Cutting Government Spending Creates Jobs

Cutting Government Spending Creates Jobs

            WWII officially ended (All theaters) on 9/2/1948.  Between 1948 and 1952, over 15 million soldiers returned to the workforce.  What happened to them?  How were they employed?   It would appear that unemployment remained well under 4% from 1948 (the earliest year that data was available from BLS.gov) through 1954, except for a 2 year period that averaged 5.6%, with a very brief peak of 7.9%.  Considering the huge amount of new jobs that would have been required to employ such a deluge of returning soldiers – this seems to be rather astonishing.  Bush and Obama spent trillions in stimulus, and were unable to create a single net job, and in fact lost many millions of jobs.  So what was different after WWII?

Let’s also examine Tax rates… clearly the impressive job creation was not a result of tax cuts.

So what else could it be?

Austrian economists know that government cannot create something without first taking it from someone else.  So let us examine total government spending…   After WWII, there’s a dramatic cut in spending levels – from around 52% of GDP down to 22% in just about 2 years.  It looks like the way to create jobs – is to stop confiscating the people’s money and wasting it on government spending, which is inherently non-productive, wasteful and kills jobs.

So it would seem that the Keynesian Economists (like Obama) are completely and utterly absurd in their belief that government spending can create jobs.  It also would seem that Chicago school economists (Supply-siders, Republicans, Laffer, Friedman) who claim tax cuts alone are responsible for creating jobs – don’t quite have the whole picture.






http://www.electRichter.com

Gay Marriage? What's Government got to do with it?

We must all remember, that tolerance does not mean that we agree with or endorse a given behavior.  In fact, that we disagree with a behavior does not even mean that said behavior is wrong, it simply means we disagree with it.  If you want real freedom, you must, by definition, tolerate the views and behaviors of others - most especially when you don't agree with them.  Toleration does not however mean that others can impose their views on you, nor can they interfere with your freedoms in any way, in the exercise of their freedom.

With this in mind, let's re-evaluate the role of government on marriage.  Marriage is one of the most sacred institutions, most honored traditions that people of all cultures celebrate.  Why is it that we have allowed government to become involved in this so intimate of proceedings?  Why do we think we can trust Government to act as the benevolent dictator in this situation?  Shouldn't marriage be performed by religious organizations?  Shouldn't marriage be controlled by "We the People" and not the Government?  Why don't we take back the power of marriage, lest we lose control of it entirely?  


The legal benefits of marriage should also be conveyed by simple contracts, executed by the people entering into the agreements.  This removes government from the process and empowers the people.

****** UPDATE :  6/15/2011 ******

Ann Coulter recently opined that "Libertarians are cowards" for saying basically what I have stated above.  She claims that we've left important questions unanswered, such as, who can adopt, etc.  I thought it important to answer her attack - with logic of course.

Regardless of your opinion of gays, right or wrong, natural or unnatural, logic will prevail.

1. People are born gay, they are not taught to be gay.  If gays can only "mess up kids" by raising their kids to be gay, simply by being gay themselves, how do you get a gay in the first place, since presumably traditional families are not gay.
   
   
2. Given the vast numbers of unwanted children, children bouncing around in the foster care system, or living in abusive homes, what could possibly be worse than where they're at?  Isn't it more important that these children be placed in a loving, permanent home?  Does it really matter that the home is not what traditionalists would consider "ideal"?  Isn't what really matters is that it's a great improvement over where the kids were before?

Libertarians are most definitely not cowards, we did not ignore the issue of adoption, we just see it very differently than Ann Coulter.  We don't think Government can do anything better than the individual, most especially child care.

American Freedom Under Assault!

This week alone, we've lost the right to keep cops from entering our homes, even when they lack a proper warrant.  We've lost the right to defend our home if a cop BASHES his way in, even when he has no reasonable suspicion of an emergency.  Federal Agents raided a raw milk farm with weapons drawn.  North Carolina banned restaurants from selling Rare or Medium Rare hamburgers and now you cannot breastfeed your 2 year old in public, and worst of all, the PATRIOT ACT may be extended until 2015.  How's that for hope and change?

My Libertarian View on Abortion

The so called "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" views on abortion are actually both consistent and defensible with Libertarian views. For Libertarians, it really boils down to a question of when life begins. For those who believe that life begins at conception, then it's perfectly understandable that a Libertarian would defend that life with everything within his being. For those who believe that life begins at viability, it's also perfectly understandable that a Libertarian would defend the mother's right to choose to do what she chooses with her own body. I don't think anyone has a magic wand that will convince the other - so the best thing is to get the federal government out of it, and leave it up to each state. There's 50 opportunities for each side to have their way, and the likely outcome will be that half the states will go one way, and half will go the other. People will then have true choice about where they live, who they support, and how their tax money is spent, but we will all be better off because the federal government will be removed from the equation. Instead of focusing on differences, isn't it better to focus on the things we have in common? One thing that is probably true for all of us, is that abortions are not desirable, so we should focus on ways of educating young women to avoid these situations in the first place. We can also work together to solve the underlying reasons why certain segments of the population are much more likely to have abortions than others. It seems apparent to me that the war on drugs destroys the inner city, and this destruction of the family leads to abortions. Maybe it's time to stop treating the symptom, and start fighting the disease.

Hate speculators? Go for Gold!

If Obama hates speculators so much, here's how you get rid of them - RETURN TO THE GOLD STANDARD!  When the value of the dollar is measured by the value of gold, there is little incentive for people to gamble on the future price of the dollar, since it does not fluctuate very much if at all. Inflation ends, money stabilizes, businesses can better plan for the future, and everyone gets richer!  When the dollar is stable, oil prices will also stabilize, and again, there will be little incentive to gamble on the future price of oil.  Problem Solved.

Petition Congress to stop funding the IMF which spreads socialism!

The IMF is a very powerful tool used to spread Socialism.  It takes money from US Taxpayers and distributes it to foreign governments who then use it to create more government programs.

Osama Bin Laden's Funeral

Apparently our troops were forced to execute a very touching and respectful Muslim ceremony which lasted 45 minutes - for the despicable terrorist Osama Bin Laden, who killed thousands of Americans. Doesn't it seem like OBAMA cares more about how radicalized Muslims think of him than he cares what American citizens think of him?


Just imagine the troops that had to sit there and be respectful while they gave that terrorist an honorable funeral. It's sickening.