today and in the twentieth-century:

● Presents a plan for a number of grassroots constitutional reforms to restore the true federal character of the Union, the Tenth Amendment, and inaugurate a veritable devolution revolution where power is dispersed once again and not consolidated.
● An overview of the Watkins Amendment lauded by attorney and constitutional scholar William J. Watkins, which effectuates the creation of a Constitutional Commission which gives the state a concurrent voice in matters of constitutional law and ends the absurdity of the imperial judiciary being the final arbiter of all constitutional questions
● How and why we should recover the liniments of the agrarian tradition in a definitely post-agrarian era
● Embodies an exposition on how the Progressives and the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution while laying waste to the notion of constitutionally-limited government
● Offers elucidation on the evolution of War Powers which have been usurped flagrantly by the Executive Branch from the Congress in the twentieth century.
● Features trenchant cultural criticism which explains how the activities, centralization and structure of the modern state have lead to the displacement of the intermediary institutions between the individual and the state whether the family, neighborhood, church, or voluntary and civic associations. The centralized state has dissolved the natural bonds and allegiances of civil society.
● My thoughts on why the Hamiltonian vision of a national empire, characterized by public sector indebtedness, patronage and privilege for an elite political class, interventionism in economic and foreign affairs, and an otherwise intrusive centralized government is unsustainable and will wither for better or worse.
● The possibility of on an emerging grassroots conservative hegemon to effectuate a devolution revolution—that is to peaceably devolve power from the federal leviathan back to the rightful authority of the states and people thereof. In effect, it represents a turn to more grassroots-based politics, local decision-making, and home rule.
● A prudent political economy and the search for the humane economy, and the advantages afforded by the restoration of honest money and a decentralized federal polity which could give rise to a broader and more affluent middle class, a wider dispersal of private property, more decentralized capital markets, and more vibrant and prosperous communities. The failures and the gridlock of our present political structures will force Americans to address its shortcomings. Should we heed the prudent wisdom of our forefathers, then we may attain a renaissance of liberty, freedom, prosperity and public virtue.

Confronting the reality of the Constitution in exile means that we have to be proactive in taking steps to recover the federal polity of the founding generation. Such reforms are rooted in the politics of prudence and prescription. "Politics is the art of the possible," declared Russell Kirk.

“I think that in the dawning centuries of democracy, individual independence and local liberties always be the products of art. Centralized government will be the natural thing.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.


"To live within a just order is to live within a pattern that has beauty. The individual finds purpose within an order, and security - whether it is the order of the soul or the order of the community. Without order, indeed the life of man is poor, , brutish, and short."
—Russell Kirk


Ultimately, we must face the reality that underlying crisis facing the United States and the West is spiritual and cultural in nature, and not inherently political. But bad political decisions and structures act to corrupt and degrade society, which is why we must be prudent in our politics.

My mentors and influences
My mentors over the years have been able conservative thinkers such as Stephen A. Samson, Clyde N. Wilson, Forrest McDonald, the late M.E. Bradford, the late Russell Kirk, the late Robert Nisbet, the late Wilhelm Roepke, H.L. Cheek, Jr., and Donald Livingston. Some among the living, I count as my personal friends whom I have met before and correspond with. The first in fact was a professor of mine, and he elucidates quite well on the covenant origins of the American polity. Perhaps, one will grace my book with an introduction.

"The secondary teacher regards himself as learning from the masters alogn with his students. He should not act as if he were a primary teacher... He should not masquerade as one who knows and can teach by virtue of his original discoveries. The primary sources of his own knowledge should be the primary sources of learning for his students, and such a teacher honestly functions only if he does not aggrandize himself by coming between the great books and their ...readers."
—Mortimer Adler


It was my proprietary studies of primary source materials that I ultimately credit with my acquisition of knowledge on constitutional history. I gravitated towards these mentors because I shared their predilections and perspective, and essentially came to the same conclusions as they did. Though, I gained perspective and clarity from their insights.

Source materials
"The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he no brain of his own."
—C.H. Spurgeon


I will be meticulous in my use of primary sources to vindicate my views. I have over 200 pages (double-spaced), 65,907 words of primary and secondary sources compilation materials of mostly quotes, systematically organized, meticulously footnoted, and interspersed with my commentary. Bear in mind, this is not the book itself, but the intellectual fodder for the book. It represents a systematic recollection of my studies through the years, and I started it in 2005. It is a work-in-progress which will continue to grow. I had distributed this work via e-mail to a select handful of friends, and dubbed it "A Citizen’s Guide to the Constitution and Republicanism." Granted, I have no intention of publishing this work itself now or later. It merely serves as materials for my present research which will form the basis of the book I am authoring.

Selective Bibliography
Primary Source Materials

Eds. Kaminski, John P. and Gaspare J. Saladino et al. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (Chicago, IL: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1976)

Eds. Kurland, Phillip and Ralph Lerner. The Founders' Constitution. (Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987)

Secondary Source Materials

Acton, Lord John, Selected Writings of Lord Acton, J. Rufus Fears, ed. 3 vols. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2000).

Cheek, Jr., H.L., ed. John C. Calhoun: Selected Writings and Speeches, (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2003).

Cheek, Jr., H.L., Calhoun and Popular Rule: The Political Theory of Disquisition and Discourse. (Columbia, MO: Univ. of Missouri Press, 2001).

Denson, John V., ed., Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2001),

Graham, John Remington, A Constitutional History of Secession. (Gretna, LA: Pelican Pub. Co., 2002).

Gregg II, Gary L., ed. Vital Remnants: America’s Founding and the Western Tradition. (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 1999),

Livingston, Donald. Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium, (Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993.)

Lutz, Donald. Colonial Origins of the American Constitution. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1999).

McDonald, Forrest. States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876. (Lawrence, KN: Univ. of Kansas Press, 2001).

Tucker, St. George, View of the Constitution of the United States. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1999).

Watkins, Jr., William J., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

Wilson, Clyde. From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition. (Columbia, SC: Foundation for Amer. Education, 2003).

Woods, Jr.,Thomas E. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004).

Upshur, Abel Parker, The True Nature and Character of the Federal Government, (Dahlonega, GA: The Confederate Reprint Company, 2004)

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

The Perils of a U.S. Interventionist Foreign Policy Abroad



This book review of Fool's Errands: America's Recent Encounters With Nation Building featured below is not new by any means, as I wrote in late 2004. It is timely and worth revisiting, as the United States continues to address concerns of foreign policy and intervention abroad. As a student of history and politics, I have confronted issues of foreign policy, and have come to esteem the virtues of a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Non-Interventionist Tradition
The founding fathers enshrined their commitment to non-interventionism in the Neutrality Act of 1793. "The Great rule of conduct for us," proclaimed George Washington, "in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." Thomas Jefferson further lauded the virtue of strategic independence, in proclaiming: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." John Quincy Adams surmised, "America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Some of our "monsters" in recent years whether Osama Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussain were actually considered our allies at one time. Rep. Ron Paul has rightly characterized American foreign policy as "schizophrenic." Moreover, these "monsters" were foreign aid recipients. Bin Ladin's gang got stinger missiles and weapons, and Hussein got missile technology and a sizable foreign aid package from the time of the 1970s practically to the outbreak of the First Gulf War.

In my humble opinion, America's security lies in a foreign policy based on strategic independence and armed neutrality, not in reckless intervention abroad or in countless foreign entanglements, alliances, and commitments to international bodies like the United Nations. I offered an Amazon.com guide to unravel the intrigue of the welfare-warfare state, which is essentially a critique of America's interventionist foreign policy obsession.

In looking back in history, I'm increasingly loathe to admit the U.S. faced innumerable bad consequences to its' intervention over the years. Likewise, the U.S. made quite a few strategic blunders. Now, the United States continues to wage perpetual war for perpetual peace and our political leadership embraces a quixotic Wilsonian idealism. Our political leadership acts as though we can make the world safe for beguiling abstractions like democracy, and treats our institutions of free government as some tangible commodity for export abroad. A reading of Aristotle's Politics shows the folly of universalism applied to political systems and Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America shows the uniqueness of American institutions and the fragile nature of ordered liberty. It's not so easily duplicated.

Where Defense intersects with Foreign Policy
Conservatives I am told are supposed to have a soft spot for the military, but I look back to an Old Right isolationist / non-interventionist tradition that preceded the Cold War. Admittedly, I wanted to join the military at one time and pursue a JAG Commission. I'm not anti-military by any means, but anti-interventionism. I generally think the Anti-War Left are a bunch of uncouth obnoxious kooks. I don't have any esteem for the Hate America First crowd and the disciples of Noam Chomsky. I don't favor cutting military spending to the bone, but rather much more prudent allocations of resources that we might get more bang for our buck coupled with the elimination of redundant weapons systems, a trimming of waste, and a general reduction in our troop deployments throughout the world. Warhawk Republicans need a wake-up call, but they would rather cast derision on whistle-blowers like A.E. Fitzgerald for his insider's view, entitled The Pentagonists: An Insider's View of Waste, Mismanagement, and Fraud in Defense Spending.

While I am not a warhawk, I do recognize the value of a good national defense. I believe the United States should develop the Strategic Defense Initiative and create a multi-tiered ballistic missile defense and place more emphasis on the ability to project naval and air power abroad, by simply maintaining and upgrading our two-ocean deepwater Naval fleet.

The fact remains that we spend almost three-quarters of a trillion on defense expenditures, (though not all of it is under the auspices of the Department of Defense.) We have 725 military bases in 134 countries.

The Consequences of War
Having studied Robert Nisbet and his works The Quest for Community, I see that war is a leaven for radical social change. The socialists, in fact, accomplished much of their agenda that was readily adopted by Western countries as ostensibly temporary war-time expedients (that were never really repealed in whole.) This is all the more reason, why we should eschew interventionist foreign policy. War begets radical social and political change that would probably never muster acceptance in free-time. War socialism and central planning has a penchant for entrenching itself.

—Ryan Setliff

----------------------------------


Book Review - Fool's Errands

Fool's Errands: America's Recent Encounters With Nation Building is a terse analysis and overview of Clinton foreign policy maladministration. It succinctly captures his sad legacy of nation building efforts in the 1990s. Driven by naïve Wilsonian idealism, perhaps rosy views of human nature, and a quixotic fixation with seeing "democratic enlargement," the Clinton State Department presided over one foreign policy boondoggle after the other. Nation building efforts in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo were all entered with the best of intentions. Nonetheless, the end results were spurious victories with limited successes and arguably outright failures in some cases where intervention caused more harm than good. Some contests deemed triumphs are perhaps Pyrrhic victories at best. In such cases, US/UN/NATO babysitting (i.e. peacekeeping) has been deemed semi-permanent, political tripwires are everywhere, and an uneasy peace ensues.

(1) SOMALIA was an emerging crisis duly noted by Bush Senior after a coup d'état toppled the government in Mogadishu. Bush Senior sponsored increased humanitarian aid following instability and a famine, but withheld a more direct presence. After the coup, the vacuum of power was filled by rival warlords. Thereafter, Clinton soon came on the scene and pushed for more direct intervention. Dempsey and Fontaine paint a startling sketch of war torn nation and give cogent reasoning why well-meaning foreign policy goals led to disaster. Powerful warlords in the cities plundered the spoils of humanitarian aid for their own gain to buy weapons and buy off cadres of foot soldiers to do their bidding. The Somali animosity towards Westerners intensified amidst the chaos; humanitarian workers became victims of warlord violence and street crime. The Western world took note of the stark aforesaid events. The U.S. intervened under U.N. auspices. They were in the precarious position of picking allies from the warlord factions and protecting unarmed U.N. personnel. The thorn in their side was Mohammed Farah Aideed, a nt urban warlord who pilfered foreign humanitarian aid rather than distribute it equitably. He used the spoils to buy and arm his own armies and finance his criminal syndicate. Aideed was bold and flagrantly attacked UN peacekeepers and killed foreigners. The U.S. responded to these hit-and-run attacks by targeted strikes that summer. In October 1993, 18 U.S. Army Rangers were tragically killed in fighting while hundreds of Somali causalities fell. That conflict drew ominous parallels to Beirut and the quagmire touched a nerve in Washington. Thereafter, many in Congress demanded withdrawal. Clinton lashed out at isolationist "poison" and lack of U.S. commitment in the aftermath of sharp criticism. Further scandal erupted as millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars were lost to misappropriations, corrupt contract practices and embezzlement at the behest of UNOSOM. The U.S. eventually would relent and for the most part curtailed its presence. Aideed has died in fighting in 1996. Though Somalia is not a happy ever after story, the situation has marginally improved. Having endured Marxist despotism and anarchy, markets have since started to develop in the 1990s. Neighboring Djibouti helped broker a peace conference of Somali factions while an election brought President Hassan to power. Somalia is slowly emerging from the backwater Third World and all without a significant U.S. presence in the nation.

(2) HAITI is another horror story of good intentions gone awry. Haiti has a sad history of being mired in poverty, instability, corruption and economic stagnation with a paltry $250 per capita income. Clinton insisted on making democracy a grandiose cause in trying to strong arm a military junta out of power, and seeking the return of a democratically elected Marxist named Jean Aristide. The consequences of a naïve insistence on making the world safe for lofty democratic platitudes are well documented. The Clinton Administration made a fundamental mistake of economic sanctions to expedite a regime change. Clinton only succeeded in cutting the Haitian GDP by fully one-third after the nominal foreign businesses that were there packed their bags. In the end, U.S.-U.N. sponsored sanctions only hurt the Haitian people. The effects of sanctions will likely have repercussions for decades. Clinton sent in Marines to restore Aristide to his palace in Port-au-Prince which was simple enough. Afterwards came massive aid packages and troops that were deemed necessary to train Aristide's security forces and maintain order. The Haitian markets and economic development remained stagnate. Aristide only proved himself to be a corrupt kleptocrat who plundered the lion share of humanitarian aid to line his pockets while buying off protection for himself and his cronies. Haiti has since been mired in more crime and poverty as the corrupt Aristide rigged subsequent elections. Aristide was eventually toppled at dawn of this century, and many observers welcomed it. The present Bush Administration refused to restore him to power much to chagrin of the Fidel-coddling Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. Clinton's policies in Haiti spelled a disaster, and rested on naïve insistence on bringing a corrupt, avowed Marxist back to power in the name of democracy. It was also part of a politically correct agenda since Haiti in the early 1990's was being lead by a French Haitian in an essentially black republic. This was a touchstone of intervention for a Democratic administration obliged to defend political correctness over our vital security interests.

(3) BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, that is a multi-ethnic Bosnian democracy, can be surmised as wishful thinking. The malfeasance in the nation-building campaign by the U.S. and NATO is Bosnia is captured by the chapter's subtitle, the Potemkin State. Potemkin, of course, alludes to the illusory idyllic village settings that were fabricated by Gen. Potemkin in eighteenth century Russia to awe Catherine the Great's courtesans from a distance as they toured her ostensibly idyllic kingdom. The artificiality of the Potemkin Villages came to embody the superficial and halfhearted attempts to reform and liberalize Catherine's kingdom. Happy peasants and happy villages were all a façade. Likewise, Bosnia remains an illusory farce, a state that exists merely on paper. It is deeply divided into mono-ethnic regions with separate standing armies and security forces. Germany helped foment the problem by recognizing the Bosnian State amidst a Civil War. By recognizing a independent Bosnia, Germany and NATO gave a carte blanche to the Bosniacs to wage war against the Serbs. The brokered peace at the Dayton Accord and negotiations came far too late. Germany and NATO exacerbated the crisis and the death toll by their intervention. Thereafter the Albright State Department decided that political correctness and the need for "multiethnic democracy" trumped the rights of Croats and Serbs. Croats abdicated their Croat settlements in Bosnia as are the Serbs in the New Bosnia. Technically, there really isn't such thing as an ethnic Bosnian. The so called Bosniacs are merely Muslims who live in Bosnia. The conflict in Bosnia was a proving ground for radical Islamists who trained and fought there, and networked with the Mujahideen and Al Qaeda. War crimes committed by those other than Serbs are downplayed if not ignored, though all sides have unclean hands. I'm not a Serb apologist nor do I dismiss their atrocities in pointing out that Croats and Bosniacs committed their share as well. The difference is the outside world turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the later two nationalities. Serbs didn't initiate hostilities and something has to be said about the fact that the first refugees in 1992 were 40,000 Serbs. Not surprisingly, the prospects for ethnic reintegration are bleak and a multiethnic, cooperative, democratic Bosnia is an illusory farce and a modern Potemkin State. Bosnia is a veritable powder keg ready to go off — and a quagmire that NATO helped erect.

(4) KOSOVO is a quagmire, and perhaps the biggest failure of any nation-building scheme the Clinton Administration contrived. Historically, Serbia has the strongest ties to Kosovo with more than a millennium of ties to the region. The battle of Kosovo against the Ottoman Turks was fought there. Moreover, it is home to innumerable sacred Serbian Orthodox shrines, many of which have been desecrated by Muslim militants. Nonetheless, the policies of the internationalist overseers are inherently philo-Albananian. While the occupiers and the Western media sensationalized accounts of Muslim victims of Serb aggression, many Serbs, Macedonians and Gypsies in the region have suffered immensely and many refugees of the later three nationalities have fled Kosovo. For all the hue and cry about ethnic cleansing, the unintended consequences of NATO policy was the massive ethnic cleansing of non-Albanians. War and terror atrocities only seem to get reported though when Serbs are the culprits. The West-NATO-US aligned itself with the Albanian KLA, which was nothing more than a corrupt, narco-terrorist group involved in illegal drug and arms trafficking as well as white slavery. The CIA, in fact, has long classified the KLA as a terrorist group. The KLA has little interest in the aims of the internationalist cadre behind KFOR, preferring instead a Greater Albania including Kosovo purified of non-Albananians. Kosovo will likely remain in the economic doldrums since its political status remains in limbo. The only foreign investment seems to be in security forces, building and maintenance of support structures for occupying peacekeepers. The economic prospects of Kosovo are bleak, and international controls greatly hinder prospects of burgeoning markets or foreign investment. Investors simply lack confidence in an unstable region that is locked in political limbo for perpetuity.

President Bush said prior to his election in 2000, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." I tend to agree, but I have not changed mind on the subject. This book is vitally requisite for addressing the contemporary issues as the issue United States continues to be naively obsessed with reckless intervention in the name of "democratic enlargement," furtherance of Wilsonian idealistic ideology and international human rights agendas. If we want lessons from history, we have to look no further than the last decade of the last century. Nation building takes more than imperious regime changing by superpowers and copious amounts of foreign aid. Free governments cannot be simply imposed. Nations must be built from within from slow cultural and political transitions. The Clinton foreign policy gurus act as though democracy is some tangible commodity for export abroad, and ignore how fragile the institutions of free government really are. They misread cultural, historical and strategic considerations before inaugurating their campaign of reckless interventionism and nation building. Bombing a region or country into the ground and whimsically rebuilding it into a free democracy seldom goes as planned. Gunpoint democracy has proven itself to be an illusory farce; the four major attempts at nation building in the 1990's were dismal failures. Dempsey and Fontaine substantiate this assertion in their book with sound reasoning and a trenchant analysis.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
—George Santayana

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Constitutional Law - The Forgotten Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
—U.S. Constitution, Amendment X


Least we forget, the authority of the federal government extended to those delegated powers, and all powers not delegated were reserved to the States and the people thereof. Commensurate with the Constitution and original intent, the chief concern of the federal government was basically defense, regulation of commerce, foreign affairs, and not much else. In fact, Congress’ powers were all enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. As Madison observed in Federalist #14,

[I]t is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.


In Federalist #45, he further notes that the federal government's “jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

To safeguard against encroachment upon this pivotal doctrine of enumerated powers, moderate Federalists such as Madison, Anti-Federalists such as George Mason, successfully pushed for the adoption of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791, which included the Tenth Amendment. Their hope was of course to enshrine the pivotal doctrine of the federal government being limited to enumerated powers in the very fabric of the Constitution itself, thus making it plain that the States and the people thereof hold all powers not delegated. In doing so, it should be more apparent that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to limit and thus circumscribe the boundaries of the government. Those rights therein, however, were not some new-fangled innovations, but were anchored deep in English common law and in the history of the American colonies. Likewise, George Mason by no means thought of rights as commandments that the federal judiciary would thrust upon unwilling states and localities. The opening phraseology, “Congress shall make no law…,” was revealing because it was a negative. This doctrine of enumerated powers has always been integral to the maintenance and preservation of federal polity. And as the learned Virginia jurist St. George Tucker observed,

The state governments not only retain every power, jurisdiction, and right not delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, but they are constituent and necessary parts of the federal government; and without their agency in their political character, there could be neither a senate, nor president of the United States, the choice of the latter depending immediately, and on the former, immediately, upon the legislatures of the several states in the union.


Jefferson perceptively inferred that the Tenth Amendment was the very “foundation” of the U.S. Constitution.

Monday, May 01, 2006

What the Price of Gold is Telling Us

Interesting, on April 26, Rep. Paul echoes a sentiment I expressed in my recent March 31 article Monetary Manipulation and Uncle Sam's Inaccurate Economic Statistics, when he decries the elimination of the M3 monetary measure by the Fed. The U.S. economy is steadily deflating like balloon. There are a culmination of factors at work, chiefly inflationary monetary policy, bad fiscal policy, overspending by the federal government, the costly war in Iraq, and a regulatory state that is stagnating economic growth. Uncle Sam cannot pay its bills, and will turn to monetizing its debt even more. As economist Walter Williams has observed, the U.S. economy is in decline. When inflation is underreported in the official statistics which are errant, it naturally translates to an exaggeration of real economic growth in terms of GDP figures. In the last few years, we are sustaining inflation at rates varying from 4-6% annually, though the Fed reports much lower rates. The U.S. has found an outlet for our excess U.S. Dollars in the purchase of foreign goods and services from abroad, often on credit. Foreigners and free trade policy, however, is not the culprit, but rather inflationary monetary policy.

Many skilled workers finding themselves in lower paying jobs, or in sectors characterized increasingly by temporary work without benefits, are grasping the reality that something isn't right, despite all the blissful optimism of economic recovery.

Yet people like my father who owns a vacation home can still be exuberant as he rejoices that his second home has ostensibly increased in value over 260% in four years. He is also a cheer leader for the Fed keeping the interest rates down for perpetuity. Never mind that the U.S. Dollar has been devalued by 60% since 2001. No, wants to live in with the consequences of turning the inflationary spigot off of the fractional-reserve monetary machine! Inflation begets more inflation as the medicine to soothe an ailing economy until it spirals into obvillion and sparks a market meltdown. Savings and capital accumulation rates in this country are abysmmal. In the road to economic decline, some people, particularly those with tangible assets, are given an illusory perception of prosperity and asset appreciation, when in reality the Dollar is depreciating. Americans despite having endured the Great Depression are so imbued by a mentality of American exceptionalism, they never learn from history, and they always presume themselves above the rules, including the basic laws of economics. So, not surprisingly, few will brace themselves for an inevitable American downturn in the next decade.

Ludwig von Mises offered remarkable insight on the disastrous psychology that the inflationary booms inculcate among the masses—including the businessman, entrepreneur and investor:
The boom produces impoverishment. But still more disastrous are its moral ravages. It makes people despondent and dispirited. The more optimistic they were under the illusory prosperity of the boom, the greater is their despair and their feeling of frustration. The individual is always ready to ascribe his good luck to his own efficiency and to take it as a well-deserved reward for his talent, application, and probity. But reverses of fortune he always charges to other people, and most of all to the absurdity of social and political institutions. He does not blame the authorities for having fostered the boom. He reviles them for the inevitable collapse. In the opinion of the public, more inflation and more credit expansion are the only remedy against the evils which inflation and credit expansion have brought about. (Human Action, p. 574-576)
Many are misled by their appreciating assets, as much of gains are illusory.
-Ryan Setliff

----------------
What the Price of Gold is Telling Us
Rep. Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 25, 2006

The financial press, and even the network news shows, have begun reporting the price of gold regularly. For twenty years, between 1980 and 2000, the price of gold was rarely mentioned. There was little interest, and the price was either falling or remaining steady.

Since 2001 however, interest in gold has soared along with its price. With the price now over $600 an ounce, a lot more people are becoming interested in gold as an investment and an economic indicator. Much can be learned by understanding what the rising dollar price of gold means.

The rise in gold prices from $250 per ounce in 2001 to over $600 today has drawn investors and speculators into the precious metals market. Though many already have made handsome profits, buying gold per se should not be touted as a good investment. After all, gold earns no interest and its quality never changes. It’s static, and does not grow as sound investments should.

It’s more accurate to say that one might invest in a gold or silver mining company, where management, labor costs, and the nature of new discoveries all play a vital role in determining the quality of the investment and the profits made.

Buying gold and holding it is somewhat analogous to converting one’s savings into one hundred dollar bills and hiding them under the mattress-- yet not exactly the same. Both gold and dollars are considered money, and holding money does not qualify as an investment. There’s a big difference between the two however, since by holding paper money one loses purchasing power. The purchasing power of commodity money, i.e. gold, however, goes up if the government devalues the circulating fiat currency.

Holding gold is protection or insurance against government’s proclivity to debase its currency. The purchasing power of gold goes up not because it’s a so-called good investment; it goes up in value only because the paper currency goes down in value. In our current situation, that means the dollar.

One of the characteristics of commodity money-- one that originated naturally in the marketplace-- is that it must serve as a store of value. Gold and silver meet that test-- paper does not. Because of this profound difference, the incentive and wisdom of holding emergency funds in the form of gold becomes attractive when the official currency is being devalued. It’s more attractive than trying to save wealth in the form of a fiat currency, even when earning some nominal interest. The lack of earned interest on gold is not a problem once people realize the purchasing power of their currency is declining faster than the interest rates they might earn. The purchasing power of gold can rise even faster than increases in the cost of living.

The point is that most who buy gold do so to protect against a depreciating currency rather than as an investment in the classical sense. Americans understand this less than citizens of other countries; some nations have suffered from severe monetary inflation that literally led to the destruction of their national currency. Though our inflation-- i.e. the depreciation of the U.S. dollar-- has been insidious, average Americans are unaware of how this occurs. For instance, few Americans know nor seem concerned that the 1913 pre-Federal Reserve dollar is now worth only four cents. Officially, our central bankers and our politicians express no fear that the course on which we are set is fraught with great danger to our economy and our political system. The belief that money created out of thin air can work economic miracles, if only properly “managed,” is pervasive in D.C.

In many ways we shouldn’t be surprised about this trust in such an unsound system. For at least four generations our government-run universities have systematically preached a monetary doctrine justifying the so-called wisdom of paper money over the “foolishness” of sound money. Not only that, paper money has worked surprisingly well in the past 35 years-- the years the world has accepted pure paper money as currency. Alan Greenspan bragged that central bankers in these several decades have gained the knowledge necessary to make paper money respond as if it were gold. This removes the problem of obtaining gold to back currency, and hence frees politicians from the rigid discipline a gold standard imposes.

Many central bankers in the last 15 years became so confident they had achieved this milestone that they sold off large hoards of their gold reserves. At other times they tried to prove that paper works better than gold by artificially propping up the dollar by suppressing market gold prices. This recent deception failed just as it did in the 1960s, when our government tried to hold gold artificially low at $35 an ounce. But since they could not truly repeal the economic laws regarding money, just as many central bankers sold, others bought. It’s fascinating that the European central banks sold gold while Asian central banks bought it over the last several years.

Since gold has proven to be the real money of the ages, we see once again a shift in wealth from the West to the East, just as we saw a loss of our industrial base in the same direction. Though Treasury officials deny any U.S. sales or loans of our official gold holdings, no audits are permitted so no one can be certain.

The special nature of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world has allowed this game to last longer than it would have otherwise. But the fact that gold has gone from $252 per ounce to over $600 means there is concern about the future of the dollar. The higher the price for gold, the greater the concern for the dollar. Instead of dwelling on the dollar price of gold, we should be talking about the depreciation of the dollar. In 1934 a dollar was worth 1/20th of an ounce of gold; $20 bought an ounce of gold. Today a dollar is worth 1/600th of an ounce of gold, meaning it takes $600 to buy one ounce of gold.

The number of dollars created by the Federal Reserve, and through the fractional reserve banking system, is crucial in determining how the market assesses the relationship of the dollar and gold. Though there’s a strong correlation, it’s not instantaneous or perfectly predictable. There are many variables to consider, but in the long term the dollar price of gold represents past inflation of the money supply. Equally important, it represents the anticipation of how much new money will be created in the future. This introduces the factor of trust and confidence in our monetary authorities and our politicians. And these days the American people are casting a vote of “no confidence” in this regard, and for good reasons.

The incentive for central bankers to create new money out of thin air is twofold. One is to practice central economic planning through the manipulation of interest rates. The second is to monetize the escalating federal debt politicians create and thrive on.

Today no one in Washington believes for a minute that runaway deficits are going to be curtailed. In March alone, the federal government created an historic $85 billion deficit. The current supplemental bill going through Congress has grown from $92 billion to over $106 billion, and everyone knows it will not draw President Bush’s first veto. Most knowledgeable people therefore assume that inflation of the money supply is not only going to continue, but accelerate. This anticipation, plus the fact that many new dollars have been created over the past 15 years that have not yet been fully discounted, guarantees the further depreciation of the dollar in terms of gold.

There’s no single measurement that reveals what the Fed has done in the recent past or tells us exactly what it’s about to do in the future. Forget about the lip service given to transparency by new Fed Chairman Bernanke. Not only is this administration one of the most secretive across the board in our history, the current Fed firmly supports denying the most important measurement of current monetary policy to Congress, the financial community, and the American public. Because of a lack of interest and poor understanding of monetary policy, Congress has expressed essentially no concern about the significant change in reporting statistics on the money supply.

Beginning in March, though planned before Bernanke arrived at the Fed, the central bank discontinued compiling and reporting the monetary aggregate known as M3. M3 is the best description of how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit. Common sense tells us that a government central bank creating new money out of thin air depreciates the value of each dollar in circulation. Yet this report is no longer available to us and Congress makes no demands to receive it.

Though M3 is the most helpful statistic to track Fed activity, it by no means tells us everything we need to know about trends in monetary policy. Total bank credit, still available to us, gives us indirect information reflecting the Fed’s inflationary policies. But ultimately the markets will figure out exactly what the Fed is up to, and then individuals, financial institutions, governments, and other central bankers will act accordingly. The fact that our money supply is rising significantly cannot be hidden from the markets.

The response in time will drive the dollar down, while driving interest rates and commodity prices up. Already we see this trend developing, which surely will accelerate in the not too distant future. Part of this reaction will be from those who seek a haven to protect their wealth-- not invest-- by treating gold and silver as universal and historic money. This means holding fewer dollars that are decreasing in value while holding gold as it increases in value.

A soaring gold price is a vote of “no confidence” in the central bank and the dollar. This certainly was the case in 1979 and 1980. Today, gold prices reflect a growing restlessness with the increasing money supply, our budgetary and trade deficits, our unfunded liabilities, and the inability of Congress and the administration to reign in runaway spending.

Denying us statistical information, manipulating interest rates, and artificially trying to keep gold prices in check won’t help in the long run. If the markets are fooled short term, it only means the adjustments will be much more dramatic later on. And in the meantime, other market imbalances develop.

The Fed tries to keep the consumer spending spree going, not through hard work and savings, but by creating artificial wealth in stock markets bubbles and housing bubbles. When these distortions run their course and are discovered, the corrections will be quite painful.

Likewise, a fiat monetary system encourages speculation and unsound borrowing. As problems develop, scapegoats are sought and frequently found in foreign nations. This prompts many to demand altering exchange rates and protectionist measures. The sentiment for this type of solution is growing each day.

Though everyone decries inflation, trade imbalances, economic downturns, and federal deficits, few attempt a closer study of our monetary system and how these events are interrelated. Even if it were recognized that a gold standard without monetary inflation would be advantageous, few in Washington would accept the political disadvantages of living with the discipline of gold-- since it serves as a check on government size and power. This is a sad commentary on the politics of today. The best analogy to our affinity for government spending, borrowing, and inflating is that of a drug addict who knows if he doesn’t quit he’ll die; yet he can’t quit because of the heavy price required to overcome the dependency. The right choice is very difficult, but remaining addicted to drugs guarantees the death of the patient, while our addiction to deficit spending, debt, and inflation guarantees the collapse of our economy.

Special interest groups, who vigorously compete for federal dollars, want to perpetuate the system rather than admit to a dangerous addiction. Those who champion welfare for the poor, entitlements for the middle class, or war contracts for the military industrial corporations, all agree on the so-called benefits bestowed by the Fed’s power to counterfeit fiat money. Bankers, who benefit from our fractional reserve system, likewise never criticize the Fed, especially since it’s the lender of last resort that bails out financial institutions when crises arise. And it’s true, special interests and bankers do benefit from the Fed, and may well get bailed out-- just as we saw with the Long-Term Capital Management fund crisis a few years ago. In the past, companies like Lockheed and Chrysler benefited as well. But what the Fed cannot do is guarantee the market will maintain trust in the worthiness of the dollar. Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to financial system, cannot be known for sure-- but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon.

Foreign policy plays a significant role in the economy and the value of the dollar. A foreign policy of militarism and empire building cannot be supported through direct taxation. The American people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay immediately for overseas wars, under the discipline of a gold standard. Borrowing and creating new money is much more politically palatable. It hides and delays the real costs of war, and the people are lulled into complacency-- especially since the wars we fight are couched in terms of patriotism, spreading the ideas of freedom, and stamping out terrorism. Unnecessary wars and fiat currencies go hand-in-hand, while a gold standard encourages a sensible foreign policy.

The cost of war is enormously detrimental; it significantly contributes to the economic instability of the nation by boosting spending, deficits, and inflation. Funds used for war are funds that could have remained in the productive economy to raise the standard of living of Americans now unemployed, underemployed, or barely living on the margin.

Yet even these costs may be preferable to paying for war with huge tax increases. This is because although fiat dollars are theoretically worthless, value is imbued by the trust placed in them by the world’s financial community. Subjective trust in a currency can override objective knowledge about government policies, but only for a limited time.

Economic strength and military power contribute to the trust in a currency; in today’s world trust in the U.S. dollar is not earned and therefore fragile. The history of the dollar, being as good as gold up until 1971, is helpful in maintaining an artificially higher value for the dollar than deserved.

Foreign policy contributes to the crisis when the spending to maintain our worldwide military commitments becomes prohibitive, and inflationary pressures accelerate. But the real crisis hits when the world realizes the king has no clothes, in that the dollar has no backing, and we face a military setback even greater than we already are experiencing in Iraq. Our token friends may quickly transform into vocal enemies once the attack on the dollar begins.

False trust placed in the dollar once was helpful to us, but panic and rejection of the dollar will develop into a real financial crisis. Then we will have no other option but to tighten our belts, go back to work, stop borrowing, start saving, and rebuild our industrial base, while adjusting to a lower standard of living for most Americans.

Counterfeiting the nation’s money is a serious offense. The founders were especially adamant about avoiding the chaos, inflation, and destruction associated with the Continental dollar. That’s why the Constitution is clear that only gold and silver should be legal tender in the United States. In 1792 the Coinage Act authorized the death penalty for any private citizen who counterfeited the currency. Too bad they weren’t explicit that counterfeiting by government officials is just as detrimental to the economy and the value of the dollar.

In wartime, many nations actually operated counterfeiting programs to undermine our dollar, but never to a disastrous level. The enemy knew how harmful excessive creation of new money could be to the dollar and our economy. But it seems we never learned the dangers of creating new money out of thin air. We don’t need an Arab nation or the Chinese to undermine our system with a counterfeiting operation. We do it ourselves, with all the disadvantages that would occur if others did it to us. Today we hear threats from some Arab, Muslim, and far Eastern countries about undermining the dollar system- not by dishonest counterfeiting, but by initiating an alternative monetary system based on gold. Wouldn’t that be ironic? Such an event theoretically could do great harm to us. This day may well come, not so much as a direct political attack on the dollar system but out of necessity to restore confidence in money once again.

Historically, paper money never has lasted for long periods of time, while gold has survived thousands of years of attacks by political interests and big government. In time, the world once again will restore trust in the monetary system by making some currency as good as gold.

Gold, or any acceptable market commodity money, is required to preserve liberty. Monopoly control by government of a system that creates fiat money out of thin air guarantees the loss of liberty. No matter how well-intended our militarism is portrayed, or how happily the promises of wonderful programs for the poor are promoted, inflating the money supply to pay these bills makes government bigger. Empires always fail, and expenses always exceed projections. Harmful unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception. Welfare for the poor is inefficient and wasteful. The beneficiaries are rarely the poor themselves, but instead the politicians, bureaucrats, or the wealthy. The same is true of all foreign aid-- it’s nothing more than a program that steals from the poor in a rich country and gives to the rich leaders of a poor country. Whether it’s war or welfare payments, it always means higher taxes, inflation, and debt. Whether it’s the extraction of wealth from the productive economy, the distortion of the market by interest rate manipulation, or spending for war and welfare, it can’t happen without infringing upon personal liberty.

At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs, or foreign rulers provides an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government, rather than protect the privacy of citizens. Unfortunately, that is the atmosphere under which we live today, with essentially no respect for the Bill of Rights.

Though great economic harm comes from a government monopoly fiat monetary system, the loss of liberty associated with it is equally troubling. Just as empires are self-limiting in terms of money and manpower, so too is a monetary system based on illusion and fraud. When the end comes we will be given an opportunity to choose once again between honest money and liberty on one hand; chaos, poverty, and authoritarianism on the other.

The economic harm done by a fiat monetary system is pervasive, dangerous, and unfair. Though runaway inflation is injurious to almost everyone, it is more insidious for certain groups. Once inflation is recognized as a tax, it becomes clear the tax is regressive: penalizing the poor and middle class more than the rich and politically privileged. Price inflation, a consequence of inflating the money supply by the central bank, hits poor and marginal workers first and foremost. It especially penalizes savers, retirees, those on fixed incomes, and anyone who trusts government promises. Small businesses and individual enterprises suffer more than the financial elite, who borrow large sums before the money loses value. Those who are on the receiving end of government contracts--especially in the military industrial complex during wartime-- receive undeserved benefits.

It’s a mistake to blame high gasoline and oil prices on price gouging. If we impose new taxes or fix prices, while ignoring monetary inflation, corporate subsidies, and excessive regulations, shortages will result. The market is the only way to determine the best price for any commodity. The law of supply and demand cannot be repealed. The real problems arise when government planners give subsidies to energy companies and favor one form of energy over another.

Energy prices are rising for many reasons: Inflation; increased demand from China and India; decreased supply resulting from our invasion of Iraq; anticipated disruption of supply as we push regime change in Iran; regulatory restrictions on gasoline production; government interference in the free market development of alternative fuels; and subsidies to big oil such as free leases and grants for research and development.

Interestingly, the cost of oil and gas is actually much higher than we pay at the retail level. Much of the DOD budget is spent protecting “our” oil supplies, and if such spending is factored in gasoline probably costs us more than $5 a gallon. The sad irony is that this military effort to secure cheap oil supplies inevitably backfires, and actually curtails supplies and boosts prices at the pump. The waste and fraud in issuing contracts to large corporations for work in Iraq only add to price increases.

When problems arise under conditions that exist today, it’s a serious error to blame the little bit of the free market that still functions. Last summer the market worked efficiently after Katrina-- gas hit $3 a gallon, but soon supplies increased, usage went down, and the price returned to $2. In the 1980s, market forces took oil from $40 per barrel to $10 per barrel, and no one cried for the oil companies that went bankrupt. Today’s increases are for the reasons mentioned above. It’s natural for labor to seek its highest wage, and businesses to strive for the greatest profit. That’s the way the market works. When the free market is allowed to work, it’s the consumer who ultimately determines price and quality, with labor and business accommodating consumer choices. Once this process is distorted by government, prices rise excessively, labor costs and profits are negatively affected, and problems emerge. Instead of fixing the problem, politicians and demagogues respond by demanding windfall profits taxes and price controls, while never questioning how previous government interference caused the whole mess in the first place. Never let it be said that higher oil prices and profits cause inflation; inflation of the money supply causes higher prices!

Since keeping interest rates below market levels is synonymous with new money creation by the Fed, the resulting business cycle, higher cost of living, and job losses all can be laid at the doorstep of the Fed. This burden hits the poor the most, making Fed taxation by inflation the worst of all regressive taxes. Statistics about revenues generated by the income tax are grossly misleading; in reality much harm is done by our welfare/warfare system supposedly designed to help the poor and tax the rich. Only sound money can rectify the blatant injustice of this destructive system.

The Founders understood this great danger, and voted overwhelmingly to reject “emitting bills of credit,” the term they used for paper or fiat money. It’s too bad the knowledge and advice of our founders, and their mandate in the Constitution, are ignored today at our great peril. The current surge in gold prices-- which reflects our dollar’s devaluation-- is warning us to pay closer attention to our fiscal, monetary, entitlement, and foreign policy.

The Meaning of the Gold Price-- A Summation
A recent headline in the financial press announced that gold prices surged over concern that confrontation with Iran will further push oil prices higher. This may well reflect the current situation, but higher gold prices mainly reflect monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve. Dwelling on current events and their effect on gold prices reflects concern for symptoms rather than an understanding of the actual cause of these price increases. Without an enormous increase in the money supply over the past 35 years and a worldwide paper monetary system, this increase in the price of gold would not have occurred.

Certainly geo-political events in the Middle East under a gold standard would not alter its price, though they could affect the supply of oil and cause oil prices to rise. Only under conditions created by excessive paper money would one expect all or most prices to rise. This is a mere reflection of the devaluation of the dollar.

Particular things to remember:

● If one endorses small government and maximum liberty, one must support commodity money.

● One of the strongest restraints against unnecessary war is a gold standard.

● Deficit financing by government is severely restricted by sound money.

● The harmful effects of the business cycle are virtually eliminated with an honest gold standard.

● Saving and thrift are encouraged by a gold standard; and discouraged by paper money.

● Price inflation, with generally rising price levels, is characteristic of paper money. Reports that the consumer price index and the producer price index are rising are distractions: the real cause of inflation is the Fed’s creation of new money.

● Interest rate manipulation by central bank helps the rich, the banks, the government, and the politicians.

● Paper money permits the regressive inflation tax to be passed off on the poor and the middle class.

● Speculative financial bubbles are characteristic of paper money-- not gold.

● Paper money encourages economic and political chaos, which subsequently causes a search for scapegoats rather than blaming the central bank.

● Dangerous protectionist measures frequently are implemented to compensate for the dislocations caused by fiat money.

● Paper money, inflation, and the conditions they create contribute to the problems of illegal immigration.

● The value of gold is remarkably stable.

● The dollar price of gold reflects dollar depreciation.

● Holding gold helps preserve and store wealth, but technically gold is not a true investment.

● Since 2001 the dollar has been devalued by 60%.

● In 1934, FDR devalued the dollar by 41%.

● In 1971, Nixon devalued the dollar by 7.9%.

● In 1973, Nixon devalued the dollar by 10%.

These were momentous monetary events, and every knowledgeable person worldwide paid close attention. Major changes were endured in 1979 and 1980 to save the dollar from disintegration. This involved a severe recession, interest rates over 21%, and general price inflation of 15%.

Today we face a 60% devaluation and counting, yet no one seems to care. It’s of greater significance than the three events mentioned above. And yet the one measurement that best reflects the degree of inflation, the Fed and our government deny us. Since March, M3 reporting has been discontinued. For starters, I’d like to see Congress demand that this report be resumed. I fully believe the American people and Congress are entitled to this information. Will we one day complain about false intelligence, as we have with the Iraq war? Will we complain about not having enough information to address monetary policy after it’s too late?

If ever there was a time to get a handle on what sound money is and what it means, that time is today.

Inflation, as exposed by high gold prices, transfers wealth from the middle class to the rich, as real wages decline while the salaries of CEOs, movie stars, and athletes skyrocket-- along with the profits of the military industrial complex, the oil industry, and other special interests.

A sharply rising gold price is a vote of “no confidence” in Congress’ ability to control the budget, the Fed’s ability to control the money supply, and the administration’s ability to bring stability to the Middle East.

Ultimately, the gold price is a measurement of trust in the currency and the politicians who run the country. It’s been that way for a long time, and is not about to change.

If we care about the financial system, the tax system, and the monumental debt we’re accumulating, we must start talking about the benefits and discipline that come only with a commodity standard of money-- money the government and central banks absolutely cannot create out of thin air.

Economic law dictates reform at some point. But should we wait until the dollar is 1/1,000 of an ounce of gold or 1/2,000 of an ounce of gold? The longer we wait, the more people suffer and the more difficult reforms become. Runaway inflation inevitably leads to political chaos, something numerous countries have suffered throughout the 20th century. The worst example of course was the German inflation of the 1920s that led to the rise of Hitler. Even the communist takeover of China was associated with runaway inflation brought on by Chinese Nationalists. The time for action is now, and it is up to the American people and the U.S. Congress to demand it.

About me

  • I'm Ryan S.
  • From Virginia, United States
My profile