Tonight on The Independents: Weed Bowl, Stupid Laws, Obama’s Weird Interview, Cliff May’s NSA, Trouble in Russkie-ville, MLK, Michael C. Moynihan, and More

Richard Sherman! You just won the Weed Bowl; NOW where are you going? ||| Tonight’s live episode of
The
Independents
reverts to its usual 9 pm ET slot on Fox
Business Network, which is probably a good idea given that the two
panelists are Vice magazine co-founder Gavin McInnes and
ex-Reasoner Michael C.
Moynihan
. (You wouldn’t want to see what these people look like
at midnight….)

The McMoynihan brothers will be talking about, among other
things, President Barack Obama’s
weird interview
in
The New Yorker
, the upcoming
Weed Bowl
between Denver and Seattle, Dennis Rodman’s
return visit to rehab
, bloody street battles in Ukraine,
and the latest
trouble
in the run-up to the Sochi Winter Olympics.

After Kennedy demonstrates some of the more ridiculous laws on
the books in New York, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney
Jeff Rowes will
discuss laws and government requirements that have a more tangible
negative impact on people’s lives. And in a rematch of sorts after
he tussled with Kennedy over the issue on The O’Reilly
Factor
Friday, Foundation for Defense of Democracies President

Clifford May
will take exception to the libertarian
interpretation of surveillance by the National Security Agency.

The “Keeping it Kmele” segment will be an examination on this
MLK Day of how various partisans try to appropriate Martin Luther
King for their own political goals, and other topics that may or
may not be brought up include hockey fights, Lena Dunham, Spanx,
and weird rocks on Mars. As always, send tweets to @IndependentsFBN and
they may get used on air.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/LK8cC4
via IFTTT

Guest Post: Welfare, Minimum Wages, And Unemployment

Submitted by Greg Morin via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

Of the various flavors of government interventionism in our lives, the minimum wage is perhaps the most welcomed. It appeals not only to our innate sense of “fairness” but also to our self-interest. Its allure may erroneously lead us to the conclusion that because “it is popular,” ergo “it is right.”

The more astute proponents of the minimum wage, however, immediately point to the obvious; namely, that an extreme minimum wage ($1,000 per hour) would be unequivocally detrimental. However, the proponents quickly turn to dismissing this fear by asserting that, empirically, no such job loss occurs when the minimum wage is slowly raised. This is akin to arguing that although fire can boil water, a small fire won’t heat it up. The support for this assertion is the oft-cited 1994 study by Card and Krueger showing a positive correlation between an increased minimum wage and employment in New Jersey. Many others have thoroughly debunked this study and it is significant that the original authors eventually retracted their claims.

Youth and Entry-Level Unemployment

The problem with such “studies” that purport to demonstrate only positive and no negative effects from a rising minimum wage is that it is quite easy to count individuals whose pay went up. What is more challenging, if not impossible, is to count the people that would have been hired but were not. Likewise, offsetting reductions in non-monetary compensation will not show up in a monetarily-focused analysis.

However, empirical economic data is not entirely useless. Such data is more suited to qualitative rather than quantitative predictions (who is affected rather than how much they are affected). For example, basic economics predicts that a minimum wage will necessarily increase unemployment among those with the least experience. Indeed, if we look at the empirical evidence we see exactly that. Looking at the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics we find that the unemployment rate (June 2013) among 16-19 year olds is 24 percent and among 20-24 year olds it is 14 percent. These values far exceed the unemployment rate (6 percent) of those workers with sufficient experience and skills to make them largely immune to minimum wage pay scales, namely 25-54 year olds. People whose productive value is less than the minimum wage are de facto unemployable. They are denied the opportunity to gain experience and skills, and their exclusion from the job market is a net loss to society.

The minimum wage is just another weapon in the arsenal of the misguided progressive trying to “help” the poor. Their mistake in wielding this weapon is in presuming all workers are similarly situated; i.e., that the vast majority of hourly employees earn minimum wage and that they are uniformly composed of heads of households. In fact the opposite is true. Only 2.1 percent of hourly employees earn minimum wage and of that number over half (55 percent) are 16-24 years old.

How Welfare Brings Down the Asking Wage

So, we know that a sizable number of minimum-wage earners are not in need of a wage that can support a household. But what of the minimum-wage earners who are? We are told repeatedly that minimum wage is not a living wage, so why are not more minimum wage earners simply starving to death? In reality workers earn two wages: one from their employer and one from the state. For example, someone making the current full-time minimum wage earns $15,000 per year, but they are also eligible for additional government benefits that bring their total remuneration to approximately $35,000 per year if they are childless, or up to $52,000 year if they have children. In fact, earning more does not necessarily help one wean himself off this state sponsored support. As wages rise assistance can often decline so precipitously that even earning $1 more can mean a loss of thousands of dollars in aid. This creates a disincentive for the worker to improve and earn more; the perverse incentive here is that we are rewarding the very thing we are trying to eliminate (low wages). These wage subsidies serve only to pervert the normal incentives present in an exchange between employer and employee. Both the employer and the employee are aware of the subsidies, so each is willing to offer less and accept less rather than demand more and offer more.

At first blush one might conclude the employer is making out like a bandit. But there is no free lunch — the subsidies have to come from somewhere. Taxes fund these subsidies. So the employer is not necessarily paying less if its taxes fund the very subsidies its employees are receiving. In fact many employers pay more on net. All employers pay taxes, but only some receive the benefit of subsidized wages. This is a net redistribution from one class of company to another. In essence we are forcing high wage companies to pay low wage companies to keep their wages low.

The Minimum Wage Reduces Worker Productivity

So considering that it is established that minimum wage laws and other forms of wage subsidization are detrimental to the stated goal of improving conditions for those regarded as poor, we must address the question perennially proffered by those who believe one’s salvation can only come via the state: “If not the minimum wage, what then can increase wages?” To answer this question we must understand there are only two possible routes to improving our wages/standard of living. The first method is the unethical route of using force (government) to extract what we want.

The second method, however, is what every rational person would be left with were there no state influence corrupting the incentives that drive their decision-making: improve or augment one’s skills so that they align with those skills currently in greater demand.

Self-improvement through education and/or work experience is the answer to the question: how do I earn more? Government sponsored interference in the market that results in fewer people gaining experience can only serve to frustrate one’s ability to engage in self-improvement. Elimination of the minimum wage is a necessary, although insufficient, first step to improving the economic value of the inexperienced or unskilled.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1eaIwYu Tyler Durden

The Complete Chinese War Preparedness And Military Update

With China increasingly in the news involving some new diplomatic or geopolitical escalation, a new territorial claim, the launch of a brand new aircraft carrier, or just general chatter of military tensions surrounding the aspirational reserve currency superpower, it is time for yet another update of the complete “military and security developments  involving the people’s republic of China”, courtesy of the annual report to Congress discussing precisely this issue.

The only Org Chart that matters:

 

China Sovereignty Claims:

 

Chinese Ground Forces:

 

Chinese ground force distribution map:

 

Chinese Navy:

 

Chinese Airforce:

 

Chinese airforce distribution map:

 

China Taiwan Strait and SRBM Coverage:

 

China Conventional Strike Capabilities:

 

Chinese Missile balance:

 

China Precision Strike capabilities:

 

Chinese ICBM reach capabilities:

 

The full report link – pdf.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/Kuq3fi Tyler Durden

NY Pol Says You're Too Stupid To Decide If Your Kid Can Play Football

High school footballFootball can be dangerous, and
attention has focused in recent years on the head
injuries that can result from playing the contact sport
. Much
of the discussion revolves around the risks voluntarily assumed by
the paid adult professionals of the National Football League, but
some politicians say the danger is excessive for young players—so
excessive that families should not even be allowed to decide for
themselves whether the game is worthwhile. New York Assemblyman
Michael Benedetto wants to flat-out make it illegal for anybody
under the age of 14 to play tackle football. In a world that will
never be risk-free, and where all choices involve trade-offs, it’s
a hell of a presumption that would substitute the preferences of
politicians for those of children and parents.

Benedetto started riding this particular hobbyhorse at least
four years ago, when
he said
:

I am a big sports fan, and I strongly support sports related
programs for our youth. However, I believe that we must set firm
guidelines to deal with concussions. Oftentimes the athletes’ are
not aware of the seriousness of their injuries, are pressured to
return to the field, or feel an obligation to the team to re-enter
the game thus further aggravating an already serious medical
condition.

At that time, Benedetto just wanted to track injuries and
“establish standards for school districts regarding concussions.”
Last year, though, he
introduced his outright ban
, which he’s pushing hard now amidst
the heavy pre-Superbowl media focus on football. According to

CBS New York
:

Benedetto said he believes the measure could potentially prevent
young kids from getting concussions, which run the risk of causing
brain damage.

“Every time they’re hit, or every time they fall to the ground
in a tackle, the brain will spin around in the head, causing
damage,” Benedetto said.

Well, who could object to protecting The Children™?

But football is hardly the only activity that poses physical
risks. As it so happens, my wife, Wendy, and I discussed the risks
of football with our son, Tony, during a lull in the televised
football games yesterday, when he voiced interest in playing.
Wendy, a pediatrician, has treated more than a few juvenile
concussions in her career. We told him that football is dangerous,
and that he should think about it thoroughly and be really
sure he wants to play before taking the risk. Then we can discuss
it.

But we did not say no. We’ve already signed off on Tony
engaging in a contact sport.

TonyOur eight-year-old son is a green belt in Tae
Kwon Do. This past Wednesday, he practiced with nunchucks (yes, I
have seen him clock himself in the head), before tumbling class,
and then an extended session of sparring with six separate
opponents. There were no serious injuries this time, but I’ve seen
him take a punch to the head, fall, get kicked in the ribs, shake
it off, and dive back in.

Yeah, he wears a helmet and a full array of body armor, but so
do linebackers.

Our hesitation about football strikes even me as a bit
arbitrary.

Not every parent would agree with our decision to let Tony learn
a martial art and take the risks that come with it, but it’s a
decision with which we’re comfortable. We think the dangers are
worth the self confidence, discipline, and physical fitness he’s
gained along the way. Other parents likely feel the same about
football.

Everybody has their own comfort level when it comes to balancing
risks and benefits—and a risk-free existence isn’t in the
cards.

Hell, my worst high school injury came while riding my bicycle
to school in the morning. Somebody opened a car door at the wrong
moment. Ouch. I don’t really remember the next few minutes. Damn
that morning commute

Football is dangerous. Maybe it’s too dangerous—for
some people. But it’s worth the risk for others. We all have to
make choices for ourselves, and our families. The fact that some
politicians wouldn’t make the same choices as other people isn’t
surprising. Nor does it give them any special rights over the rest
of us.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1mmjI1f
via IFTTT

NY Pol Says You’re Too Stupid To Decide If Your Kid Can Play Football

High school footballFootball can be dangerous, and
attention has focused in recent years on the head
injuries that can result from playing the contact sport
. Much
of the discussion revolves around the risks voluntarily assumed by
the paid adult professionals of the National Football League, but
some politicians say the danger is excessive for young players—so
excessive that families should not even be allowed to decide for
themselves whether the game is worthwhile. New York Assemblyman
Michael Benedetto wants to flat-out make it illegal for anybody
under the age of 14 to play tackle football. In a world that will
never be risk-free, and where all choices involve trade-offs, it’s
a hell of a presumption that would substitute the preferences of
politicians for those of children and parents.

Benedetto started riding this particular hobbyhorse at least
four years ago, when
he said
:

I am a big sports fan, and I strongly support sports related
programs for our youth. However, I believe that we must set firm
guidelines to deal with concussions. Oftentimes the athletes’ are
not aware of the seriousness of their injuries, are pressured to
return to the field, or feel an obligation to the team to re-enter
the game thus further aggravating an already serious medical
condition.

At that time, Benedetto just wanted to track injuries and
“establish standards for school districts regarding concussions.”
Last year, though, he
introduced his outright ban
, which he’s pushing hard now amidst
the heavy pre-Superbowl media focus on football. According to

CBS New York
:

Benedetto said he believes the measure could potentially prevent
young kids from getting concussions, which run the risk of causing
brain damage.

“Every time they’re hit, or every time they fall to the ground
in a tackle, the brain will spin around in the head, causing
damage,” Benedetto said.

Well, who could object to protecting The Children™?

But football is hardly the only activity that poses physical
risks. As it so happens, my wife, Wendy, and I discussed the risks
of football with our son, Tony, during a lull in the televised
football games yesterday, when he voiced interest in playing.
Wendy, a pediatrician, has treated more than a few juvenile
concussions in her career. We told him that football is dangerous,
and that he should think about it thoroughly and be really
sure he wants to play before taking the risk. Then we can discuss
it.

But we did not say no. We’ve already signed off on Tony
engaging in a contact sport.

TonyOur eight-year-old son is a green belt in Tae
Kwon Do. This past Wednesday, he practiced with nunchucks (yes, I
have seen him clock himself in the head), before tumbling class,
and then an extended session of sparring with six separate
opponents. There were no serious injuries this time, but I’ve seen
him take a punch to the head, fall, get kicked in the ribs, shake
it off, and dive back in.

Yeah, he wears a helmet and a full array of body armor, but so
do linebackers.

Our hesitation about football strikes even me as a bit
arbitrary.

Not every parent would agree with our decision to let Tony learn
a martial art and take the risks that come with it, but it’s a
decision with which we’re comfortable. We think the dangers are
worth the self confidence, discipline, and physical fitness he’s
gained along the way. Other parents likely feel the same about
football.

Everybody has their own comfort level when it comes to balancing
risks and benefits—and a risk-free existence isn’t in the
cards.

Hell, my worst high school injury came while riding my bicycle
to school in the morning. Somebody opened a car door at the wrong
moment. Ouch. I don’t really remember the next few minutes. Damn
that morning commute

Football is dangerous. Maybe it’s too dangerous—for
some people. But it’s worth the risk for others. We all have to
make choices for ourselves, and our families. The fact that some
politicians wouldn’t make the same choices as other people isn’t
surprising. Nor does it give them any special rights over the rest
of us.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1mmjI1f
via IFTTT

Joe McCarthy Would Be Proud: Surveillance State Functionary Rep. Mike Rogers Implies Snowden Is a Russian Spy

 Mike RogersAmericans now know for a fact that the
functionaries and enablers of the domestic surveillance state will
tell bald-faced lies
even in sworn testimony to members of Congress who are supposed to
be overseeing their activities. On Sunday, one of the bigger
enablers, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) the chair of the House
Intelligence Committee implied on “Meet the Press” that National
Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is a Russian spy.
Evidence for this deadly serious
assertion? None whatsoever.

From
Reuters
:

“I believe there’s a reason he ended up in the hands – the
loving arms – of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don’t think that’s a
coincidence,” U.S. Representative Mike Rogers told the NBC program
“Meet the Press,” referring to the Russian intelligence agency that
is a successor of the Soviet-era KGB….

“You think the Russians helped Ed Snowden?” NBC’s David Gregory
asked.

“I believe there are questions to be answered there,” said
Rogers.

Hmmm. Innuendo is a game that anyone can play. Let’s see.

“I believe there’s a reason Rep. Rogers ended up in the hands –
the loving arms – of the NSA bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. I
don’t think that’s a coincidence,” say I at Reason.com,
referring to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and
his wife’s involvement with multi-billion contracts to sell
“security” services to government agencies.

Remember the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
(CISPA)? Before Edward Snowden made the extent of NSA domestic
spying public, Rep. Rogers wrote up CISPA and the House of
Represenatatives had passed it. The Electronic
Frontier Foundantion explains
that the CISPA bill…

…grants broad new powers, allowing companies to identify and
obtain “threat information” by looking at your private information.
It is written so broadly that it allows companies to hand over
large swaths of personal information to the government with no
judicial oversight—effectively creating a “cybersecurity” loophole
in all existing privacy laws.

Is it just a coincidence that Rep. Rogers strongly favors CISPA?
After all, his wife stands to benefit enormously from enabling
further domestic spying by means of CISPA. Back in April,

Techdirt
looked into the Rogers’ ties to cybersecurity
firms that would benefit from the passage of CISPA:

Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted)
a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15
times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had
received from anti-CISPA groups….

At other times, he can’t even
keep his own story straight
about whether or not CISPA is about
giving information to the NSA (hint: it is).

Techdirt goes on to report that his wife, Kristi
Clemens Rogers, now a
big time “security” lobbyist
, …

…was the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a “security” defense
contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a
b) contract with the State Department.

And it would be entirely speculative to worry that
NSA may be blackmailing Rep. Rogers using information about his
personal and financial life
. Is there any evidence for this
speculation? No, but I believe there are questions to be answered
there.

Rep. Rogers’ scurrilous performance brings to mind the
exasperated retort of Army
Special Counsel Joseph N. Welch to Tail
Gunner Joe
during the notorious 1954 Army-McCarthy Hearings:
“Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no
sense of decency?”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1fT4cw4
via IFTTT

Democratizing Gold?

Submitted by Adam Taggart via Peak Prosperity,

What if you could carry and exchange gold in the exact same manner as you do with the dollar bills in your wallet?

I've recently been introduced to a technology that's making this possible.

In today's podcast, I speak with Adam Trexler, President of Valaurum, about this technology and the gold-infused notes it creates. Valaurum's mission is to democratize ownership of gold by converting it into a form affordable to anyone.

Democratizing Gold

In short, a fractional gram's worth of gold is affixed to layers of polyester, creating a note called an "Aurum" similar in dimension and thickness to a U.S. dollar bill. This gold (usually 1/10th or 1/20th of a gram) is commercially recoverable. So an Aurum offers similar potential as a coin or bar, in terms of providing a vehicle for storing and exchanging known, dependable increments of precious metals just in much smaller (and more affordable) amounts than commercially available to date.

The big idea here? In a world where a 1oz coin of gold costs over $1,200, an Aurum will let you hold a few dollars' worth of gold in a single note. If you've got pocket change, you can be a precious metals owner.

And you don't have to change your behavior. You can store and transport an Aurum in your billfold along with your dollars.

Understanding the Aurum

As the saying goes, a picture's worth a thousand words. Here's a picture of an Aurum designed for Peak Prosperity that the Valaurum team produced for us:

(click here to purchase)

You'll see that with even just 1/20th of a gram of gold involved, it's enough to make the Aurum appear to be "made of" gold. The characteristic luster, color, and shine of the 24-karat gold used is immediately apparent.

The Aurum is designed to be handled in the same manner as we do with our "paper" money. And, despite having a more 'plastic' feel to it (resulting from the polyester backing), it's as flexible, lightweight, and familiar-feeling as paper currency.

The big difference, of course, is that instead of being a claim on something else, it simply is what it is: a fractional gram of gold. It can be stored, traded, or melted down just like a coin or bar.

Here's a brief video that gives an overview of the production process:

 

Implications

Being able to hold gold in this form is significant for several reasons. 

First, it makes gold ownership available to all budgets. Many of the world's households have been priced out of gold to date. This changes that completely.

Second, it enables the potential for everyday transactions should we ever return to a precious metal-backed monetary standard. It answers the challenge: How will you pay for your groceries with gold? With an Aurum, it's now easy.

Whether Valaurum's product emerges as the winning horse or not, the world definitely needs this type of solution (i.e., convenient fractional physical metal) to go mainstream. 

I'm very excited by this new innovation in the bullion industry, and I explore the matter in depth in this podcast. If you're similarly intrigued, it's worth the listen.

And for those of you interested in owning an Aurum of your own, you can learn how to purchase the Peak Prosperity Aurum pictured above by clicking here.

Click the play button below to listen to my interview with Adam Trexler (36m:59s):

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1jiUC6f Tyler Durden

Video of the Day – Milton Friedman Predicts the Rise of Bitcoin in 1999

Back in the late 90′s, when Paul Krugman was busy predicting the ultimate irrelevance of the internet, another Nobel Prize winning economist was forecasting the advent of peer-to-peer electronic currencies. I have to say it is remarkable that Milton Friedman was able to provide greater insight into Bitcoin ten years before it was invented, than Krugman is able to five years afterwards (check out my critique of Krugman’s Bitcoin position here).

Great one minute clip. Enjoy.

 

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1

 Follow me on Twitter.

Video of the Day – Milton Friedman Predicts the Rise of Bitcoin in 1999 originally appeared on A Lightning War for Liberty on January 20, 2014.

continue reading

from A Lightning War for Liberty http://ift.tt/1e9vL0b
via IFTTT