Saturday, April 9, 2022

Lt Gov Mark Robinson Delivers Fire at President Trump Rally in Selma, NC, Video


North Carolina Lt Governor Mark Robinson delivered a strong speech today at the President Trump MAGA Rally in Selma, NC. WATCH:



The Great Sovereignty Reclamation Movement

For Americans who seek forward-looking inspiration, the lesson is simple: The nation-state, and the tangible flourishing of the nation-state's people, must always come first.


The great debates of our time are not exclusively those hard-hitting ones affecting human anthropology and political community—how many genders exist, what criteria we should look for in prospective immigrants, and so forth. Certainly, many of our most notable debates do implicate those most foundational rifts. But some of our other most politically urgent and galvanizing disputes revolve less around substantive questions, such as the nature of justice, than they do around one of the oldest procedural questions in the history of political science: “Who decides?”

A look around the world at this present juncture suggests an emerging consensus: Through our own internal deliberations and our own political processes, “we, the people” should decide the fate of our own nation-states. Recent or ongoing examples in Hungary, France, Ukraine, and Israel are instructive. For political actors paying attention here on the American homefront, there are clear and compelling lessons to take away.

In Hungary last Sunday, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who had been facing relatively tight polling in the lead-up to the national election, cruised to a fourth term. Orban’s defiant national-conservative Fidesz party utterly dominated the unified opposition, which had included everyone from outright communists to full-on anti-Semitic fascists in a ham-fisted—and ultimately ill-fated—attempt to topple the government. Fidesz was wildly successful everywhere outside Budapest itself, and even gained seats in the parliament—this despite the sustained, yearslong campaign to decry Hungary’s alleged “democratic backsliding” from the New York Times, George Soros-funded nongovernmental organizations, and the other usual suspects.

The key lesson from Hungary: A proud nationhood is one that fights to secure its customs, folkways, and traditions from the overweening, heavy hand of the liberal imperium (here, the Brussels-based European Union).

In France, the world’s seventh-largest economy and an anchor of the modern European integration project, current polling for the presidential runoff election that will follow this Sunday’s initial round of voting is genuinely eye-opening. According to an Atlas Politico poll from April 4 through April 6, President Emmanuel Macron, who, despite his occasional anti-woke musings, is pro-European integration and firmly center-left, finds himself in a political dogfight. Per Atlas Politico, in a runoff election between Macron and his most likely challenger, the right-wing Euroskeptic Marine Le Pen, Le Pen leads by the shockingly small margin of 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Le Pen has likely benefited from the Overton window-shifting effect of Eric Zemmour’s own further-right-wing presidential run, which has had the effect of normalizing Le Pen.

The key lesson from France: The liberal imperium faces an existential threat. Aside from Germany, there is no more important EU nation than France. A more humble liberal imperium would acknowledge there is nothing wrong whatsoever with national pride.

In Ukraine, local forces have fought Russian invaders over the past month and a half to a seeming stalemate. This despite the fact the Russian military is orders of magnitude larger and more powerful, and despite the fact that Vladimir Putin has long coveted reincorporating Ukraine, Soviet-style, into “Greater Russia.” Whatever one thinks of greater American and NATO involvement in the Ukrainian theater—and I have been vocally opposed to escalation—the reality is that the Ukrainian people’s defense of their nation-state has (with some notable exceptions) been inspiring. Ukrainians have successfully rallied in defense of home and hearth in a way that few would have been able to anticipate prior to Putin’s invasion.

The key lesson from Ukraine: The interdependent bonds of mutual loyalty that tie together a particular people, such as commonality of language, heritage, and general mannerisms, can lead to extraordinary things amidst the intense threat of revanchism.

Finally, in Israel this week, Knesset member Idit Silman formally left Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s ragtag governing coalition, which had been comprised of a bare 61-59 parliamentary majority. Silman’s departure means the Knesset is now split evenly 60-60, and the coalition will require at least one vote from the Likud/Benjamin Netanyahu-led opposition to advance any legislation. Bennett’s coalition, which consists of everyone from purported right-wing Zionists (such as Bennett himself) to Muslim Brotherhood-aligned anti-Zionists such as Mansour Abbas, was always extraordinarily fragile. Crucially, due to the coalition’s presence of Abbas’ Ra’am party, the erstwhile national-conservative Bennett permitted anti-Zionists to thwart the Israeli national interest on core issues, such as the Iranian nuclear threat and the territorial dispute over Judea and Samaria.

The key lesson from Israel: A proud, self-governing people will only tolerate for so long a parliamentary (or congressional) coalition in which subversive fifth-column actors, perhaps in cahoots with external NGOs, wield veto power.

Looking back at the 2016 tidal wave of the United Kingdom’s dramatic “Brexit” and the dramatic election of President Donald Trump, and continuing through today, the great sovereignty reclamation movement is alive and thriving. For Americans who seek forward-looking inspiration, the lesson is simple: The nation-state, and the tangible flourishing of the nation-state’s people, must always come first. There is no more important lesson for a decadent, late-stage republic to imbibe.


On the Fringe, Red Pill News, and more-April 9th

 



Tomorrow's news report might be a bit delayed, depending on how long I'll be busy, and my mood.

A Pure Hypothetical…


What if an aging, dim-witted crook became president?


A pure hypothetical: You are 70-years old and entering your second term as vice president of the United States. You are pondering running for president, but your party already has a ruthless front-runner expected to be the nominee and succeed your party’s incumbent. Besides, your past campaigns for the top spot have yielded less than optimal or encouraging results. You’ll monitor the presidential sweepstakes, in case your party’s front-runner slips up and an opportunity presents itself for you to seize. But you know this isn’t likely; what is more likely is that your political career is nearing its end. 

In the meantime, you want to identify other opportunities. Having been surrounded and solicited by the nation’s rich and mega-rich all throughout the nearly 50 years you’ve helped helm the ship of state as a federal elected official, a lifetime lived on a government salary doesn’t seem the reward to which you feel entitled.

What to do?

With no time to waste in what you believe to be your final term in federal office, you grab two cutouts whom you can trust not to sell you out. One is a son with substance abuse issues to serve as the bag man; the other a sibling to help oversee the troubled son, who will be traipsing the globe to pocket the lucre from foreign sources in exchange for your perceived ability to influence events. 

The foreign money is crucial, as it doesn’t have quite the troublesome reporting requirements of domestic revenue sources; and far less attention from the press, though they wouldn’t pay much attention anyways since you’re on the “good team.” Further, the incurious press will allow you to take your son along on your federal travels. Not a bad way to lower your overhead. Even if the president knew about your “unofficial” use of federal resources, he wouldn’t raise a stink, because it would ruin his legacy’s risible “no scandals” talking point.

Of course, the perception of your ability to peddle influence will wane when your time in federal office concludes. Still, given your impending status in some quarters as an expert in foreign policy and an elder statesman, there will still be those willing to pay to play. Best to establish a foundation or chair at a friendly university. Such institutions will love the prestige that comes with hosting someone of your stature on campus, almost as much as your ability to help tap your old network to raise funds for the university. And, hey, neither you nor that university have any qualms taking foreign money—lots and lots of foreign money.

Near the end of your term, your party’s ruthless front-runner stumbles from an unforced error. From your perch as vice president, you let it be known you are willing to run for president if it helps your party and the country. But the ruthless front-runner manages to weather the storm and to put a shot across your bow. 

Versed in the myriad means of accumulating foreign money for one’s personal benefit, the ruthless front-runner lets it be known she will tell the world about your “mom and pop” grift; and when, as expected, the ruthless front-runner becomes president, you and yours will be investigated by her Justice Department and FBI—which, by the way, had just given her a “clean bill of health” despite some highly “questionable” activities. You’ve never been accused of being smart, but you’re not suicidal either. You duck back down into your resplendent fox hole, persist in the grift, and look forward to your literal “golden years.”

Then the conventional political wisdom and world are upended: your party’s ruthless front-runner blows the election; and a crass political newcomer wins the presidency. You collect your cash and bide your time, while for the next three years or so your party and their media allies do everything in their power to undermine the unexpected president. Nevertheless, the incumbent’s economy is extremely good; and your party’s candidates for president aren’t expected to win. And none of them have the intel or the political chops to take you down over you and your family’s foreign grift. Though you’re not as sharp as you once were, you throw your hat into the presidential sweepstakes.

Two events converge—one anticipated, one not. A socialist senator looks as if he will be your party’s nominee. This is unacceptable due to the unanticipated event: a global pandemic that has wreaked havoc with the incumbent president’s economy and made him vulnerable—but not to the socialist senator. Thus, when every other candidate fails to take flight (including you, early in your campaign), the party establishment ensures you win the primary and become the “moderate” elder statesman who will put “adults” back in charge of public policy and calm a deeply divided and distressed nation.

The pandemic facilitates your party’s narrative by allowing you to run a “virtual” campaign that doesn’t demand the arduous physical and mental rigors of a normal presidential run, and further allows your party and its billionaire supporters to facilitate “emergency” changes to election laws that tilt the field in your favor. Your opponent, hamstrung by the pandemic and his own incomparable ability to shoot himself in the foot, seems destined to go down to defeat.

Until your troubled son loses his laptop. 

On the laptop, among other unsavory matters, is enough information about your family’s grifting to sink your candidacy and maybe land you all in the pokey. But an unholy combination of the corporate media, Big Tech, and old intel community cronies ride to your rescue by falsely claiming your son’s laptop is “Russian disinformation.” These allies censor and silence any and all references to the laptop and its contents as “mis- and disinformation” and foreign election interference. In the end, by roughly 17,000 votes spread over three states, you are elevated to the presidency.

Wither the grift?

Closing in on 80 years-old, you are tempted to let it go, perhaps more so now that your erstwhile campaign allies in the corporate media have fessed up that the laptop was, in fact, your troubled son’s. Your presidency has been beset by problems; and your party’s fortunes heading into the midterm elections appear bleak. Thus, the question: Does your hand-picked attorney general appoint a special prosecutor to investigate you and your family’s overseas influence-peddling grift?

I’m guessing . . . no


Destroying America to “Save” It?

Destroying America to "Save" It? 

Biden's Nihilistic Destruction of the Energy Industry

One of the saddest quotes from the Vietnam War came from journalist Peter Arnett, who wrote in a dispatch in 1968 about an American attackon a Vietcong-held village: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” As often happens with such quotes, they take on a second and even third life. Today, the Biden administration seeks to destroy the American economy ostensibly to save America from the dreaded climate change.

No one advocating the so-called Green New Deal (GND) has put it quite like that. In fact, its advocates claim that not only will the GND give us better weather, but it will raise the standard of living in the USA by “creating millions of new, high-paying jobs.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims on her website that the GND under her leadership (if she ever were elected president) would “create 10.6 million green jobs,” adding:

While climate change presents an urgent threat, it also presents the greatest opportunity of our time: the chance to rebuild our economy with 100% clean energy, to address the racial and economic inequality embedded in our fossil fuel economy, and to create millions of good, union jobs in the process. 

One needs to ask how she came up with such numbers and such an optimistic outlook, but one gets the picture. The web is full of apocalyptic claims about climate change, many coming from the US government and the assorted groups. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the sponsors of the proposed Green New Deal, has openly claimed that the world literally will end in twelve years if we don’t stop carbon dioxide emissions now.

As Michael Shellenberger has pointed out in many publications, including Forbes, the claims of the coming apocalypse are a bit premature. Addressing the claim made by environmentalists that billions of people will perish in the coming disasters, he writes:

In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.

What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?

Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.

What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

Not surprisingly, President Joe Biden has sided with the most radical alarmists and has taken action from day 1 in his presidency to curtail and ultimately destroy the oil and gas industries in the USA. Last year, I wrote that this administration was attacking these industries on every front, but Biden now claims that his government is doing nothing of the sort. He repeated the claim at a recent press conference: “It’s simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production.”

The facts state otherwise. Biden and his government are going after the productive (as opposed to the nonproductive) energy sectors, looking to regulate them on a number of fronts, including the investment side (capital markets) and the regulatory side, seeking to further limit emissions from the use of fuels such as oil and natural gas. Likewise, some states are seeking draconian “solutions” to the use of fossil fuels, including California and Washington, which has passed legislation that will ban the sale of gasoline- and diesel-powered cars by 2030. The statement from the Washington legislature is more of a wish list than an acknowledgement of the real energy future that people there will face:

Clean Cars 2030 will:

  • Put Washington on the road to powering its vehicles with locally-produced electricity that is cleaner and cheaper than gasoline.
  • Spur a comprehensive planning process for Washington to get ready for 100% vehicle electrification.
  • Clarify for local governments, automakers, charging companies, utilities, investors, landlords, and workplaces the direction of the state's EV market.
  • Incentivize private-sector investment in new EVs and charging stations. 
  • Increase opportunities for Washingtonians to save money on gasoline.
  • Reduce the cost and uncertainty of dependence on foreign sources of oil.
  • Reduce carbon emissions and air pollution and the threat they pose to air, water, and health. 

One should note that the legislature has not banned diesel-powered trucks, train locomotives, and sailing vessels, given their dependence upon diesel fuel. Like most politicians and bureaucrats, the backers of this legislation believe that their timetables will be met if for no other reason than the existence of the collective political will of Washington Democrats. Most people who deal in the real world, however, will not be surprised if chaos erupts as 2030 draws nearer.

On the funding side, the Biden administration is looking to strangle oil and gas by limiting and ultimately cutting off all their capital investments. His decision to shut down construction of the Keystone Pipeline sent the clear message to oil and gas producers that his administration would nullify billions of dollars of capital investments to satisfy political constituents.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates US capital markets, has come down firmly on the side of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement, which wants climate change to drive financial markets entirely:

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the creation of a Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement. The task force will be led by Kelly L. Gibson, the Acting Deputy Director of Enforcement, who will oversee a Division-wide effort, with 22 members drawn from the SEC’s headquarters, regional offices, and Enforcement specialized units.

Consistent with increasing investor focus and reliance on climate and ESG-related disclosure and investment, the Climate and ESG Task Force will develop initiatives to proactively identify ESG-related misconduct. The task force will also coordinate the effective use of Division resources, including through the use of sophisticated data analysis to mine and assess information across registrants, to identify potential violations.

The initial focus will be to identify any material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ disclosure of climate risks under existing rules. The task force will also analyze disclosure and compliance issues relating to investment advisers’ and funds’ ESG strategies. Its work will complement the agency’s other initiatives in this area, including the recent appointment of Satyam Khanna as a Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and ESG. As an integral component of the agency’s efforts to address these risks to investors, the task force will work closely with other SEC Divisions and Offices, including the Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Examinations.

 “Climate risks and sustainability are critical issues for the investing public and our capital markets,” said Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee. “The task force announced today will play an important role in enhancing and coordinating the efforts of the Division of Enforcement, the Office of the Whistleblower, and other parts of the agency to bolster the efforts of the Commission as a whole on these vital matters.”

The language may be bureaucratic, but the meaning is clear: the oil and gas industries are a threat to the planet, and the SEC will attempt to regulate them out of business. Commenting on the Biden administration’s jihad against productive energy firms, Mark Hemingway of RealClearInvestigations writes:

In 2020, the United States was a net petroleum exporter and gas averaged $2.37 a gallon. When Biden became president in January 2021, that same month he signed an executive order forbidding new leases for oil and gas drilling on federal lands—that’s a ban on oil exploration on 28 percent of U.S. land. The ban on drilling was a campaign promise, made to placate the party’s environmental activists. Within a year, the United States reverted to being a net petroleum importer.

Biden’s claim that his policies are not holding back energy production isn’t just a politician stretching the truth, it’s dishonest gaslighting. There’s a simple reason why Biden will stand before the American people and lie to their faces. Ordinary Americans aren’t confused about whether Biden’s policies are responsible for higher gas prices (and in fact, many on the left openly say higher prices are necessary to combat warming). At this point, the goal isn’t to mislead, it’s to force acceptance and submission to those who are in power.

Biden’s actions are not just about the price of gasoline at the pump, although it should be clear his policies have played a vital role in driving up prices, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine notwithstanding. Instead, they are an attempt to destroy perhaps the most vital industries in the United States, industries that are irreplaceable. The notion that the entire US economy can pivot within a decade from fuels to electricity even as the government seeks to curtail the production of electricity from conventional sources is simple foolishness.

Not surprisingly, the response of the Biden administration and its supporters has been the energy rendition of “Let them eat cake.” Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, when asked about higher gasoline prices, replied that Americans should just go out and buy electric cars, even though the price tag for even basic electric vehicles is out of the reach of most American car buyers and that the supply of EVs could not possibly match demand under current conditions.

Journalist Bernard Goldberg wrote in The Hill:

And so when, with a stroke of a pen, President Biden signed an executive order that cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, costing thousands of blue-collar workers the jobs they needed to pay their bills, it had a Marie Antoinette air to the whole thing.

Not to worry, they were told. You’ll get new jobs. Better jobs. Cleaner jobs. Just wait and see. You have no bread, you say? Then just eat cake.

John Kerry, Biden’s “climate czar,” says that “What President Biden wants to do is make sure those folks have better choices, that they have alternatives, that they can be the people to go to work to make the solar panels.”

Added Goldberg:

That’s easier said than done. Most solar panels are made in China.

Despite the Biden administration’s insistence that it is just bravely facing the realities of climate change, Biden and his allies are engaged in outright gaslighting. Americans would not recognize an economy run under the auspices of the Green New Deal, even after the worst days of the covid lockdowns and the supply disruptions that followed.

If this administration and like-minded officials in state capitols have their way, the disruptions and empty shelves that we hope now to be temporary would be anything but. Instead, they would be a new way of life. Furthermore, we still would have tornadoes in Oklahoma and Alabama, wildfires in California, and hurricanes on the East Coast. Nothing would change but our ability to deal with the elements, and that would mean people freezing in their homes in winter and unable to cool their homes in hot summers. (And none of Biden’s climate initiatives will make summers in the Deep South any more bearable.)

Like the aftermath of the bombings and artillery bombardments in Vietnam, we can be sure that the efforts of the Green New Deal will result in plenty of destruction. And like the results of the Vietnam War, the destruction in the end will have saved nothing.


White House's Latest Threats Expose Depravity That Cannot Stand


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

If you were in a coma for the last decade and suddenly woke up, there’s likely nothing that would shock you more than how quickly radical transgender ideology has overtaken society.

Imagine hearing arguments in 2012 that children should not only be able to “choose” their “gender,” but that they have a civil right to physically mutilate themselves in response. Yet, that’s exactly where we are. As RedState has reported recently, calls for “gender-affirming care” have moved out of the fringe and firmly into mainstream Democrat politics.

But things are now shifting into an even more dangerous place, if one can even imagine that’s possible. While Republican-led states are seeking to limit the physical abuse of children through the use of “gender-affirming” surgeries which cut off the genitalia or breasts of minors, the White House is now threatening legal action in response.

“Today, in Alabama, instead of focusing on critical kitchen table issues like the economy, Covid or addressing the country’s mental health crisis, Republican lawmakers are currently debating legislation that, among many things, would target trans youths with tactics that threatens to put pediatricians in prison if they provide medically necessary life-saving health care for the kids they serve”…

…”But Alabama’s lawmakers and other legislators who are contemplating these discriminatory bills have been put on notice by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services that laws and policies preventing care that health care professionals recommend for transgender minors may violate the Constitution and the federal law.”

Understand what this means. Yes, it’s couched as the targeting of anti-child abuse laws in states like Texas and Alabama, which is crazy enough on its own. A state absolutely has the right to disallow certain medical procedures it deems demonstratively harmful and abusive (including abortion, by the way). But the implications here go much further.

If it is somehow illegal for a state to say that children can’t be given “gender-affirming care,” specifically in regards to the mutilation of their bodies, because those children have a “civil right” to such care, that means that parents who refuse to take such steps can be held liable as well. Recall that several years ago in Texas, we witnessed a high-profile case involving a father who not only lost custody of his son but was forced to help pay for the “transition.” The legal system is not going to protect parents as these precedents become more and more common.

This kind of thing can not stand. Republicans lost a lot of ground over the last several decades because they felt they could float above the fray and not get into the trenches of the culture war. But we’ve now moved past disagreements about adult behavior. These are children we are talking about, and the Democrat establishment is now wholesale endorsing the destruction of their bodies, not just in the womb, but throughout adolescence.

Remember when some Republicans argued that we must get rid of Donald Trump because he broke “norms and traditions.” Meanwhile, the White House is proclaiming it possibly illegal to not mutilate kids based on childhood confusion. Does that sound normal or traditional to you? Elections do have consequences, and there’s a big one coming up in November. Perhaps more importantly, right-thinking individuals (i.e. those who object to child abuse) have a chance in 2024 to retake this lost ground and solidify the ability of states to protect children.

If there’s one issue that animates voters for the next three years of elections, this should be this. Do not forget. Do not relent. Make them pay at the ballot box.



The Fed Can’t Fix the Economy, but It Can Break It

The Fed Can't Fix the Economy, but It Can Break It

The Federal Reserve states that it “conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy.” However, let’s look at how well the Fed has done that job since its founding in 1913.

Economy and Long-Term Interest Rates

Since 1913, the US unemployment rate has ranged from 2.5 percent in the early 1950s to 25.0 percent during the Great Depression. Inflation has ranged from positive 24 percent to negative 16 percent. Inflation is currently 7.9 percent, well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. While the Fed has some influence over money supply, they have no control over money demand or how money is spent, which has a significant impact on employment and inflation.

The Fed’s goal to “moderate long-term interest rates” below free market levels is a form of price fixing. Since price fixing never works for long, it is no wonder the Fed has been unsuccessful in this goal. Since 1913, ten-year Treasury rates have ranged from 0.5 percent in 2020 to 16 percent in 1981. Interest rates have been much more volatile than before the Fed, as shown below.

10-Year Treasury Index
Source: Chart courtesy of multpl.com, with annotations by BullAndBearProfits.com.

Money Supply and Short-Term Interest Rates

Maybe the Fed can’t control the economy, but at least they can control the money supply and short-term interest rates, right? Think again.

The Fed controls the monetary base, which is currency plus bank deposits at the Fed. But the popular M2 money supply measure is 3.6 times larger than the monetary base, and the broader money supply is driven by the desire of commercial banks to lend and of people to borrow from them. The Fed has no control over that.

The Fed also controls the federal funds rate, which is the interest rate at which commercial banks borrow and lend to each other overnight. But as shown below, the Fed follows market-driven interest rates, such as the two-year Treasury rate (red line), when setting the federal funds rate (black line), since they have no way of knowing where rates should be.

Fed Rates and Market Rates
Source: Chart courtesy of FRED, with annotations by BullAndBearProfits.com.

The Fed’s Real Purpose

The Fed’s real purpose is to enable banks to make loans by creating money out of thin air and then to bail them out when their loans go bad. It has been successful in that goal, as we saw with the bank bailouts during the Great Recession.

As Murray N. Rothbard explained:

Banks can only expand comfortably in unison when a central bank exists, essentially a governmental bank, enjoying a monopoly of government business, and a privileged position imposed by government over the entire banking system.

The Fed’s other main purpose is to help the US government borrow. They have been very successful at this, as the government debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio has more than tripled in the past forty years to over 120 percent.

The Fed Succeeds in Lowering Living Standards

Two of the main negative consequences of Fed money creation are inflation and the boom-and-bust business cycle, both of which lower living standards significantly. Inflation raises living costs and erodes savings, while the business cycle wastes scarce resources by encouraging their allocation to bad investments.

Since the Fed’s founding in 1913, the US dollar has lost 97 percent of its purchasing power. Furthermore, Fed policies helped engineer the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2008–09.

Austrian business cycle theory explains how the business cycle is caused by banks creating money out of thin air, which leads to an unsustainable boom that eventually turns into a bust. The bust happens because the newly created money does not generate the scarce resources (land, labor, and capital) needed to complete all the projects businesses have undertaken with the newly created money.

As Ludwig von Mises explained:

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion.

Fed Predictions

After reviewing the Fed’s failures, let’s see how successful Fed leaders have been at predicting the economy.

Alan Greenspan was Fed chairman from 1987 to 2006. He presided over the 1987 stock market crash, the S&L (savings and loan) crisis, the early 1990s recession, the late 1990s tech bubble, the early 2000s recession, and the early to mid-2000s housing bubble. Naturally, the press called him “maestro” for his work at the Fed.

Near the peak of the tech bubble in January 2000, Greenspan bragged about engineering a long economic expansion that he saw no signs of ending. As he said shortly before the NASDAQ stock index collapsed 80 percent and the early 2000s recession started: “There remain few evident signs of geriatric strain that typically presage an imminent economic downturn.”

In response to the recession he did not see coming, Greenspan slashed the federal funds rate from 6.50 percent in 2000 to 1.00 percent in 2003, which helped fuel the housing bubble. Then Greenspan encouraged homeowners to take out adjustable-rate mortgages in early 2004, just before he raised the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent over the next two years, which triggered the housing bust.

In 2007, Greenspan said this about banks lending to subprime borrowers: “While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late … I really didn’t get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.”

At least Greenspan has been honest about the Fed’s inability to forecast the economy:

“People don't realize that we cannot forecast the future. The number of mistakes I have made are just awesome.” Greenspan also admitted that the market is much larger and more powerful than the Fed: “The market value of global long-term securities is approaching $100 trillion [so these markets] now swamp the resources of central banks.”

Ben Bernanke was Fed chairman from 2006 to 2014, so he presided over the Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since the 1930s up to that time.

In 2002, in a speech titled “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn't Happen Here,” Bernanke bragged that the Fed’s legal right to create money out of thin air would prevent deflation: “The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost … under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and, hence, positive inflation.” Naturally, given the Fed’s ability to control the economy, “it” did happen in 2009, with prices falling 2 percent in the wake of the Great Recession.

In 2006, Bernanke dismissed the inverted yield curve, which is known by virtually all economists to be one of the best predictors of a recession: “I would not interpret the currently very flat yield curve as indicating a significant economic slowdown to come.” In June 2008, seven months into the Great Recession, Bernanke said: “The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so.”

Janet Yellen was Fed chair from 2014 to 2018, so she had less time to cause major damage. But true to form, she stated she had no idea the housing bust would lead to a major recession: “I didn't see any of that coming until it happened.”

Jerome “Jay” Powell has been Fed chairman since 2018. He helped invert the yield curve in 2019 and has presided over the covid crash and recession, as well as the highest inflation rates in forty years.

In early November 2021, when inflation was over 6.0 percent, Powell and the Fed were still calling inflation “transitory” and caused by covid and not the 40 percent increase in the money supply. By March 2022, with inflation rising 7.9 percent, Powell finally raised the fed funds rate by 0.25 percent, with plans to raise rates up to 2.75 percent by the end of 2023. Ominously, given his forecasting track record, Powell thinks he can raise rates that aggressively and achieve the elusive “soft landing” of slowing inflation without driving the economy into a recession, despite the already flattening yield curve.

Conclusion

The Federal Reserve cannot control the economy or even the money supply and interest rates. And Fed leaders clearly cannot predict the economy, even though the media and Wall Street hang on their every word. But the Fed can lower living standards by destroying the value of the dollar and causing the boom and bust cycle. Economic theory and economic history have proven that government central planning does not work in creating stability or prosperity. That includes centrally planned monetary policy.



Prepare for the Democratic Tears in November - the Meltdown Is Going to Be Glorious


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

There are a lot of indicators that the November midterms are going to be a big red wave for the Republicans.

From the November wins in Virginia to the historic win this week of the first Republican county executive in decades in Kenosha County, Wisconsin, a lot of things are trending toward the Republicans.

People are largely fed up with Joe Biden and the Democrats according to virtually every poll, with numbers in the basement. The polls are also indicating that Americans are trending toward Republicans leading in their choice for Congress.

Now there’s some more bad news for Democrats and it’s a very big sign.

Republicans in Pennsylvania are registering former Democrats at four times the rate that Democrats are doing the opposite conversion. One of the big things animating the switch? Upset with Biden, inflation, and violent crime.

“I just got fed up and just felt like there has to be a better way,” said Beth Jones, 48, a retired Philadelphia police officer who last month registered as a Republican, ending her three-decade affiliation with the Democratic Party.

It isn’t only in Pennsylvania.

Reuters examined registration data in six states that could see tight U.S. Senate races in November and which generally require voters to be members of a party to participate in nominating contests. While each state tracks voter registration differently, the review pointed to Republican gains in four of those states, and no substantial difference in two of them. [….]

In North Carolina, where a tight Senate race is expected due to the retirement of Republican Senator Richard Burr, Republicans so far this year have picked up three Democratic converts for every voter that Democrats have poached, according to state election board data. Throughout 2021, the Republican advantage was about half that.

In Florida and Nevada, the numbers of registered Republicans rose in the first few months of the year while the ranks of Democrats declined modestly.

But the biggest jump is in Pennsylvania. It may be the highest in a decade, with the GOP doing far better than in 2016 when the Republicans won the White House as well as the House and Senate. Republicans are even picking up voters in places like Philadephia — a Democratic bastion — 1,315 Democrats in the city have applied to change their registration to Republican, more than four times the number of Republicans flipping to Democrat.

But Calvin Tucker, deputy chair for the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said the gains point towards a strong showing for the party.

Speaking from the party’s recently opened office in northwest Philadelphia, Tucker estimated that petition drives and other efforts to engage with Black and other traditionally “underserved communities” in the city had yielded more than 100 converts or newly registered Republicans so far this year.

“It is a citywide outreach,” Tucker said. “We will do canvassing, knocking on doors, standing on corners, and talking to citizens and neighbors about who we are and what we are trying to achieve.”

But it’s not just the economy. It’s the radical leftist nature of the Democratic party as well — it’s the embrace of things like BLM, CRT, and the woke agenda. Americans look at all this and say this just isn’t the party I thought I signed up for. Americans see that it’s Democrats who want to up-end all the norms. It’s one of the things that helped Glenn Youngkin win the race for Governor in Virginia in November and Samantha Kerkman win Kenosha County Executive this week. Americans are about to do a course correction against the radical and the registrations are a big indication of the wave that is coming.

Democrats are going to have a meltdown when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is booted from the Speakership, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) loses the chair of the Intel Committee, the Republicans take over, stop the Biden agenda and bring back a little justice on the Russia collusion smear as well as the Biden scandal. It’s going to be glorious.



The Babylon Bee Presents: Honest Company Slogans


False advertising is a stain on the fabric of our society. In order to thoroughly bleach this fabric and make it soft with extra fabric softener, we have assembled honest company slogans that we now demand all businesses to switch to.

NO EXCEPTIONS!

Nike: Slavery: just do it.

Walmart: We clean the bathrooms sometimes!

Doritos: Better go ahead and buy two bags, fatty.

Applebee's: Eatin' Food In A Place.

Subway: Eat…something?!

United Airlines: We just said the skies are friendly.  We made no promises about what happens inside the plane.

Spirit Airlines: You're poor, aren't you? 

The American Federation Of Teachers: We care. About ourselves.

Google: Don't Be Evil.

Twitter: Now 9.2% less evil!

Facebook: Hey guys come back! Please? 

Nintendo: What is an Internet?

Microsoft: You hate us but have to use us anyway! lolol 

T-Mobile: The sound of silence.

Coca-Cola: Share a Coke with…your endocrinologist, because you now have diabetes.

Taco Bell: We're cheaper than Ex-Lax.

Amazon: Shut up and buy it, you mindless consumer.

BlackRock: Ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

Home Depot: If you need to ask for help, you don't deserve it.

Panera: Your Bible study wouldn't be complete without some overpriced microwave food!

Disney: Weeee'lll convert your childreeeeen!