Quote of the Day: The Ethics of the War Economy

War - to people like Obama, Romney and the people they serve - doesn't mean death or misery or lost limbs and minds.

It doesn't mean a soldier's life, a mother or a father's life, or a child's life blasted to liquid or left wasting away toward death.

It means something altogether different. It means the creation of artificial demand for certain favored sectors and a jump-start to a languishing economy.

It means teaching the world that it will continue to pay for oil in US dollars or else.

It means distracting a restless populace from the meaninglessness of their decaying lives into a rally around a flag and the cause of patriotism to justify even more sacrifice.

It means a rising stock market and arms company stock price windfalls - like the millions of taxpayer funded war largesse the Bush family clan reaped out of their Carlyle Group holdings along with their Saudi counterparts the bin Ladens.

And with concentrated effort and a bit of luck, war means the wholesale capture of human and mineral resources at a non-negotiated, discounted price - arguably its ultimate aim.

Alternatively, it can even mean demand destruction - providing the means to regroup and reallocate resources according to the dictates of the executive in a planned economy or a command economy.

For many in the privileged class, war presents a cornucopia of enticements that woo and intoxicate them into a delirium of self-righteous rigidity, of arrogance and exceptionalism, of paranoid rationalization, of lust for power and control, of hunger for violence and, ultimately, into a delirium of insanity.

(Italics original)

That’s from Dale Gordon Sinner of the International Man.

Quote of the Day: The Moral Case of Free Markets: Achievement

The lesson is that defenders of free enterprise have to put less weight on happiness. Sure, happiness is one good thing. But so is achievement - doing something productive with your life. And on this score, free enterprise looks a lot better than welfare states that subsidize people who skate through life without even trying to make something of themselves.

Once you take achievement seriously, moreover, you start to see that redistribution is immoral in and of itself. When someone achieves something - whether writing an article or building a business - they deserve to keep the product. It matters little whether keeping the product makes the achiever happy. The point is that achiever earned what he has, and other people - including government - ought to respect his rights. From here, you're close to the truism that taxation is theft - and the moral case for free enterprise looks solid indeed.

That’s from Professor Bryan Caplan at the Econolog.

Quote of the Day: Should We Obey Immoral Laws?

Moral people can't rely solely on the courts to establish what's right or wrong. Slavery is immoral; therefore, any laws that support slavery are also immoral. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

That’s from Professor Walter E. Williams at the lewrockwell.com

Quote of the Day: The Politics of Taxation

The fact that the income tax burden is distributed so unevenly produces great politically borne fiscal problems. People who pay little or no income taxes become natural constituents for big-spending politicians. After all, if you pay no income taxes, what do you care if income taxes are raised? Also, you won't be enthusiastic about tax cuts; you'll see them as a threat to your handouts.

That’s from Professor Walter E. Williams

Quote of the Day: Moral Bankruptcy Leads to Economic Decadence

In essence, we're headed towards economic and financial bankruptcy. But that's mostly because society has been largely intellectually and morally bankrupt for some time. I don't believe a society can rise to real prosperity without a sound intellectual and moral foundation – that's why the US was so uniquely prosperous for so long, because it had such a foundation. And it's also why societies like Saudi Arabia will collapse as soon as the exogenous things that support them are pulled away. It's why the USSR collapsed. It's the reason why countries everywhere across time reach a peak (if they ever do), then stagnate and decline.

This isn't a matter of academic contemplation, for the same reason that it doesn't matter much if you're in a first-class cabin when the ship it's in is taking on water…

In any event, it's rare that anyone goes bankrupt because of a single bad decision. It takes many missteps, and consistently bad decisions aren't accidents. Consistently bad decisions are the product of a flawed moral philosophy. Moral philosophy guides you as to what is right or wrong.

That’s from investment guru and philosopher Doug Casey. You can read the rest of the trenchant article here.

Why Do People have Faith in Politicians?

Professor Don Boudreaux is puzzled and saddened by people’s unwavering faith in reprobate politicians,

Successful politicians – and particularly those who are successful on national stages – are, with exceptions too few to matter, master con artists.

Whatever is the reason why so many grown people respect holders of political office is, as it has always been, beyond my comprehension. I just don’t get it. Practitioners of no other profession are accorded more honor, respect, and (most importantly) power while at the same time being held to such low standards of ethical behavior. Actions that, when committed by the family dog, properly elicit scolding or muzzling or even eviction from the premises are, when committed by an elected official, greeted with oohs, aahhs, applause, and re-election to powerful office.

I share the same frustrations too.

Thanks to the principles of liberty, I have been enlightened that people who mattered most are those who put to risks their personal savings and capital and commit tremendous efforts to serve the consumers. Such people represent genuine public service.

Yet these wealth generating class of people are often unfairly painted as immoral or unethical by politicians, by their lackeys and their media mouthpieces.

Moreover, there has been little realization that while there will always be crooked people, corrupt and perverted behaviour are often an offshoot to arbitrary laws, excessive interventionism and burdensome taxes. Many unscrupulous actions are consequences of stifling regulations. And these have been the primary reasons for the proliferation of informal economies or black markets.

And in contrast, politicians who live by the forcible appropriation of people’s efforts, have ironically, been portrayed as having the moral high ground over the productive economic class.

Many don’t understand that the precept of “it is not what you know but who you know” has been grounded on the politicization of the marketplace. Where entrepreneurs, business people and corporate managers have been frequently harassed or intimidated by onerous regulatory and tax requirements, political “connections” become a byword for the protection of one’s properties and the facilitation one’s economic interests.

And analogous to Stockholm Syndrome, where hostages develop personal attachments with their captors, the populace yield or surrender to the “realities” of interventionism. Thus, the popularity of those who possess social and political control over others—or the politicians and the political class because of the unwarranted dependency relationship built from oppressive politics.

Of course the indoctrination factor through mass media, and the state captured private (crony) institutions have been party to the promotion of interventionism, the latter serves as a reason for the existence of revolving door relationships with crony institutions.

In the Philippines many aspire to be lawyers, that’s because lawyers are perceived to be a heartbeat away from politics. And politics has been seen by many, if not most, as a paragon of public service and career success which is entirely a popular delusion.

People hardly understand the system of ethics from which democratic politics operates on.

Basically, in arguing for the protection of society’s welfare, politicians take away people’s freedom, which is used as basis for the second step, the arrogation of people’s property. Then, the state through incumbent political leaders redistributes plundered resources to their wards and gives some of the plundered resources back to the taxpayers (e.g. welfare, public infrastructures) and claim the moral high ground of being ‘compassionate’. Yet most of such actions have been meant at securing votes to keep them in office.

I am reminded by the pungent Bennett Cerf quote in Nathaniel Branden’s book Judgment Day: My Years With Ayn Rand

You have to throw welfare programs at people — like throwing meat to a pack of wolves — even if the programs don't accomplish their alleged purpose and even if they're morally wrong.

And of course, the rest of the taxed resources are kept for themselves in the form of salaries, perks, perquisites and other benefits (such as junkets), not to mention income from under the table transactions.

People hardly realize too that the political office have been magnet to people with sinister motivations. The great Friedrich von Hayek said the worst people usually get to the top of the political world.

Writes Doug French at the Mises Blog, (bold emphasis mine)

F.A. Hayek famously argued in The Road to Serfdom, that in politics, the worst get on top, and outlined three reasons this is so. First, Hayek makes the point that people of higher intelligence have different tastes and views. So, as Hayek writes, “we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail,” to have uniformity of opinion.

Second, those on top must “gain the support of the docile and gullible,” who are ready to accept whatever values and ideology is drummed into them. Totalitarians depend upon those who are guided by their passions and emotions rather than by critical thinking.

Finally, leaders don’t promote a positive agenda, but a negative one of hating an enemy and envy of the wealthy. To appeal to the masses, leaders preach an “us” against “them” program.

“Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things,” Hayek explains. “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”

The bottom line is that ignorance, indoctrination, propaganda, the belief in the politics of heaven (abundance) on earth (scarcity), the seduction of easy life from political redistribution, dependency on political relations as means to preserve one’s property, the popularity of social control or political power, traditionalism, peer pressures, and the Stockholm syndrome applied to political relations, among many others more, may have contributed to people’s undeserving faith in politicians.

The Impending Collapse of the Immoral Welfare State

The welfare state has been sold to the public as a moral political system. In reality, it is a gigantic fraud, not only built upon unsustainable economics or the Santa Claus principle but on immoral grounds of thievery.

Professor Gary North explains, (bold emphasis added)

The welfare state is defended ethically as a system of safety nets. These safety nets are defended as ethically necessary for a good society, meaning ethically good. Intellectuals see business profits as legitimate mainly because profits provide a tax base for funding the welfare state.

These safety nets require constant and ever-increasing funding. They are going to lose this funding. Why? Because of national government bankruptcies.

There is no question that the deficits will produce a series of fiscal crises. These crises will initially be covered up by central bank inflation, but the end result of that policy will either be hyperinflation, which is a form of concealed default, or stable money, which will be followed by open default. There will be a default. The political fall-out of this default will change the nature of Western politics.

The welfare state is going to self-destruct. It is highly unlikely that we will see the complete destruction of the welfare state in any nation, but it will contract on a scale not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire. That is because we have not seen a welfare state as comprehensive as Rome's until modern times.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

I know of no studies of the effects of the fall of Rome on the masses of welfare recipients. It took centuries for the system to decline. We know that the central state in 400 A.D. could no longer support the welfare clients that it supported with bread and circuses in the days of Nero. Manorialism steadily replaced the central government in the Western Empire. But for centuries, welfare clients lived and died as clients.

Then the welfare state died. It did not revive until the twentieth century.

THE GREAT DEFAULT

What will make the coming Great Default different from Rome's will be the speed of its arrival and the magnitude of the contraction.

Birth rates have fallen everywhere outside the United States. The number of aged retirees in every Western nation, including Japan, is increasing relentlessly. The number of children born is falling. The end is clear. So is the politics of kick the can.

Unlike Rome, the West's intellectuals have defended the spread of the welfare state by means of a system of ethics. It rests on a variation of the Mosaic commandment against theft: "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote." So widespread has this revised commandment been that the electorates in every Western nation will not tolerate its rejection. Yet the economics of the deficits points to the operational failure of the welfare system.

The defenders of the welfare state will then have to explain this widespread collapse of the programs. How did such an ethically superior system fail? How did it lead millions of welfare clients to trust a self-destructive state? How did it mislead so many addicts to government handouts? How did it lead them into a ditch, devoid of skills to compete in the post-default world?

Answer: because the welfare state was ethically corrupt before it was fiscally corrupt. It is based on theft by majority vote.

We have seen what happens to the false messiahs of the messianic state. Western Marxists had a solid though small market for their fat books until the Soviet Union went bankrupt in the late 1980s and shut down in December 1991. Overnight, Marxism lost its academic defenders. They became as invisible as Baghdad Bob did on the day American troops marched in.

The Marxist system had been seen by Western intellectuals as intellectually viable, one of several legitimate perspectives. Then, overnight, it was regarded as a total failure, and – even worse for intellectuals – a fool's quest, a bad joke. Marxism was rejected in theory because of its visible loss of power. The ethics of Western Marxism – in contrast to Marx's rejection of ethics – had always been an illusion. Marxism had always been what Marx had said it was: a matter of power. Defenders who steadfastly had defended Marxism in theory if not in actual practice were no longer willing to do in public. They did not want to be identified with historical losers – losers of power.

If Marxism had been ethically based, it would not have faded overnight just because its power base collapsed. The true believers would have stayed the course. But Marxism was never about ethics. It was always about power.

So is the welfare state.

The defenders of the welfare state have come in the name of a higher ethics. When the system goes belly-up fiscally, these defenders will face the same sort of existential crisis that the Marxists faced in 1992.

They ought to be able to see that the welfare state is a fraud, a delusion, and an ethical monstrosity: charity with guns. They ought to be able to see that theft is theft, with or without majority votes. But they don't.

Read the rest here

The coming global debt default binge will most likely highlight the collapse of welfare state. And this would most possibly suck into the vortex the paper money system. That's because the central bank fractional reserve monetary system has enabled and facilitated the existence of the welfare state. The proverbial chickens will come home to roost.

Lenten Thoughts for the Day: My Salute to Holy Week Entrepreneurs

Celebrating the Lenten tradition does not eliminate human needs and wants.

So while some entrepreneurs take these as opportunities to benefit financially, in reality, the main beneficiaries are the consuming public especially when many, if not most, people elect to spend time away from work. Life becomes a lot more convenient for the most of us.

Thus I salute entrepreneurs who elect to tradeoff leisure time to open shop when most businesses are closed. This is an example of ethical self-interest which extrapolates into public good.

In the words of investing guru Doug Casey

It's in your selfish best interest to provide the maximum amount of value to the maximum number of people

And the provision of public service through trade is, in effect, loving and servicing one's neighbors, clues of which can be found in the Bible.

From Galatians 5:13-14

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

The US as Human Rights Violator

US President Obama recently dissed on China’s human rights record.

However, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts exposes on this charade,

Washington is now in the second decade of murdering Muslim men, women, and children in six countries. Washington is so concerned with human rights that it drops bombs on schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals, all in order to uphold the human rights of Muslim people. You see, bombing liberates Muslim women from having to wear the burka and from male domination.

One hundred thousand, or one million, dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, a country with destroyed infrastructure, and entire cities, such as Fallujah, bombed and burnt with white phosphorus into cinders is the proper way to show concern for human rights.

Ditto for Afghanistan. And Libya.

In Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia Washington’s drones bring human rights to the people.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prison sites are other places to which Washington brings human rights. Obama, who has the power to murder American citizens without due process of law, is too powerless to close Guantanamo Prison.

He is powerless to prevent himself from supplying Israel with weapons with which to murder Palestinians and Lebanese citizens to whom Obama brings human rights by vetoing every UN resolution passed against Israel for its crimes against humanity.

Instead of following Washington’s human rights lead, the evil Chinese invest in other countries, buy things from them, and sell them goods.

For US politicians, moral standards seem to fall into “might makes right”—where there is one set of morality for political opponents and another set for the self-instituted policeman of the world.

The numerous atrocities committed by the US, as part of their imperial foreign policy, serves as further evidence that in Asia (particularly on the US military's proposed expansion due to the Spratly’s issue) the China threat has mostly been a contrived issue which exemplifies H.L. Mencken’s series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. Such is borne out of the continuing promotion of war policies meant to uphold the interests of the political class and their welfare-warfare clients/cronies.

Of course, infractions on human rights issues does not extend only to foreigners but to the Americans themselves, in their homeland.

Again Mr. Roberts,

Washington’s concern with human rights does not extend as far as airport security where little girls and grandmothers are sexually groped. Antiwar activists have their homes invaded, their personal possessions carried off, and a grand jury is summoned to frame them up on some terrorist charge. US soldier Bradley Manning is held for two years in violation of the US Constitution while the human rights government concocts fabricated charges to punish him for revealing a US war crime. WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is harassed endlessly with the goal of bringing him into the human rights clutches of Washington. Critics of Washington’s inhumane policies are monitored and spied upon.

More signs that the US appears to be moving away from the embodiment of the “Land of the Free”.

Doug Casey on the Morality of Selfishness

Investing guru Doug Casey on the morality of selfishness and money

let me say one more thing about the issue of selfishness – the virtue of selfishness – and the vice of altruism. Ayn Rand might never forgive me for saying this, but if you take the two concepts – ethical self-interest and concern for others – to their logical conclusions, they actually are the same. It's in your selfish best interest to provide the maximum amount of value to the maximum number of people – that's how Apple became the giant company it is. Conversely, it is not altruistic to help other people. I want all the people around me to be strong and successful. It makes life better and easier for me if they're all doing well. So it's selfish, not altruistic, when I help them.

Read the rest here

Differentiating Phony Rights from Real Rights

In a letter to a newspaper, Professor David Henderson refutes what the mainstream and leftists call as “rights”

A real right is, say, my right not to be murdered. The only responsibility that imposes on you and others is not to murder me. In other words, it's a responsibility not to do something. The "right" to good housing, though, is a phony right because it implies that someone else has a positive duty to provide it. And let's not hide behind government. The only way government can provide things is by forcibly taking from others.

Except for the preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property, I’d be very leery of anyone claiming for (positive) “rights” (which are disguised grants to state power) as such would extrapolate to more taxes, restriction of civil liberties and inflation.

Vatican Banker Endorses ECB’s Inflationism

Not even the pious seem to be exempt from the temptations of inflationism

From Wall Street Journal,

The European Central Bank should act as the euro zone’s lender of last resort and the implementation of the euro-zone bonds proposal are both necessary in the bloc’s efforts to rein in the debt crisis, the head of the Vatican’s bank said Wednesday.

The signal that these measures would send to investors would be so strong as to abate speculative attacks on some euro-zone countries, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, chairman of the Vatican bank, known as the Institute of Religious Works, said at a conference in Rome on the debt crisis.

The aforementioned Vatican banker advocates on the GREED which the Vatican recently vehemently censured. This also implies that he endorses the rescue of the politically privileged banking class and the political class at the expense of the average citizens.

The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Inflationism is evil, Henry Hazlitt explained why…

The real evil of inflation is that it redistributes wealth and income in a wanton fashion often unrelated to the contribution of different groups and individuals to production. All those who gain through inflation on net balance necessarily do so at the expense of others who lose through it on net balance. And it is often the biggest gainers by inflation who cry the loudest that they are its chief victims. Inflation is a twisted magnifying lens through which everything is confused, distorted, and out of focus, so that few men are any longer able to see realities in their true proportions.

More…

An inflation tends to demoralize those who gain by it even more than those who lose by it. The gainers become used to an "unearned increment." They want to keep their relative gains. Those who have made money from speculation prefer to continue this way of making money instead of working for it. I remember once, early in 1929, a conversation between two friends, both of whom held prominent posts as book reviewers but both of whom were heavily in the stock market. They were exchanging stories about their profits. "Today your salary," they agreed, "is just a tip." People do not like to work full time just for a tip.

The long-term trend in an inflation is toward less work and production, and more speculation and gambling. The profiteers from inflation tend to spend freely, frivolously, and ostentatiously. This increases the resentment of those who have been less favored. The incentive to ordinary saving, in the form of savings accounts, insurance, bonds, or other fixed-income obligations, tends to disappear. The spectacle of quick and easy returns increases the temptations to corruption and crime.

It is not merely that inflation breeds the gambling spirit and corruption and dishonesty in a nation. Inflation is itself an immoral act on the part of government. When modern governments inflate by increasing the paper-money supply, directly or indirectly, they do in principle what kings once did when they clipped the coins. Diluting the money supply with paper is the moral equivalent of diluting the milk supply with water. Notwithstanding all the pious pretenses of governments that inflation is some evil visitation from without, inflation is practically always the result of deliberate governmental policy.

‘Heavenly’ noble sounding policies applied to reality ‘earth’ doesn’t work. Inflationism is the work of the devil in disguise.

Insider Trading: What is Legal isn’t Necessarily Moral

Cato’s Walter Olson has a splendid article on the recent controversy over alleged insider trading by some politicians

Mr. Olson writes, (italics original)

Washington has been buzzing for the past 48 hours over revelations that some of Capitol Hill’s best-known lawmakers have been making fortunes speculating in the stocks of companies affected by official actions, typically while in possession of market-moving inside information. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Senatorial wife Teresa Kerry and others made bundles trading in health companies’ stocks shortly before Congressional or executive-branch action affecting the companies’ fortunes. After closed-door 2008 meetings in which Fed chairman Ben Bernanke briefed Congress on the gravity of the financial collapse, some lawmakers dumped their own stockholdings or even placed bets that the market would fall. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) got access to highly desirable IPO (initial public offering) stock placements, some in companies with business before Congress. And so on. Studies have found that lawmakers as a group reap far above-average returns on their investments—suggesting either that these politicians are among the world’s cleverest investors, or else that they are profiting from inside information. All this has been turned into a front-page issue thanks to Throw Them All Out, a book by Hoover fellow Peter Schweizer, whose findings were showcased the other night on 60 Minutes.

So the question is: is all this legal? While there’s some difference of opinion on the issue among law professors, the proper answer to that question is most likely going to be, “Yes, it’s legal.” As UCLA’s Stephen Bainbridge points out, existing insider trading law, developed by way of a long series of contested cases under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 10b-5, assigns liability to persons who are not corporate insiders if they are violating a recognized duty of loyalty to those for whom they work. As applied to the investment whizzes of the Hill, this implies that trading on inside information might be a violation if done by Congressional staffers (since they owe a duty of loyalty to higher-ups) but not when done by members of Congress themselves.

First of all, I am not certain about the validity of the alleged statistics. Unless the analysts, who uncovered the controversial wealth derived from supposed insider trading, have been privy to the personal accounts of the aforementioned politicians or entirely trust disclosures as being forthright, these figures should be seen with cynicism.

How do we ascertain if under the table deals (concessions, bribery and etc.) are being passed off or camouflaged as investment gains? In short, what distinguishes money laundering from insider trading?

Second, what is legal isn’t necessarily moral.

Are insider trading laws moral?

As Professor Philosopher Tibor Machan writes, (bold emphasis mine, italics original)

It is conventional wisdom to treat this version of insider trading as morally wrong because it supposed to adversely affect others by being unfair. As one critic has put it, “What causes injury or loss to outsiders is not what the insider knew or did, rather it is what they themselves [the outsiders] did not know. It is their own lack of knowledge which exposes them to risk of loss or denies them an opportunity to make a profit.” By the fact that these others do not know what the insider does know, they are harmed since they are not able to make use of opportunities that are in fact available, knowable to us.

But what kind of causation is it that fails to make a difference when it does not exist? If someone’s knowing a good deal has no impact on what another does, it cannot be said that any harm upon another had been caused by that someone. Certainly, had the other known what the insider knew, he or she could have acted differently. By not acting differently, he or she could easily have failed to reap advantages the insider did reap. But nothing here shows that the insider caused any harm, only that he or she had a better set of opportunities. Unless we assume that valuable information known by one person ought, morally—and perhaps legally—be distributed to all interested parties—something that would beg the most important question—there is no moral fault involved in insider trading nor any causation of harm.

In short, insider trading is fundamentally about asymmetric information or "a situation in which one party in a transaction has more or superior information compared to another" (investopedia.com) and its effect on the marketplace.

I might add that even if there have been symmetry of information, people’s interpretation of information have factually been nuanced or different such that diversity of thoughts leads to variable actions, and thus voluntary exchange. In reality, there will never be symmetry of information because of the variable factors people read or construe information.

So how does one establish “fairness” in information?

Again, Professor Machan, (bold added, italics original)

As this applies to insider trading, if I have a prior obligation to share my information with others, that is, a fiduciary duty to clients or associates, then it is not that the information is “from the inside” but that it is owed to others that makes my dealings morally and possibly legally objectionable. It is only in such cases that fairness is obligatory, as a matter of one’s professional relationship to others, one established by the promise made or contract one has entered into prior to the ensuing duty to be fair. It is only then that one cause injury by refusing to do what one has agreed to do, namely, divulge information prior to using it for oneself. Accordingly, Hetherington’s objection to insider trading is without moral force. What he should have objected to is the breaching of fiduciary duty, which may occur on occasion by means of failing to divulge information (possibly gained “from the inside”) that has been—perhaps even contractually— promised to a client.

Furthermore, if I have stolen the information—spied or bribed for or extorted it—again the moral deficiency comes not from its being inside information but from its having been ill gotten.

If there has been no established fiduciary duty then fairness or unfairness becomes another abstraction used by politicians as pretext to enforce control over the marketplace. Insider trading, thus, becomes subjective and arbitrarily determined by politicians and regulators

This leads us back to Mr. Olson’s conclusion (bold emphasis mine)

It is tempting to approach the new revelations the way an ambitious prosecutor might, trying to stitch together a test-case indictment from, say, the penumbra of the mail and wire fraud statutes bulked up with a bit of newly hypothesized fiduciary duty here and a little “honest services” there. But that’s not how criminal law is supposed to work: for the sake of all of our liberties, prohibited behavior needs to be clearly marked out as prohibited in advance, not afterward once we realize it doesn’t pass a smell test. But we are still free to deplore the hypocrisy of a Congress that has long been content to criminalize for the private sector—often with stiff jail sentences—behavior not much different from what lawmakers are happy to engage in themselves.

My conclusions

It is unclear whether politicians benefited from insider trading or from other shady deals which has been passed off as stock market investments, thus the alleged outpeformance.

Insider trading, as argued from a moral standpoint, without clear parameters of the how the inequitable distribution or the lack of knowledge affects other parties accounts for as an arbitrary law. Hence these can be used by politicians to harass some participants in the marketplace for political or personal goals, and thus can be construed as an immoral law.

Given that politicians have become above the law, this accentuates the unfairness or the unilateral nature of the ethically flawed insider trading law or regulations

Finally, politicization of the marketplace, bailouts, inflationism, green energy and other market manipulation which predominate today’s have been skewing gains in favor of political clients at the expense of society, so where has the prosecution on insider trading been?

Clearly, what is legal may not be moral as the insider trading law reveals.

P.S. The Philippines has seen its popular Insider trading Scandal via the BW Resources.

Don’t blame this on free markets but one of state corporatism or crony capitalism

As the PCIJ writes, (bold emphasis mine)

The machinations surrounding the operation of the BW Resources Corp. and its affiliated BW Gaming and Entertainment Co. were probably the height of presidential recklessness. To begin with, Estrada was Dante Tan's secret partner in BW, confirms Espiritu. That was why BW became the recipient of so many government favors: an online bingo license given in record time by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor), the state-owned gaming company; a P600-million loan from the Philippine National Bank that was approved even if the collateral was worthless land; and a contract from Pagcor that ensured the transfer of Pagcor operations to a building that BW was constructing in downtown Manila.

Moreover, as various officials attested during the impeachment hearing, Estrada intervened on behalf of Tan when he was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for insider trading and stock price manipulation. The President also ordered Jimenez and ethnic Chinese businessmen Wilson Sy and Willy Ocier, whose speculative play in the market was believed to have caused BW prices to fall precipitously in late 1999, to return the money Tan had lost to shore up BW prices.

"That was the version of Dante Tan when I confronted him about it," says Espiritu. "That version was also confirmed by the brokers at the Philippine Stock Exchange." Face to face with an angry president, Sy and Ocier agreed to reimburse Tan's losses, according to prosecution lawyers in the Estrada impeachment trial. The payoff was supposedly made not in cash but in 650 million shares of Belle Corp. worth P1.5 billion. The shares were turned over not to Tan but to Estrada, who then supposedly sold them to SSS and GSIS at a profit of P800 million.

Such politically driven stock market manipulation has been fated to meet with divine justice.

President Estrada has been impeached (yes I know Mr. Estrada ran and placed second in the 2010 presidential elections), where the scandal had been part of the impeachment proceedings, and BW Resources crashed back to earth, where crony Dante Tan, reportedly lost lots of money and has fled country and reportedly is in Canada even if the courts eventually absolved him--which again reveals of the nebulousness of the law.

BW Resources (blue chart) [from my previous post]

Cartoon of the Day: Moral Relativism

Source GreatPlay.net; hat tip Stephan Kinsella

Video: The Myth of Good Government

The animated video below explains the myth of good government, from the simulated perspective of a "King" [hat tip Jeff Tucker]

Quote of the Day: The Morality of Classical Liberalism

...has been best encapsulated by this noteworthy excerpt from Professor Don Boudreaux, who writes a splendid book review of James Buchanan’s “Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative: The Normative Vision of Classical Liberalism” (bold emphasis mine, italics original)

The modern "liberal" fancies himself to be enlightened and caring because he seeks to use government to improve the lives of others even when this involves forcing others to act differently than they freely choose to act. Although the true conservative's motives for constraining others' actions might (or might not!) differ from those of the modern "liberal," at root both conservatives and modern "liberals" disdain and distrust ordinary men and women. True liberals do not.

One result is that true liberals willingly allow peaceful adults do whatever they please. This willingness grows not from the liberal's lack of concern for his fellow man, but from his respect for his fellow man - from the true-liberal's mature recognition that his fellow man is, like himself, an adult with his own unique history, needs, and dreams. And when we treat others as adults, we accord them not only the freedom to pursue whatever peaceful paths they choose, but we also recognize them to be responsible.

Video: The Morality of Economic Freedom

The difference is striking. Economic freedom leads to prosperity.

As the following video says

If you care about improving people's lives then you care about then you really care about economic freedom

The Myth of Good Government

One my favorite video clips is when Milton Friedman was interviewed by Phil Donahue in the 70s on the topics of greed and virtue.

In addressing Mr. Donahue’s suggestion that governments ought to “reward virtue” Mr. Friedman rebutted (bold emphasis added)

"And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? ...Do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self- interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? ...Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?"

The illusion of “rewarding virtue” can be seen in the appointments of US President Obama,

From the Politico, (bold emphasis mine)

More than two years after Obama took office vowing to banish “special interests” from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events, an investigation by iWatch News has found.

These “bundlers” raised at least $50,000 — and sometimes more than $500,000 — in campaign donations for Obama’s campaign. Many of those in the “Class of 2008” are now being asked to bundle contributions for Obama’s reelection, an effort that could cost $1 billion...

More (from the same article; emphasis added)...

The iWatch News investigation found:

Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money.

And it’s not just President Obama, but also past President Bush (from the same article; emphasis added)

Public Citizen found in 2008 that President George W. Bush had appointed about 200 bundlers to administration posts over his eight years in office. That is roughly the same number Obama has appointed in a little more than two years, the iWatch News analysis showed.

Well, that’s in the US which supposedly is a country whose political institutions are far sounder than the most of the world.

Yet in the Philippines, it’s been no different.

From Sunstar.com.ph (emphasis added)

FRIENDS and allies of President Benigno Aquino III occupying government positions are not considered “untouchables” and will not be spared from corrections, the President’s spokesman said.

Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda admitted that President Aquino prefers to appoint people whom he has level of comfort but it does not mean that they are not beyond criticism.

So there you have it.

Milton Friedman was correct to debunk the romanticized idea that governments’ reward the virtuous.

Instead, the main beneficiaries of the division of the spoils via political appointments (or political concessions) have been from political allies and political clients, vested ‘rent seeking’ interest groups, families and friends. And this dynamic applies to any form of government.

Realize that political leaders or bureaucrats are human beings or self-interested agents too, whom are subject to the same fragilities (biases, knowledge limitations, different interpretations based on diverse value preferences, cultural orientation, education and etc.) as everyone else.

The difference is in the incentives that governs them with those of economic agents.

Instead of profits and losses, these entities use institutional coercion or violence to redistribute resources based on political exigencies (e.g. populism) with the ultimate aim of annexation and preservation of power and of social image. Thus, the reliance on so-called ‘comfort zones’ as every society operates on diversified interests which continually competes for scarce resources.

Despite the popular notion, Government or the State will NEVER be about virtue or morality.

So for those who stubbornly insist of having “good governments”, be it known that dreams or illusions can last forever.

Video: Why Tax Increases Are Wrong (and Immoral)

Here is an eloquent video from Center for Freedom and Prosperity which shows why tax increases are baneful to an economy.

Note: these has universal application which means that the enumerated factors applies to the Philippines as well. (hat tip Dan Mitchell)


To add, taxation isn't just harmful, they are essentially immoral.

Ludwig von Mises (Human Action): [emphasis added]

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

To draw attention to this fact does not imply any reflection upon government activities. In stark reality, peaceful social cooperation is impossible if no provision is made for violent prevention and suppression of antisocial action on the part of refractory individuals and groups of individuals. One must take exception to the often-repeated phrase that government is an evil, although a necessary and indispensable evil. What is required for the attainment of an end is a means, the cost to be expended for its successful realization. It is an arbitrary value judgment to describe it as an evil in the moral connotation of the term. However, in face of the modern tendencies toward a deification of government and state, it is good to remind ourselves that the old Romans were more realistic in symbolizing the state by a bundle of rods with an ax in the middle than are our contemporaries in ascribing to the state all the attributes of God.

Murray N. Rothbard (Tax Day):

The first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply robbery. No more and no less. For what is "robbery"? Robbery is the taking of a man’s property by the use of violence or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim’s consent. And yet what else is taxation?

Those who claim that taxation is, in some mystical sense, really "voluntary" should then have no qualms about getting rid of that vital feature of the law which says that failure to pay one’s taxes is criminal and subject to appropriate penalty. But does anyone seriously believe that if the payment of taxation were really made voluntary, say in the sense of contributing to the American Cancer Society, that any appreciable revenue would find itself into the coffers of government? Then why don’t we try it as an experiment for a few years, or a few decades, and find out?

But if taxation is robbery, then it follows as the night the day that those people who engage in, and live off, robbery are a gang of thieves. Hence the government is a group of thieves, and deserves, morally, aesthetically, and philosophically, to be treated exactly as a group of less socially respectable ruffians would be treated.

Video: Morality of Profits; Should We Give Back Wealth to the Society?

Billionaire-philanthropist Bill Gates says that the we should pursue the idea of giving back wealth to the society.

In this video the illustrious Tom Palmer explains the morality of profits by distinguishing between wealth obtained from voluntary and involuntary (pelf) exchanges.

As Ludwig von Mises once wrote,

Profit is the reward for the best fulfillment of some voluntarily assumed duties. It is the instrument that makes the masses supreme.