Catalunya Employs Classic Democracy as Oregon Taxes Weed

11/9/2014 Portland, Oregon - Pop in your mints…

For those among our readership who do not follow Spanish Politics, Catalunya, the region of Spain most easily recognized by its leading city, Barcelona, held a vote on two matters of the utmost importance to the Catalans.  The questions were posed in the following manner:

1) Do you want Catalunya to be a State?

2) Do you want that State be Independent?

The vote today in Catalunya, of which 80.72% voted "yea" on both questions, was not sanctioned or recognized by the Spanish government in Madrid, other than to say it was nothing more than propaganda.

According to The Guardian, roughly 2 million of the 5.4 million persons who were eligible to vote cast a ballot today, a roughly 37% turnout, which means that today, roughly 32.3% of those living in Catalunya took the time to submit a symbolic ballot in favor of their Independence from Spain.  For a quick comparison of this figure, 68.9% of eligible voters cast a ballot in Spain's last General Election in November of 2011.

While voter turnout today in Catalunya may not seem impressive on the surface, it takes on more meaning when one considers that, as it was unsanctioned by the Spanish Government, over 40,000 volunteers took it upon themselves to receive and count the ballots.

The Catalans have employed what we call Classic, or Grass-roots, Democracy in an effort to allow their citizens to determine in a civilized manner the most basic of questions with regards to self governance:  Shall we, as a region, be Independent?

Admittedly, Catalunya is in a unique position to do so.  Most regions, for which Independence is more a romantic idea than a practical one (the most recent example being Scotland's referendum to break ties with the UK), have much to lose and little to gain by declaring Independence.  Catalunya, on the other hand, is essentially self-sufficient and for them, remaining part of Spain has little upside.

For a time, the argument could be made that Spain provided Catalunya access to markets that it otherwise could not have sold into.  Today, this is a non-issue, as the EU trade agreements would continue to cover an Independent Catalan State.

The Spanish Government has a big problem.  While Spanish officials are swiftly and publicly denouncing the Catalans for holding what, in their mind, had already been declared an "illegal" vote, the Catalans have cleverly and very publicly made a mockery of what passes today as "Democracy" in the Sovereign States of the world who embrace this model of governance.

For what is Democracy if not the people's right to self determination?  Yet modern democracy for most boils down to questions of which hand picked candidate will occupy an embedded power structures, and whether or not to increase the existing tax and regulatory burdens imposed by this power structure.

With today's actions, the Catalans struck at the heart of the existing system.  Our guess is that one day, they and many other regions in similar situations will enjoy sovereign status as peers to their former oppressors in the EU. 

Throwing off the EU's chains, however, would be a matter settled by arms, as the French, American, and every other successful revolution against the clutches of Empire have shown.  It is not the nature of Empire to negotiate or put to vote matters of self-determination.

Oregon Taxes Weed

In our local elections, our fellow Oregonians chose to decriminalize marijuana. Joining them were the people of Washington, DC, making a total of four jurisdictions in the US that have changed the innocuous plant from a huge drain on tax revenue to a potential source of revenue with the stroke of a pen.

Weed:  It got your parents kicked out of school, now it can pay for yours.

Which way did The Mint vote on the issue?  We didn't.  You can read our reasons for abstaining from voting on State and Federal Matters in the links below:

Ballot Burning, Our Breaking Point, and Why the Next Gold Rush Just Began (notice the reference to Catalunya's Independence preparations)

Three Reasons Why We've Stopped Voting, The Trail of Tears

The Silent Majority, Why No One Will Win the 2012 Presidential Election

As the Catalans have seen in the case of the Spanish, government, once it exceeds a certain size, ceases to serve the people who created it and becomes at best parasitic and at worst, antagonistic and violent as it increasingly resorts to the use of force in an effort to advance a failed system.

Can Catalunya peacefully remove the yoke?

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Key Indicators for November 9, 2014

Copper Price per Lb: $3.07
Oil Price per Barrel (WTI):  $79.02

Corn Price per Bushel:  $3.67
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  2.31%
Bitcoin price in US:  $361.80
FED Target Rate:  0.09%
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,179

MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  5.8%
Inflation Rate (CPI):   0.1%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  17,574
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,939,700,000,000

M2 Monetary Base:  $11,485,000,000,000

A Discussion of the Merits of Short Term Interest Rate Management, Part I

4/28/2014 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

One of our working hypotheses here at The Mint is that short-term interest rate management, the primary tool employed by the Central Banks of the world to implement monetary policy, is necessarily harmful to the economy by providing incentives for achieving what otherwise would be suboptimal economic outcomes. By extension, we believe that these suboptimal outcomes are not simply a lost opportunity or a generator of wasted efforts and resources, but a primary contributor to the imbalances in the environment which today bears the label “climate change.”

Recently, we were invited to present our hypothesis at a Global Macro Roundtable for discussion. Today and over the next several days, we will present a slightly redacted transcript of the roundtable for the consideration of our fellow taxpayers. Names (with the obvious exception of our own) have been changed to protect both the innocent and guilty.

As you will see, the discussion (which we have color coded in order to help follow the cast through the maze of discussion) takes many twists and turns, and in a way reveals how far-reaching the influence of short-term interest rates has become, as well as the broad misunderstanding of the concept of money that persists to this day.

Enjoy!

A Discussion of the Merits of Short Term Interest Rate Management

The hypothesis:

Why Short-Term Interest Rate Management is Harmful to the Economy: The Unseen Funding Dynamic 

While the evidence is clear that centralized planning is a failure, pointing to the reasons why can prove elusive. Recently, a revelation regarding the problem with centralized management of short-term interest rates came upon us. The revelation is the following: Imagine you are a banker who needs to fund a loan. In order to fund this loan, you would presumably need to have the money available with which to fund it. This is simple logic, however, in the real world of banking, the decision of whether or not to fund a loan is completely disconnected from the availability of funds, which is primarily determined by the overnight funding markets which, in turn, are completely reliant upon short-term interest rates.

In a world that followed the rules of financial physics, the short-term interest rates would be completely dependent upon the availability of funds in the system. However, the centralized management of interest rates makes this critical data point, which would otherwise provide a snapshot of the amount of capital in an economic system which is held in liquid form and available for deployment, irrelevant, as the amount of capital available in today’s centrally managed system can be determined on whim.

As such, the ability of the banker to fund the loan is not dependent upon an availability of funds that represents the amount of capital available in the real world, rather, his ability to fund the loan is completely dependent upon the borrower’s ability to pay and the size of the loan in relation to the structure of the bank’s balance sheet.

The three criteria above are important, as any underwriter will tell you, but the invisible fourth criteria, the true availability of the funds for the loan, or funding dynamic, is completely ignored in the following fashion:

When the short-term interest is managed to be low, as is the case currently, any borrower who has the capacity to pay and has a lending need that fits well with a certain bank’s loan mix is extremely likely to get funded, regardless of whether or not the economics system as a whole has the capital available to fund his or her loan. When the short-term interest rate is managed to be high, as it was in the early 1980’s in the US, funding any loan, regardless of the ability to pay and fit within bank’s balance sheet, becomes impossible to fund.

In both cases, both borrower and banker are left completely in the dark as to whether or not there exists the necessary capital stock or productive capacity in the economy for the funds to be deployed in the manner that the borrower envisions, for the short-term interest rate signal has been genetically modified to send a common signal to all participants.

Unfortunately, it is a signal that blinds everyone to the facts of the situation. For many are the hopes, dreams, and ideas of mankind, but it is the funding dynamic which keeps these hopes, dreams, and ideas in harmony with the natural world upon which we all depend.

Right now, we are floating in the clouds, completely disconnected from reality. The landing caused by the next round of high rates, via a natural rebalancing of accounts or further genetic modification of the short-term rates, will be very hard indeed.

The funding dynamic is so delicate that mankind cannot hope to optimize it via genetic modification, for when left alone, it is optimized by definition. Again, by definition, every attempt to modify will bring about sub-optimal results.

As with all complex economic and political systems, dissent is information, and serves to manage the system’s outputs while at the same time increasing the resiliency of the system, making it less susceptible to shocks.

Centralized short-term interest rate management must be abandoned before it is too late, for it is leading the activities of mankind towards a dangerous showdown with the limitations of the natural world.

Discussion

“Contributor A: This brings to mind the Pareto curve reaching a knee limit and catastrophe theory when there is a Quantum state change in the system being considered (the twig will snap, the water will boil as energy (money) is added, etc.). We are expanding the money supply and disregarding that eventually an infinite amount will be needed.

One other point is the Multiplier effect at the Bank who gets $ 1 Million from the fed and uses a low Reserve to make loans greatly exceeding that because the Loans are an asset on their books ; and, as repayments come in multipliers on those. Where does it stop? When the twig snaps and then raging inflation must kick in at an Exponential level with time. Then SNAP!

Contributor B: I have no disagreement with the conclusion, however, the facts leading there need to be adjusted/considered. For example, in the early 80′s, liquidity was not nearly the issue as it was raised in the statement. Not only did my clients acquire funding as required in that period, but I [stupidly] agreed to a mortgage in that period with an interest rate that still gives me nightmares. For the last few years interest rates have been suppressed, but at the same time my middle market clients have complained of there being insufficient liquidity to fund their business loans, meaning that new business ventures were not realised. This has relaxed in the past year or two slightly, but you need to remember one of the issues regarding the vast amount of dollars being held in banks.

When the FED began shipping huge quantities of dollars to friendly banks after the 2008 crash in order to stabilise some very shaky balance sheets, the FED promised to pay interest to the banks on those funds kept in storage with one absolutely unbreakable codicil: under no circumstances could the banks use those funds as part of their asset base in making loans. In other words, none, zero, zip, nada, NONE of those FED funds could be used for loans. Clearly, this move suppressed what would have been an immediately inflationary environment in the US, a highly destructive inflationary environment. But it also left these banks which were otherwise strapped for funds floundering for any money to loan out to their best small business customers. The banks may have stabililsed in the past few years of lean flow of funds, but it is not that much better in the commercial market for small and mid-sized customers.

The Mint: As Contributor A highlights, the entire modern monetary system is extremely fragile and, given its debt base, could quickly disintegrate were a crisis of confidence to emerge or a widespread failure of technology make it inaccessible.

Contributor B (to whom I will defer on funding experiences of the early 80′s) brings up an important point in the form of the “unbreakable codicil” of the FED with regards to funding intended to shore up the Federal Reserve system. While this move made the banks and system technically solvent, the Fed has ignored the fact that the US economy has outgrown the Federal Reserve system, as the economy is starved for money at a time when the Fed’s measurements indicate that quite the opposite is true.

In the 2008 panic, the Federal Reserve deviated significantly from its traditional funding mechanisms to save its system and has altered the normal monetary transmission protocol. I believe that this has created a feedback loop which will result in the Federal Reserve system receding and other mediums of exchange posturing to take its place.

Contributor B: I thoroughly agree that it will be reset, David. However, while you may see market forces and evolved consumer needs driving this reset, I tend to pay attention to the political aggression of states not at all amicable to the interests of the FED and believe the geopolitical transformation we will witness may be the lynchpin upon which the existence of the FED depends. In the long run it will not really matter to the FED whether it is driven by the economic needs of the consumer or the geopolitical ambitions of another nation, but it will matter to the ordinary participants, I suspect. The withering of FED control worn away by alternative exchange mechanisms will provide a much different life at ground level than the sudden repudiation of the USD as the world reserve currency as anticipated (and desired it seems) by the Chinese military (along with a few others who are tired of US economic hegemony). The former is a transformative change more gradual in nature while the latter can be far more sudden in keeping with the rapid shifts in the global market; the former providing the opportunity to adjust more peacefully while the latter is expected to lead to widespread disruptions in service, food, and support delivery at the ground level. Food riots, water riots, just plain riots, and toilet paper riots… sorry, basic staples of urban and 21st century life will be in short supply. I think I’ll find farmland in another country far away.

For ease of transition, I’d vote for alternative exchange mechanisms. Curiously, I saw an article a few weeks ago that noted extreme activity increases in southeast Asia on Bitcoin and the development of alternatives… either opportunity or another front in the attack on the USD. It can be both.
Now, to envision a world without central banks. That takes us back a while in history…

Then again, perhaps this graph {Editor’s Note: Regarding the Longevity of currency reserve status over the past 600 years} tells it all:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/01/20120103_JPM_reserve.png

… and speaking of market competitors, Googlecoin? it is being touted already.

Contributor C:

“Centralized short-term interest rate management must be abandoned before it is too late, for it is leading the activities of mankind towards a dangerous showdown with the limitations of the natural world.”

I like above statement. 

This game of interest rate putting up and down could create a crisis if somebody implemented at the wrong time. I consider interest rate as a weapon of mass of destruction if we manage it recklessly. Interest rate volatility creates problems for investors, homeowners and other savers. What about instruments linked to interest rates? What will happen if we don’t carefully manage or misuse those instruments? Why do we see higher interest rates in some periods and lower interest rates in some periods? Can’t we find solution to fix interest rates without creating volatility?”

The discussion, which is about to take many an unforeseen turn, continues tomorrow…things are about to get lively (at least lively as far as short-term interest rates discussions go) indeed!

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Key Indicators for April 28, 2014

Copper Price per Lb: $3.07
Oil Price per Barrel: $100.93
Corn Price per Bushel: $5.07
10 Yr US Treasury Bond: 2.68%
Bitcoin price in US: $431.71
FED Target Rate: 0.10%
Gold Price Per Ounce: $1,303
MINT Perceived Target Rate*: 0.25%
Unemployment Rate: 6.7%
Inflation Rate (CPI): 0.2%
Dow Jones Industrial Average: 16,361
M1 Monetary Base: $2,721,500,000,000
M2 Monetary Base: $11,353,000,000,000

We must all do what we can: Moments I’ve gotten choked up at the idea of America

We were privileged today to witness an oath ceremony which is taken by residents of the United States who have chosen to become naturalized citizens.  What we thought would be a mildly interesting event, which for those taking the oath serves as the final step towards becoming a full-fledged American citizen, moved us to tears.

The ceremony, far from being a bureaucratic event with little more to offer congratulatory remarks and an official seal affixed to a document, is a veritable celebration of the idea of America.

What is moving about the ceremony, at least for us, is a video segment which shows still shots of immigrants of the past, all of whom have come to America’s shores to escape oppression,  seek opportunity, or both.  It is very powerful.

After the ceremony, they show a brief video address by President Obama, where he welcomes the immigrants to America by inviting them to become part of the great American story which is now their story as well.  He encourages them to do good both in their communities and throughout the world.

The ceremony is a celebration of the American idea, that all men and women are free, and that with this freedom comes the obligation to protect it and to share it with others.  To use it for the betterment of mankind.

It chokes us up to think about it.  We have only been brought to tears at the idea of America three times:  First, in 1992, watching Carl Lewis anchor the 4 x 100 relay in Barcelona, where he covered 100 meters faster than any human being before or since.  Second, while watching the movie Seabiscuit.  And third, today, at the citizenship oath ceremony.

Despite the faults that are inherent in self-government, we will always be inspired by the idea of America and have a profound respect for immigrants, both legal and illegal, for they are the embodiment of this ideal.

In closing, we echo the President’s exhortation, both in the State of the Union and in his video message welcoming new US citizens, that we must all do what is within our power to better the lot of our fellow-man and woman, for to better their lot is to better our own.

Worldwide Gun ownership and homicide rate info-graphic and the purpose of bad news

2/12/2013 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

Tonight’s State of the Union address by President Obama will once again draw a sharp focus on gun control, or lack thereof in the United States.  The theory held out by gun control advocates is that restricting access to guns will serve as a deterrent to violence.  Unfortunately, the statistics on a national and global scale argue firmly against this cause/effect relationship, as the following info-graphic illustrates:

Contrary to Utopian logic, an increase in overall gun ownership serves to decrease the rate of intentional homicides, not the reverse.

If a higher incidence of gun ownership paradoxically produces a lower intentional homicide rate, why would the idea of gun control be floated by the leader of the “Free” world at all, especially when such ideas are in clear contradiction with the document which He has sworn to uphold?

The Benefits of bad news

Mr. Obama and the rest of the well-meaning individuals who are at the head of the rallying cry for increased gun control have one thing in mind when they float such ideas:

Outliers

Columbine, Sandy Hook, and innumerable other mass shootings in recent history have cast a stigma over gun ownership that world improvers, our pet name for those who believe that they and only they know what is best for humanity, have latched on to as evidence that only certain persons should be allowed to possess firearms.

Clearly, mass shootings are horrific tragedies and attempts to avoid them should be made at all costs.   Again, paradoxically, they seem to occur in environments when the instigator(s) are the only ones in possession of a firearm.  However, while they race to the top of the news feeds when they occur, mass shootings are generally outliers to the human experience.  As such, while they are horrific tragedies, they are not as common as one would think.

It is for these reasons, both that they are uncommon and that they are horrific, that the national psyche attaches to them and examines them the way one would rise to investigate an unexpected sound in the night.  For it is our rightly held belief as human beings that these things should not be, and if they have occurred, then something must be wrong.  The glory of free societies is the indomitable belief that if something is wrong, we, the people, can work to make it right.

In this sense, while we cringe at the many headlines that announce a mass shooting, or any act of violence, for that matter, we have trained ourselves to breathe a sigh of relief.  For the very fact that they are being reported on means that an investigation of their root causes will rise to a level of national debate.  This reporting and national debate is one of the healthiest expressions of free speech that can occur.

While we do not believe that gun control will serve to mitigate tragedies, we are pleased that the debate rages on, for the answers are out there, and it gives us hope for all of mankind that we are diligently searching for it.

After you are shocked by the next tragic headline that comes your way, remember to give thanks for your reaction.  For this reaction, at its core, is an inkling of the hope for the betterment of all mankind that is alive and well within you.

So carry on, Mr. President, as Free men and women, we are privileged to hear you out, as well as disagree on solutions.  We share your sorrow at these events, and will work to make a better world for ourselves and our posterity.

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

BlogThis!

Anarchy is an Ultimate Given - A New Ebook on Kindle

The following is the introduction to our latest ebook, which is now available on Kindle.  It is the latest volume in the Why what we use as Money Matters series.  Enjoy!

Anarchy is an Ultimate Given

An∙ar∙chy – noun – ‘anərkē

The definition of anarchy, according to the Merriam-webster Dictionary:

1.a:  absence of government

  b:  a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

  c:  a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2.a:  absence or denial of any authority or established order

  b:  absence of order

Disarming the State is as simple as changing and then using one’s mind

Anarchy.  The word strikes fear in the hearts general public, who have been trained to conjure images from fraternity house shenanigans to rioting and looting on the streets of important cities at its mention.  For most civilized persons, with these mental images close at hand, anarchy is something to be avoided at all costs.  How can civilized society carry on with the threat of bombs and looting effectively slamming the brakes on human progress?

In this volume, we seek to free the concept of anarchy from these negative connotations.  For anarchy, far from being the greater evil in the choice amongst evils when it comes to man’s state in this world, is really not a choice at all.  Rather, anarchy is something that every human being and animal on the planet is born into.  It is the basic state of man in this world.  It is an ultimate given.

As an ultimate given, it is futile, nay, self-destructive for men and women to live their lives fretting about falling from a state of order into one of anarchy.  The line of thinking is debilitating and counterproductive to what must be mankind’s highest and most urgent calling in the physical realm:  How best to respond to the state of anarchy in which they live.

For it is not anarchy itself that causes disorder and the other maladies which the mere mention of the word bring to mind, but mankind’s failed responses to this ultimate given under which they labor and cause others to labor on their behalf.  The only thing more dangerous than confusing anarchy for the disorder which arises from the collapse of a failed response to it, is to spend ones life’s toils aiding another person’s failed response to his or her inherently anarchic surroundings.

Further, this volume seeks to give the reader a sufficient level of awareness to step back, if even for a moment, to evaluate the response to anarchy under which they are currently laboring and make a sober evaluation as to whether they are truly laboring in alignment with their own best interests.

Too many lives have been wasted laboring under a mistaken fear and avoidance of anarchy, and we hope this volume will steer the reader away from this fate.  It may not change the way you think or what you do at all, and that is good.  For to personally validate ones own course in life with a firmer grasp of the facts has caused harm to no one.  In fact, it should cause one to carry on with a renewed sense of pride and purpose.  We only encourage you, then, to offer others the chance to give their own lives a sober evaluation, and respect their decision to change once they truly understand the wonderful anarchy into which we are all born.

The book is now available on Kindle and will be available on Smashwords in early May.

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

An Open Letter to Evo Morales

10/29/2012 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

While we have taken the decision, along with a silent majority of Americans, not to vote in the upcoming national elections, this does not mean that we have given up hope for change, quite the contrary.

Here at The Mint, for better or worse, we have opinions that cannot be confined to a dot on a pre printed scantron form.  They require words and dialogue.

Enter the open letter.  If one is to effect change in this world, it is important to correspond with those who are in the seats of power and therefore have the ability to effect positive change in this world.  If we can change their mind, they can change the world.

When writing world leaders, it is important to both acknowledge their authority and use terminology which we understand to be important to them.  We must recognize them as an ally for we share a common aim, the good of themselves and their people.  Finally, as people who are derided daily for serving their populace, they need encouragement.

The following is a copy of our open letter to Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia.  A proper Spanish translation will be forthcoming.  Enjoy!

October 29, 2012

An open letter addressed to His Excellency Evo Morales Ayma, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia,

Allow me to extend my warmest greetings to you, Mr. President, and to the honorable people of the great Andean Republic of Bolivia.  May they live long and prosper in the blessed land that they inhabit which you capably govern as their humble servant.

I have watched, both from near and far, your passion to liberate and elevate the Peoples which inhabit the land known today as the Plurinational State of Bolivia.  I have watched with admiration your courage and determination as you have risen to your current position and as you continue to labor daily for the liberation and dignity of those who have, for too long, been victims of unjust oppression.

I write you today for two reasons.  First, to encourage you in your noble struggle.  All great leaders, as you know all too well, face adversity, criticism, and opposition from those who are threatened by what they represent.  These forces have only increased in intensity as you take steps to repair centuries of injustices.  Know that though there may be some with loud voices who heap insults upon you for taking action while they sit idly by, there are many, though their voices be soft, who pray for your health, strength, and wisdom.

Our second motive for writing to you is to humbly offer you three principles which, to the extent they are followed, will allow the Peoples of the land known as Bolivia to excel economically.  Bolivia is already a rich land.  In the hands of the people, it will be made richer.


Evo Morales – President of Bolivia, photo taken December 17, 2007 in Brazil by Marcello Casal Jr. of Agencia Brasil http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/media/imagens/2007/12/17/1840MC44.jpg



Together with you, we reject the Neo-Liberal principles which have wrought destruction on those Peoples who have blindly employed them.  Our aim is to provide you with the tools with which not only Bolivia, but all of the inhabitants of the earth, can strive to observe the ten commandments to save the planet which you have generously contributed to the world.

While the titles of these principles may appear in conflict with your first and sixth commandments, we ask that you carefully read the explanations and see that the operation of these three principles will allow for the accomplishment of your ten commandments which to save the earth from exploitation.

A word of caution, it is exceedingly important that these economic principles operate together, or they will not operate at all:

Liberty:  Much has been written on the subject of Liberty.  Truly, it is the precursor to dignity and the cornerstone of all civilized human societies.  As it applies to economic policy, liberty means that Peoples will prosper to the extent that artificial restrictions on their ability to work, produce, and trade are removed.  The correlation between Liberty and civilized society is so great, that the chorus of the Bolivian anthem rings especially true:

“Morir antes que esclavos vivir!” {For those reading this in English, it translates as: “We will die before living as slaves.”}

The concept of Liberty, to be productive in society, must not be limited merely to speech and movement, as it is today in most societies which pretend that their inhabitants are free, but rather extended to the ability for a person to engage in trade and other activities at will to the extent that engaging in the activity does not infringe upon the Liberty or property of another.  This is the key to Liberty, as it keeps the earth in balance.  Dangerous imbalances occur when the Liberties of one group are subordinated to those of another.  Our third principle, Equality before the law, deals with this.

Perhaps most importantly today, Liberty must be extended into the banking and currency realm, leaving the decision of the most acceptable medium and methods of trade in the hands of the people.

Private Property:  For all of the virtues that the principle of Liberty bestows upon a people, the principle is nothing more than an intangible idea unless its natural byproduct, the principle of Private Property, is respected equally by all members of society.  The concept of Private Property is the basis for any and all productive activity which takes place on the earth, from sowing a field to building a wells to provide access to clean water.

Beyond the ownership of one’s person, which should go without saying, a person or group of persons must be able to lawfully possess property, which they may choose to work and share as they please, with the expectation that they will be able to both employ and enjoy the fruits of their labors.

In the same way, the principle of Private Property comes with the obligation to care for and maintain the property that one is entrusted with.  The principle itself provides the incentive for the property to be maintained as persons will naturally care for something that they will either enjoy themselves or prepare for sale to another free individual.

In order to be both productive and well maintained, Private property must be held at the individual, family, or community level.  If property is held by the government or another large entity, it will be exploited in the same way that property is today exploited by large corporations, who have no direct incentive to care for it after they have extracted the wealth from it.

Equality before the Law:  The principles of Liberty and Private Property must be secured for all by the concurrent operation of the principle of Equality before the Law.  For people to prosper economically, they must know not only which actions are permitted, but that the laws which are enforced are administered in the same manner to all members of society, regardless of perceived wealth or lack of wealth, race, sex, color, or origin.  Only if there is a perceived equality before the law can persons plan and carry out their daily activities.

Equality before the law is the basis for a just society in which people may prosper in accordance with their efforts to help their fellow-man by serving their most intensely felt needs.  As such, all laws in a society should focus on protecting both the life and rightful property of the individual or group, any law extending beyond these two realms necessarily serves to limit both the right to Liberty and Private Property which must be held sacred allowed to operate unhindered so that the greatest possible amount of material good can come to the greatest possible number of persons in a society.

We offer you these three principles, knowing that in your wisdom and benevolence, the Peoples who find themselves under your care will benefit greatly and become the envy of the nations of the earth, not for the natural wealth they care for and produce, but for the nobility of their convictions.

Your dedication and service to the people of Bolivia is an inspiration to all of humanity.  Our desire is to see all of the Bolivian people, and the Peoples of the world, live in balance and freedom with God, nature, and each other.

Be encouraged and may God bless you and all Bolivia.

All the best,

David Mint

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for October 29, 2012

Copper Price per Lb: $3.49
Oil Price per Barrel:  $95.54
Corn Price per Bushel:  $7.37
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.75%
FED Target Rate:  0.16%  ON AUTOPILOT, THE FED IS DEAD!
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,710 PERMANENT UNCERTAINTY
MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  7.8%
Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.6%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  13,107
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,334,000,000,000
M2 Monetary Base:  $10,199,400,000,000

Our Theory of Economic System Fluidity: Marx and Rand together in perfect harmony

10/22/2012 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

In the realm of economic thought, there are two extremes.  On one end of the spectrum sits the economic equivalent of Karl Marx’s workers’ paradise, known as Socialism.  On the other end sits the economic expression of Ayn Rand’s rugged individualism, known as Capitalism.  As anyone who has studied these philosophical extremes can tell you, the operation of real world seems to constantly fall somewhere in the space between the two, making strict adherence to either an indefensible position.

While apologists for these extreme positions do a wonderful job of explaining why complete adherence to their ideals by all would lead to an utopia on earth, a careful examination of the arguments, along with a quick glance at how things operate in the real world, lead one to conclude thatevidence of both Socialist and Capitalist ideals can be found in nearly any system.
How can this be?  If the extremes are both correct in their reasoning, they msut be mutually exclusive of each other.  However, we look around at the world around us, as well as into the depths of our own souls, and we invariabley find an uncomfortable coexistence of ideals that is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile.

That is, until today.

Our aim today is to reconcile this age old dilemna.  Fret no more, fellow taxpayer, for the answer is simple:  Socialism works for local systems, while large scale systems are best served by embracing Capitalist ideals.

How can this be?  The answer is simple.

Socialism, with its embrace of community property and centralized decision making, is a superior policy for systems until they reach a critical mass.  Socialism unwittingly provides the framework in which society cares for its economically weaker members.  It is a system which is entered into with the understanding that at least a portion of one’s actions will take the form of altruism, that is, they will work for the benefit of others without the expectation of material compensation.  In fact, socialism is the basis for the family unit into which a great deal of humanity enters the world.

Karl Marx

 

Given the barbarities which are justified in the name of profit, it can be said that the basis for morality and human decency most frequently occurs in a Socialist setting.  Given the inherent requirement of altruism, Socialism is the system which asks the individual to look beyond themselves.  However, as we touch on later, Socialism on a large scale tends to bring out the worst in human beings, as the inevitable onset of poverty quickly diminishes any moral advantage that small scale Socialism may enjoy.

We digress on the question of morality for a moment and instead submit to you an insightwith regards to the corporate structure.  It is the revelation that Corporations, entities which are held out as the champions of Capitalism, are, in fact, Socialist institutions (the stunned silence is deafening, please do read on, fellow taxpayer, it will make sense, trust us.)

It is for this reason that wages do not fit well into free market pricing mechanism and instead lend themselves to the “Labour theory of value” which is a base concept of Socialist philosophy.
The logical proof is the following:  The employer, employee relationship is based on a set rate per time period of work.  Once it has been agreed upon, the wage rate ceases to adhere to free market theory and bcomes a component of the Labour theory of value.  The top level managers in corporations that employ persons in an employee capacity become the centralized authorities in what is a socialist realm.

Another proof of this can be found in that property, which is held in the name of the Corporation, is cared for and used by employees.  As such, corporate property, as its name would imply, is held in common by subjects who themselves have no property rights in said property.  They may be offered shares in the corporation themselves, but this does not directly effect their day to day use of the Corporation’s (their employer’s) real and personal property.

A majority of human beings today find themselves as part of a Socialist entity of some sort, be it a family, household, corporation, or governmental employer (which, for purposes of analysis, behaves in a similar fashion to a corporation).  It is within these systems that we have most of our day to day interactions.  It is understandable, then, that most people would see a form of Socialism as the basis for a utopian ideal.

However, the members of these same Socialist organizations, the heads of household, CEOs, heads of government, members of Boards of Directors, salespeople, security personnel, customer service agents, and a host of others, well know that the “esprit de corps” which may exist in their organization is thrown aside in their dealings with the outside world.  The outside world, where individual corporations collide, is marked by brutal self interest and the protection of private property rights which are the hallmarks of Capitalism.

What gives?

Capitalism, the system which honors private property rights and glorifies the pursuit of self interest, must be embraced and allowed to operate in an unhindered state as the basis for the interactions between the small scale Socialist systems (families, corporations with employees, and those brave individuals who choose to face the Anarchic system of the world alone.)

Ayn Rand

The reason that Capitalism must be embraced by the smaller systems is that its principles, namely the laws of supply and demand and the Golden Rule, must be allowed dictate their day to day activities so that the smaller systems can better adapt and survive in a harsh, unforgiving environment.  To put it another way, Capitalism is a superior response to the Anarchy in which we all find ourselves, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

However, apart from its invaluable contributions to understanding the material world, even hard core Capitalists would agree that blind adherence to the Capitalist creed would not only lead to a trampling of those less fortunate in society, but the potential isolation of the individual from human warmth, feeling, and dare we say, loss of the ability to love.

For all of the virtues of Capitalism, its potential frigidness at the individual level and lack of a clear moral compass make it unpalatable to the majority as an absolute ideal.

So the answer is simple.  Socialism operates on a small scale, Capitalism on a large scale.  Marx asks Rand to dance, she accepts, and the world makes sense.  As the theory of biologos attempts to bring harmony to the polarization of two views of the world’s origins, our theory of economic system fluidity allows the economist and politician to embrace both the virtues of the Socialist ideal as well as the Capitalist economic imperative.

The final question which begs to be asked is the following:  In terms of size, at what point is it appropriate for a system to stop being guided by Socialist principles and to break up into units better able to cope with the Anarchic surroundings, meaning a leap to the Capitalist model, which naturally defines the size limitation of what may be called a functional Socialist system?
While there is no firm answer, it is clear that a Socialist system has reached its limit when it is corporately bankrupt and unable to fulfill its commitments, either morally or financially, to its members.

In the case of the corporation, it must adjust its productive activities and/or release either property or employees into the capitalist system until it finds equilibrium.  The released Employees then find themselves, albeit for a moment, in what may be called the free market for labor.  In it, they will either learn to compete perpetually in the capitalist environment and form their own small scale socialist entity, or link up quickly with another socialist entity, be it another corporation, state welfare, or the generosity of a family unit.

The fact that both families and corporations can accumulate wealth are proof that socialist entities can and do compete and thrive in a world where capitalist thinking and political structures are an imperative.  It is the ability of each unit to adapt to changes and to seize opportunities which makes the difference.

There is much more to say about this but it will have to wait for another day.  We leave you with what should now be obvious.  When Socialism is employed on large scales, it looses both its ability to compete as well as any moral superiority which it may have enjoyed.  When persons are thrust headlong into poverty, which is the logical economic end of large scale Socialism, what were once moral imperatives are tossed aside in pursuit of purely Capitalistic aims in a desperate attempt to eat.

Anyone who has lived such an event will attest that it is in these unfortunate circumstances that the rotten core of humanity is laid bare for all to see.  While unbridled Capitalism has its own faults, which are daily brought to light in the media as a reminder of when it has been allowed to run too far.  It is this consciousness, and the human desire for mercy, which work to keep the evils of Capitalism in check.

The beauty of the theory is that the normal operation of each system keeps the proliferation other in check, any attempts by government or sovereigns to impose or preserve one system over the other will end in disaster.

Rushing to extremes is for fools, for the Kingdom of God is one of perfect balance.

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for October 22, 2012

Copper Price per Lb: $3.64
Oil Price per Barrel:  $89.16
Corn Price per Bushel:  $7.61
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.80%
FED Target Rate:  0.15%  ON AUTOPILOT, THE FED IS DEAD!
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,729 PERMANENT UNCERTAINTY
MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  7.8%
Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.6%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  13,345
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,334,000,000,000
M2 Monetary Base:  $10,199,400,000,000

The Silent Majority, why no one will win the 2012 Presidential Election

10/23/2012 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

A few days ago, we laid out three seemingly absurd reasons why we have decided not to vote in the upcoming elections, with the exception of city and county referendums.  If you missed it, you can read our rant here:

Three Reasons why we’ve stopped voting, The Trail of Tears

In the spirit of full disclosure of our voting record, we have voted in just two of the five Presidential elections that we have been eligible to cast a vote in.  Namely, in 2004, we voted for the incumbent on the indefensible reasoning of choosing the “Lesser of two evils,” for though it be the lesser, one has still chosen evil.  In 2008, we wrote in Ron Paul, albeit with an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness, as write in votes are, if anything, a symbolic gesture.

In the meantime, we have dutifully filled out countless circles on scantron sheets and scanned countless pages of voter’s guides in a fruitless effort to understand, to loosely quote Joe DiMaggio as he came upon his then wife, Marilyn Monroe, striking her now famous pose as she stood over a steam grate in Times Square, “what the hell is going on around here.”

By the time the most recent ballot arrived in the mail, along with a voter’s guide which rivaled the yellow pages in size, our disillusionment for what today passes as democracy was complete.  We resolved, then and there, to stop tacitly endorsing the enslavement and slaughter of persons with which we have no quarrel.  We would withhold our vote.

Given our history and our most recent resolution, it can be said that we have not exactly been the model of someone fulfilling their civic duty.  Yet strangely, since coming to grips with our non-voter status, we have never slept better.

Are we alone in our disillusionment?  Or is our shunning of civic responsibility something native to the American landscape?  We have taken it upon ourselves, fellow taxpayer, to provide you with the shocking answer to these questions.

We began by analyzing a data set of the total US voter turnout against the corresponding voting age population (VAP) at the time.  We chose the Presidential election years in the US as they are generally the election cycles which elicit the highest voter turnout.  Fortunately for us, the voter turnout  for the Presidential elections held from 1828 – 2008 is accessible on Wikipedia.
To arrive at the VAP totals, which were provided for the election years 1960 and later, for the prior elections (1828 – 1956), we did the simple inverse math of dividing the number of votes by the stated voter turnout percentage.  This gave us a “theoretical” VAP with which to perform our analysis.  We then pulled census data for each year which coincided with an election year to satisfy ourselves that our methods were sound.

Within the data set, we then broke the number of popular votes cast in each election, which is also available on Wikipedia, down three ways.  Those for the candidate with the majority of votes, those cast for the one who came in second, and the combined votes for all other candidates which were counted.  The counts are presented in the order of the highest number of popular votes received, not those cast by the electoral college.  It is interesting to note that in four times in US History (three of which, 1876, 1888, and 2000, appear in our data set) the candidate with the highest tally of popular votes was not elected to the Presidency.

We then took the number of popular votes by category and divided it against the VAP for those deemed eligible to vote to arrive at our final data point, the percentage of the VAP which cast a vote for the candidate.  As we did this, we added a fourth category which we call the “No vote,” to capture, for comparison purposes, the percentage of the VAP who simply did not cast a ballot.

We then took the four resulting percentages by election year, from 1828 – 2012* (*We extrapolated the findings based on 2008 turnout and today’s Intrade market for the election) and asked two questions:

1)  In each election analyzed, was the President elected by a simple majority of the total VAP?
2)  In each election analyzed, did the percentage of No votes represent an absolute majority of the VAP?

While we wouldn’t stretch this analysis to question the legitimacy of a Presidential election, the findings are nonetheless fascinating with regards to the presence of non-voters in America.  You can see a graphic of the percentages for each candidate juxtaposed against the “No vote” candidate by election year, on the plot below.

On the plot, the highest mark is the winner.  The “X” on the plot represents where the “No vote” candidate, if you will, would have finished.  The colors of the other markers, despite their blue, red, and green tones, do not indicate which party won that year, only the percentage of votes received by the first, second, and all other candidates for whom votes were cast:

In summary, when taken against eligible voters, the No vote majority began to emerge in 1916 after a 75 year hiatus, and took firm command of the polls in 1968.  However, 2012 is shaping up to be an exception, and, if current trends hold, it can be said that, come November 7th, there will be a President actively selected by a majority of the eligible VAP in the US for the first time since Lyndon B. Johnson.

Now, most voters in the US are aware that women were not allowed to participate in elections as voters until 1920.  Don’t worry ladies, nor the rest of those who were/are part of the disenfranchised, we have not forgotten you.  In fact, when the analysis is expanded to include all of the presumed VAP over 18, regardless of their technical eligibility to vote, (which is the number used to arrive at the voter turnout percentages) the results are even more dramatic:

What we see in this analysis is that, since 1828, there has been only one President who was elected by a simple majority of the VAP, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.  In fact, those who did not vote consistently represented an absolute majority until 1928, which means, depending upon how one interprets the No-votes, there may not have been a President who was elected to office in the purest democratic sense until Eisenhower.  While we admit it is a bit far fetched, it is nonetheless fascinating to ponder.

 

Voter frustration/apathy, after taking a break through a good portion of the 20th century, returned to America in 1996, as Bill Clinton defied the indifferent masses, which again represented an absolute majority of Americans as it had in all pre 1928 elections, and extended his stay on Pennsylvania Avenue for four more glorious years.

Blanco o Nulo?  The question of interpretation of the Non-votes.

Blank or Null?  The answer to this question determines how one will ultimately interpret the data which we have gathered.  Are we to take the “No votes” as “votes in Blanco,” meaning that the lack of a countable vote signifies tacit assent to the selection of the voting majority?  This is the generally accepted analysis of the absence of votes in America, where voting is not obligatory.
Or shall we take them, or at least a portion of them, as “Nulo,” meaning that the absence of a countable vote signifies a disillusionment with the democratic process so deep that one simply refuses to go through the motions to lend even a shred of legitimacy to the process? 

In Bolivia, it is obligatory to vote, if you cannot provide proof that you have voted, you can face a fine, or worse.  This legal obligation has also given rise to an explicit form of voting, “in Nulo,” which can be cast if one chooses not to select one of the candidates or decide on a measure which has been presented.

It is the formalization of a conscientious objection.  The likes of which have only been officially tallied in US in the bizarre election of the year 2000, when a Washington DC resident filed a vote as an “abstention” in protest of Washington DC’s lack of representation in Congress.

So which is it, blanco or nulo?  It is an important question, and one that, unlike Bolivia, the United States voting regimen currently has no tool to answer.

We have provided a link to the data sheet used to create the above graphics so that you can check our work as well as expand and hopefully improve upon it.  Please feel free to download it and use it as you wish.

No Votes – Analysis and Charts of US Presidential Elections 1828-2012

As November 6, 2012 approaches, the votes are tallied, and a President of the United States is declared, stay tuned long enough to catch the data on voter turnout.  With the latest measure of voter apathy in hand, go to a quiet place and ask yourself the following question:

Did the American people win the election?  If our predictions are correct, the answer will be the same as it has been with regards to every election before and since everybody liked Ike:

We’ll have lost yet again.

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for October 23, 2012

Copper Price per Lb: $3.58
Oil Price per Barrel:  $86.46
Corn Price per Bushel:  $7.56
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.76%
FED Target Rate:  0.15%  ON AUTOPILOT, THE FED IS DEAD!
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,708 PERMANENT UNCERTAINTY
MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  7.8%
Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.6%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  13,103
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,334,000,000,000
M2 Monetary Base:  $10,199,400,000,000