Some politicians have gone “green” in the name of curtailing “dependence on fossil fuels” and “foreign oil.” It’s a sham. Why not promote a certain type of underwear in the name of curtailing dependency on a foreign brand?

The fundamental problem is that most politicians and central planners view the economy as a blob to be manipulated, rather than a complex capital structure involving individuals making choices in exchanges, a process of production, and a price mechanism.

The reason why the United States is so dependent upon foreign oil is due to policies that have already been put in place. The solution, then, is to repeal and correct these policies – not creating new legislation.

Artificially low interest rates, brought on by loose monetary policy at the FOMC, drives capital overseas (by deploying unearned income from a printing press, disconnecting consumption from production, capital is also consumed). Capital naturally gravitates to cheaper, more efficient, higher-yielding economies. Rather than generating revenue and income, the nation spends beyond its means.

If a person, firm, or nation is dependent upon inflationary credit expansion (as opposed to credit expansion from savings), then that person, firm, or nation is insolvent and inefficient. We are spending beyond our means, which – yes – engenders dependence upon cheaper markets to supply us with production.

If you want to reduce dependence upon foreign “anything,” then the Fed has to lift interest rates and Washington has to abandon the spending orgy. Dollars that have been accumulating in foreign reserves will then come flowing back into the system.

I know “clean” energy sounds so nice, so attacking it is very “environmentally-incorrect.” I will put everything I possibly can into layman’s terms. Let’s start with the following axiom: we consume energy in everything we do. If you’re that environmentally-conscious, you shouldn’t be online reading this right now because you’re using electricity which is consuming energy.

Solar energy sounds so nice. After all, it comes from the sun. But let’s not forget that there is a process of production here. Take, for example, the solarization of a house. Solar energy requires panels, charge controllers, batteries, inverters, etc. And then let’s not forget capital asset depreciation. Energy is consumed during the process of production.

If “clean” energy has a positive yield, then it will be profitable and private enterprise will pony up the capital. The government need not encourage this. If “clean” energy has a negative yield, then this means that it is unprofitable and dependent on so-called “dirty” energy for its sustenance. It would be akin to consuming 1,000 blueberries for every 500 you’re growing – nobody in their right mind would pursue that course absent government subsidies. Somewhere, you have to make up the difference.

This leads me to the following axiom: the most profitable and economically-efficient form of energy, within the construct of the unhampered market, is also the cleanest form of energy.

The best ecological hygienist is the unhampered market. Suppose a logging company owns a forest. That logging company can clear-cut the forest, say, tripling immediate income. However, this must be weighed against diminishing future income, or the capital value of the forest as a whole. Suppose, however, this is government property. This calculation no longer needs to be made, and the objective is going to be rapid extraction of resources.

No shocker, then, that government is the biggest abuser of the environment and waster of resources. Look at the atomic weapons tests done in the Nevada desert – and right on top of our own military service members.

The government does not sustain itself by satisfying consumer demands, but through compulsory taxation. Government subsidies to, and control over, industry diminishes the need to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand. Why? Because sustenance is no longer dependent upon having to satisfy consumer demands. Sustenance is disconnected from the satisfaction of consumer demands.

It’s the price mechanism that ensures resources are allocated and managed efficiently. The price mechanism can only function within the construct of the unhampered market, allowing for producers to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand (i.e. market-clearing prices). The scarcer the supply, the greater the demand, the higher the price. Consumption runs inversely with prices.

Government subsidies distort prices, interfering with the price mechanism, and cause prices to be set above, or below, market-clearing prices. There is a paradox in government policy in that the government encourages consumption without production (in the name of economic stimulus), tells us that we should conserve resources, while simultaneously punishing “price gouging.” Within the construct of the unhampered market, there can’t be price gouging any more than there can be wage gouging, since vendors can’t short inventories at prices beyond what consumers are both willing and able to pay.

Prices send signals to entrepreneurs, telling them where to deploy capital. Prices tell consumers what to buy and what not to buy. The price mechanism can only function within the construct of an unhampered market. There’s no need for the government to encourage or discourage the use of any kind of energy. And let’s not forget that tax credits are subsidies camouflaged as tax cuts. A tax credit merely allows a person to use a portion of income for a specific purpose (i.e. indirect subsidy). (See: http://www.businesstaxrecovery.com/articleupdates/definition-tax-credit)

I write as a native-Minnesotan. Minnesota is one of the first states that employed the use of ethanol-blend fuels. Let me say that if I see anything with ethanol in it, I avoid it like the plague. It’s “cheap” for a reason; it’s inefficient.

Only can politicians get away with turning efficient food into inefficient fuel. If politicians keep at it, we will soon be filling our automobiles up with corn and drinking motor oil. Maybe after installing those solar panels, the government can begin shooting those pollution particles (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5128109/Shoot-pollution-particles-into-atmosphere-to-cool-Earth-says-Obama-adviser.html) – which supposedly ”clean energy” is designed to prevent – into the atmosphere in order to block the sun and “save” us from “global warming.” Sounds like the perfect plan. It’s a plan only a politician in D.C. could dream up.

Soon, we will not only be dependent upon foreign sources of “fossil fuels,” but also so-called “clean energy.” Unless you get out and support Ron Paul for president.

Here’s the only problem that we run into. Criminalizing prostitution will never make the activity go away. So do we treat the prostitute as a criminal, while simultaneously a sitting senator is capable of having sex with a staffer and then paying $90,000 to her spouse? If we reject the notion of treating prostitutes as criminals, then we run into an enforcement issue. Personally, I don’t like the idea of treating prostitutes as criminals myself. However, I do have a solution.

Let’s treat prostitution as mental illness. After all, we treat people who believe in sound money and economic liberty and even Biblical Christianity as mentally ill. Now, let me ask the reader something. Suppose you had a neighbor in, say, his sixties and you knew he was having sexual relations with women in their twenties. How would you feel about that? Would you let your kids go anywhere near his house? Ah. But if it’s done on camera, with money exchanging hands in the name of commerce, and participants accrue wealth and garner celebrity status, then it’s considered to be respectable.

Behavior that would otherwise be condemned is defended, protected and consumed so long as it turns people into celebrities and millionaires. Now that’s mental illness. I say place all participants into the looney bin and give them massive doses of Haldol. If they disagree, well then they suffer from paranoia and need to be drugged for that reason.

First, we could default on our debt. This has the valuable outcome of making it harder for the federal government to borrow money, which should help to keep the budget in check. Of course, the government may find that it would just as well use inflation to bring more into the system in the even that it can’t find lenders, but that’s a risk worth taking.

Second, we could actually balance our budget. The beauty of the hitting the debt ceiling is that it makes a balanced budget amendment largely unnecessary. (Although, it should be noted, if one is using GAAP accounting techniques, one’s budget is, by definition, balanced. Of course, the general sentiment of the balanced budget amendment is, hopefully, that revenues equal expenses, and that the government does not take on more debt.) Anyway, the point in all this is that if Boehner really wants a balanced budget, all he has to do is make sure house Republicans vote against increasing the debt ceiling. This way, he no longer has to concern himself with passing an additional piece of legislation then having it ratified by the states.

Third, Obama could ignore the law and tell the Treasury to issue more debt. This would be a violation of the law, naturally enough, and should be grounds for impeachment. I almost want to see this happen, just to see what it would look like. Of course, given our luck, the Senate would laud Obama for his bold, decisive action, so all that would happen would be an increase in executive powers, leading America closer to being ruled by a dictator.

Finally, it’s possible that the government shuts down at the behest of President Obama in the attempt to play chicken with the Republicans. I sincerely hope this is what eventually happens, but mostly because I have nothing but contempt for the federal government. In fact, I hope that the federal government not only shuts down on August second, but that it stays shut down for all eternity. There is not a single federal function that is either a) necessary or b) can’t be replicated by the state governments. As such, it is time for this behemoth to die, and to that end I say let the debt ceiling stay the same. Let’s starve the beast!

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts