no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

The Return to Depression Era Economics

August 12th, 2009

First it was the broken-window debacle known formally as CARS, or colloquially as “Cash For Clunkers”: by Government edict, thousands of functioning vehicles were destroyed with sodium silicate. Adding insult to injury, the vehicles (parts of which were ostensibly salvageable) will be scrapped. Thanks to CARS, the replacement driver-side door that you neede for your 1995 whatchamacallit is going to be a little bit harder to find. The market for used cars, and the market for replacement/salvage parts just got a little bit thinner, so prices go up a little bit more.

And then there is agriculture, which has been silently (but openly) engaging in what can only be described as price-fixing. It’s been said elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it: if any other industry openly flaunted it’s price-fixing policies (Big Oil, anyone?) it would quickly draw the ire of politicians, bloggers, and Joe Six-Packs everywhere. Everyone would be in an uproar over “price gouging”.  But I’ve heard nary a whisper about this:

U.S. dairies will remove 86,710 cows from their herds to be sold to slaughterhouses as part of an industry-funded program intended to boost milk prices by curbing output.

The buyout is the third such cull in nine months, the Arlington, Virginia-based National Milk Producers Federation said today in a statement. The most recent buyout completed last month involved 101,000 cows, the most ever for the groups so- called Cooperatives Working Together program, which began in 2003.

— AZCentral

It makes no difference whether these attempts at price-fixing are done at government’s behest, or by cooperatives or cartels trying to bolster their own bottom lines. Attempts to maintain these prices are as sure to fail in the medium- to long-run as water is sure to find its level. In the 1930s, during the height of the Great Depression, farmers were urged to cull their herds, slaughter baby pigs, plow under their fields, etc., all with the goal of keeping prices high. Employers were urged to keep wages high (although many cut working hours to save on expenses) based on the fraudulent notion that production depends on consumption, when in fact it is exactly the opposite.

[I]t is of paramount importance to recognize that such an abundance of goods and services can only arise through production at some historical time, or in other words, that in order to consume, production must first occur. — Say’s Law of Markets: The Case For Doing Nothing

Given the frequency with which people fail to comprehend Say’s Law, you’d think it is a novelty. Unfortunately, it’s not. During a depression/recession, the problem is not that prices have fallen, on the contrary, the problem manifests itself because prices were too high in the first place, and indeed are still too high.

The Great Depression was awful. And it’s frightening to witness the “endarkenment” happening right before our eyes. These same policies have all been tried before, and they’ve never done anyone a damn bit of good. This time won’t be any different.

Via CoyoteBlog by way of Beck.

Was the DDoS Attack on Twitter a Test Run?

August 6th, 2009

Someone or something temporarily shut down Twitter this morning (Facebook was also temporarily disabled). Because of the nature of the attack, “client applications that depend on the Twitter API could also not connect to the service, creating a complete Twitter blackout.”

In response, George Donnelly tweeted about the DDoS attacks on Twitter and Facebook:

RT @MacFaux spooky. Twitter up. Facebook up. That was a test run. Someone wanted to know if they could quiet the tubes.

If you don’t know how to make your own tin-foil hat (to prevent the CIA from reading your brainwaves) or if you’re disinclined to entertain conspiracy theories, consider this fair warning.

MacFaux is right. It is very spooky. Only two groups of people would want to shut down Twitter or Facebook. Only one of those groups of people has any real incentive to do so. Sure, some hacker might get a stiffy because he was able to pwn the intertubes. And yeah, that is kind of neat, I’ll be the first to conced that.

But social-networking sites are going to be the bread-and-butter of 21st century insurgencies. Communications channels like Twitter and Facebook, using minimally affordable technology accessible to all, allow for rapid organization and rapid dissemination of news and information, on scales heretofore inconceivable. This is a significant hurdle for an aspiring police state.

what’s coming is distributed, peer-to-peer, organic, cypherpunk- and crypto-anarchist-created Facebook- and Twitter-like social networking and communication services that support unbreakable hard encryption, market-produced unfalsifiable digital identity management, mathematically guaranteed transactional and locational anonymity by default or at will, untraceable anonymous digital bearer certificate trading networks and, of course, assassination markets.

And when those things launch, they’re going to launch on all channels.

— Can the Military Coexist with Social Networking Sites? NoState.com, 5 Aug., 2009

From Milwaukee to Tehran, governments are learning that this is a powerful force for good. For a government, especially one that’s facing crises of epic proportions and growing unrest, the ability to silence dissent and discoordinate dissenters is real incentive.

In Communist America, Goldman Sachs Forks You

August 6th, 2009

Yesterday morning, Chris Martenson told us that we’re being robbed by Goldman Sachs. Which prompted me to do some of my own research, whereupon I discovered that the real victims of Goldman Sachs all meet the following criteria:

  1. Not a current or former Goldman Sachs employee

I know: you already knew that Goldman Sachs is the Devil incarnate, because you read The Great American Bubble Machine (loved it!) and then you saw some tin-foil-hat-wearing kook’s videos on YouTube, right? But Martenson’s account is not full of colorful metaphors or wild-eyed conspiracy theories (not that there’s anything wrong with either), instead, he paints the picture by numbers:

Trading losses [for Goldman Sachs] occurred on two days during the months of April, May and June [2009].

Goldman Sachs took in a whopping $100M+ in daily revenue on forty-six separate days during 2Q 2009.  An entire financial quarter, and a tumultuous one at that, during which GS brought in something like $5 billion and only lost money on two occasions.  This is statistically inconceivable, and lest you have any delusions about where that money is coming from, Martenson is quick to remind you:

the most probable source of these funds, the ultimate loser, is the taxpayer.

Shortly after the meltdown began, GS became a “bank holding company” which normally requires a greater capital reserve (less risk) and quickly received $63.6 billion worth of federal subsidies. The decision to become a holding company is particularly noteworthy because the Bloomberg article that Martenson cites justifies Goldman’s profits on account of their willingness to take risk that others wouldn’t.  But their positions as a “bank holding company” should be less risky, what with the higher reserve requirements, right?

Wrong.

Goldman asked to be exempted from these rules, which the Fed granted without question. So in a time when they should be shoring up their reserves, and playing conservatively, they continue to pile risk on top of risk with our hard-earned money.  And unless you know something I don’t, you’re not getting a dividend check in the mail.

To be fair, a number of other institutions (e.g., American Express) filed to become “holding companies” in order to reap a slice of the Bailout Pie.  For what in God’s creation they are using these funds, is ultimately anybody’s guess. The only certainty is that whatever money they get, regardless of whether or when they pay it back, is corporate fucking welfare, paid for by you and me.

Indeed, the taxpayers are big losers in this game, a game that Goldman Sachs has completely rigged.  We are underwriting their profits and absorbing their losses.

As I’ve said before, “the primary purpose of modern financial markets is to concentrate real economic power for the State and its beneficiaries.” None of the paper wealth which was miscast as “growth” in the past decade ever really existed. Every last bit of it, every hour of labor, every ounce of resources that we foolishly consumed/destroyed while perpetrating the growth charade was economically destructive. The rest of us understand this — and if we don’t, our bank accounts do.

What’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for Goldman Sachs, end of story. Everyone else gets boned.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics