Video: President Obama leaves event promoting clean energy in a motorcade of 22 fossil-fueled vehicles
Oh, the irony. Now, I don't have any problem with someone using a fossil-fueled vehicle or with the President having a huge motorcade.
As the video describes, the problem is with President Obama and others in government trying to pick winners and losers in the energy industry with subsidies and regulations. Just like the President, private citizens should be free to decide what kind of energy they'll use for their vehicles, and we shouldn't have to subsidize another's choice.
Read moreStossel's State of the Union
That clairvoyant of political commentary, John Stossel, delivers his own State of the Union address in Reason Magazine this week. I gotta say...it may the only State of the Union with which I can find nothing to disagree. Check it out.
Pictures: POTUS drives by NPRI
Do I disagree with President Obama on almost everything? Absolutely. Was it ridiculously awesome to see the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and his seemingly never ending motorcade drive by NPRI's office? Oh yeah.
Here are some pictures taken by my colleague, Jared Carl. The motorcade actually drove right behind NPRI's office, but since the Secret Service kept that detail a secret, the shots are from distance.
Are we trapped by liquidity?
Frank Shostak has provided an excellent review of the Keynesian concept of liquidity trap and some of its key theoretical problems in his column today at mises.org.
For those who are unaware, Paul Krugman, the current ringleader of Keynesian (read: voodoo/shaman/theoretically challenged) economists, has been proclaiming that the United States is in a liquidity trap-meaning individuals are hoarding money with no intention of spending or investing it. This literally means the hoarding of cash-deposits in your bank account do not count since banks are financial intermediaries and, consequently, an indirect means of investing.
To overcome this liquidity trap, Krugman feels the Federal Reserve needs to crank up the printing presses even faster so that the value of the dollar will fall more quickly and prompt inviduals to get rid of dollars the second they get them so as to avoid the loss of value. Essentially, the Keynesian prescription is to turn the entire concept of monetary exchange into a giant game of "hot potato." If you're holding the potato too long, you're going to lose.
While the Keynesian voodoo artists have cloaked their "hot potato" approach to economic policy in scientific jargon, it's not difficult to imagine how such a rapidly depreciating currency complicates exchange in the real world. Businesses that contract for the delivery of goods or services six months to a year in advance, for instance, must guess at how fast Keynesians plan to play the "hot potato" music over that time period. If they guess too low or too high, then one party to the contract or the other is likely to lose his shirt. This complication is multiplied millions of times over, as contract upon contract throughout the global economy become subject to "hot potato" antics.
While this charade might sound completely ridiculous, it's universally accepted by Keynesians as scholarly economic theory.
It's a brave new world out there...
SoS Ross Miller: "Our services aren't worth your money"
Okay...so maybe it's not an exact quote, but that's certainly what I got out of Secretary of State Ross Miller's comments to the Las Vegas Sun today. Miller is complaining that home-based businesses aren't paying their "fair share" and should be forced to pay $200 annually for the privilege of doing business in Nevada.
The policy problems associated with this shakedown are obvious: 1. How does it impact the margins of the state's most fledgling businesses? 2. What kind of signal does this hostility to small business send to investors worldwide, and how does that impact their future willingness to invest private capital in Nevada? 3. Why should individuals be forced to pay an up-front tribute in order to provide for their families without molestation by the state? Does anyone read John Locke anymore?
Yet, what I found most striking about Miller's comments dealt with his shock and outrage over alleged tax fraud within the state. (Economic truth: The more punitive a tax code becomes, the higher the rate of noncompliance. It's a component of the Laffer Curve. Look no further than the federal corporate income tax for illustration of this principle: Facing the highest corporate income tax in the developed world, American multinationals have created an entire industry of moving profits offshore to avoid the punitive federal tax.) Miller says if the reporting requirements are not made far more stringent (he wants to require official notarization on all filings) then he might as well hold up "a banner in front of the Carson Capitol that says, 'If you pay the state business license fee, you're an absolute idiot.'" So, Miller believes that the state bureaucracy does not provide enough value for individuals to want to support it? Interesting...
Sheldon Richman lays the smack down
Last week, I pointed out some of the most glaring absurdities in Matthew Yglesias's uniformed hit piece on the Austrian School of economics. In it, Yglesias, a Think Progress employee and Keynesian apologist, mischaracterizes virtually every major tenet of Austrian theory. (By the way, how many recessions must be created or exacerbated through the application of Keynesian policy prescriptions before the economics profession, as a whole, comes to the scientific conclusion that the Keynesian framework is deeply flawed and wholly incapable of producing healthy normative recommendations?)
I've just come across Sheldon Richman's response to that hit piece in Reason Magazine (originally run in The Freeman). Richman, the venerable sage of the Foundation for Economic Education, America's oldest economic think tank, recommends Yglesias's column "because it's highly informative-about what Austrian economics is not."
For those who value truth over false propaganda, I recommend giving Richman's response a read - because it's highly informative about what Austrian economics is!
Must watch: Daily Show exposes the hypocrisy of 'Civility Project' president who called Tea Partiers 'terrorists'
Amazing. Must watch. Could not stop laughing. Great work by the Daily Show.
(h/t Big Hollywood)
In its own words: Top NSEA priorities are money, money, money and money
Money isn't just the Nevada State Education Association's top priority. It's also its second, third and fourth priorities.
NSEA's current legislative priorities are:Noticeably missing from that list are little things like increasing student achievement and boosting graduation rates. The fifth and final NSEA priority is actually a good one - doing a performance audit on school district spending - but it's striking that the success of Nevada's children isn't a priority for the NSEA.
A. Resources to attract and retain the best educators to Nevada's public schools.
B. Adequate funding to address overcrowded classrooms.
C. Improvement of Nevada's revenue structure.
D. Provide the necessary sources of funding for the support of Nevada's public schools.
What's amazing about this isn't the content - it's been apparent for decades that unions claiming to represent teachers are more interested in increasing spending than in increasing student achievement. What's stunning is that the NSEA has made this information publicly available. On its website, the Nevada State Education Association is encouraging its members to fill out a "2012 Legislative Survey." When you click on the survey link you go to this page.
The very first thing listed is the above priority list.
And the NSEA's has had remarkable success in meeting its priority. In the last 50 years, Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending. Student achievement though has been stagnant.
It's not just in Nevada that unions have succeeded in getting politicians to spend more while getting stagnant or worse results. Nationally, inflation-adjusted, per-pupil education spending has increased by over 130 percent in the last 40 years. Results? Not so much.
As a private organization, the NSEA can set whatever priorities it wants, but everyone else needs to know the truth about it.
Increasing spending doesn't increase student achievement, and yet, the NSEA's priorities are money, money, money and money. And that should significantly impact how everyone - parents, grandparents, the children in your neighborhood, the media and especially lawmakers - views what the NSEA says and what it does.
The NSEA is interested in more education spending, not in increasing student achievement.
NPRI brief cites four strong and compelling reasons for Denis suit to continue
NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation has filed a response to Sen. Mo Denis' motion that the separation-of-powers lawsuit be dismissed, because Denis resigned from his job with the PUC last month.
As you'll see below, there are four strong and compelling reasons for the suit against Denis to continue and for a judge to uphold the Nevada constitution by enforcing Article 3, Section 1.
Side note: If you're interested in learning more about this lawsuit, I urge you to come to come NPRI's policy luncheon next Tuesday. More information is here and you can register online here.
Issues in separation-of-powers lawsuit are vital and not at all 'moot', says new brief filed by CJCL
CARSON CITY, Nev. - NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation has just filed an Opposition brief maintaining that Sen. Mo Denis' resignation from his executive-branch job does not moot Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al., because of several well-established exceptions to the "mootness doctrine." A link to the full brief in opposition is available below.
"Within hours of being served with this separation-of-powers lawsuit, Sen. Mo Denis announced his resignation from his executive-branch job," notes Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of CJCL. "In essence, that resignation constituted a de facto admission on the merits of the case - that, according to Article 3, Section 1, of Nevada's constitution, it is unconstitutional for a legislator to simultaneously exercise any function in the executive or judicial branches."
As a result of his resignation from the PUC, Denis' attorney filed several motions claiming, among other things, that the case, Pojunis v. State of Nevada, et al., was moot.
"Even if Denis' resignation from the PUC means the case does not present a live controversy, the court may still consider the case if it involves a matter of 'widespread importance,'" said Becker. "There are five well-established exceptions to the 'mootness doctrine,' and as our brief details, at least four of those exceptions are applicable in this case."
The four exceptions are the Public-Interest Exception, the Voluntary-Cessation Exception, the Capable-of-Repetition-Yet-Evading-Review Exception, and the Ongoing-Collateral-Legal-Consequences Exception.
"These well-established exceptions show why this case remains justiciable and why the court should and can upload the clear words of the constitution - that it is unconstitutional for anyone exercising any function in one branch to simultaneously exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the other branches of government," stated Becker.
"Even Governor Brian Sandoval, the chief executive of the State of Nevada, which is also a named defendant in the lawsuit, has stated that this lawsuit 'brings up a very important constitutional issue.' Further, in regards to the separation-of-powers issue raised by this lawsuit, Governor Sandoval has implored the Supreme Court to '[s]ettle it once and for all.'"
Becker noted that the separation of powers is one of the most important principles in Nevada's constitution, because it prevents conflicts of interest, corruption and the accumulation of too much power in one individual or group and that it preserves the checks and balances in Nevada's government.
Neither the Public Utilities Commission nor the state of Nevada, both of which are named defendants in the lawsuit, has filed a responsive pleading in the case.
From the brief: Legal basis for exceptions to the "mootness doctrine"
- Public-Interest Exception
[T]he Nevada Supreme Court applied a public interest exception in determining that a case, while technically moot, should proceed, holding that where: "the potential for recurring disputes ... is great ... with significant prospects for evading review" and "continuing uncertainty ... presents substantial and vexing problems to agencies charged with meeting the ... needs of government, ... the mootness doctrine must yield in the public interest to the more pressing expedient of statutory interpretation." Board of County Com'rs Clark County v. White, 102 Nev. 587, 589, 729 P.2d 1347, 1349 (1986) (emphasis added). - Voluntary-Cessation Exception
"It is well settled that the voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct does not moot a case in which the legality of that conduct is challenged." Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Martinez, ___ U.S. ___ , 130 S.Ct. 2971, 3010 (2010). - Capable-of-Repetition-Yet-Evading-Review Exception
"If the underlying dispute is 'capable of repetition, yet evading review,' it is not moot." Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 563 (1980) (internal quotations omitted). - Ongoing-Collateral-Legal-Consequences Exception
Among the relief requested by Plaintiff is that the unconstitutional disbursement of funds to Defendant DENIS during his tenure of unconstitutional employment be restored to the state treasury. His reported resignation from the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, by itself, does nothing to render this issue moot. Only a declaration by the Court as to the constitutionality of Defendant DENIS holding positions simultaneously resolves the issue of whether that disbursement of funds was unconstitutional and should be restored to the State treasury.
More information on the case, including the original lawsuit, is available at the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation's website at http://justice.npri.org/cases/pojunis-v-state-of-nevada/.
Slate author displays a shallow ignorance of Austrian economics
I just came across this article on the left-leaning Slate.com that purports to dispel the fallacies of Austrian economics. The article, called "What is 'Austrian Economics'? And why is Ron Paul obsessed with it?" might be more convincing if it was clear that the author, Matthew Yglesias, had even read a single Austrian textbook or was familiar with the major theories.
I've noted some of the most glaring faults with the author's narrative:
1. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for his explanation of monetary policy's relation to the business cycle, not because of the recognition that prices convey information.
2. Both Rothbard and Hayek's versions of the business cycle theory draw careful distinctions between shifts in consumer preference and the sudden collapse of demand across many sectors.
3. The Great Depression didn't disprove Austrian business cycle theory - it gave it renewed credibility. Rothbard and Lionel Robbins' books on the Great Depression are two of the best known Austrian works. Prior to the 1913, the only artificial credit expansion was due to fractional reserve banking. The recession of 1921 and the Depression were the first to add a new layer - artificial credit produced by the Fed.
4. Finally - and most importantly - the Austrians never assert that a bust is the inevitable result of a boom. They hold that booms are permanently sustainable so long as the capital structure is financed through genuine savings. It's the expansion of artificial credit that creates calculation problems by disassociating interest rates from savings rates.
Come to think of it, I seem to recall explaining that in a recent R-J editorial. Perhaps Yglesias should have given me a call before embarrasing himself on the internet!
