Posts Tagged Economics
It’s Just a Scary Word
Posted by Roy Antoun in Foreign Policy, Global Economics, Libertarian, Republicans on July 21, 2010
Hearing Mitt Romney and the rest of the neocons ramble on about foreign policy is like watching an Adolph Hitler speech in 1939. Eloquent at face value, the scare tactics of a neoconservative foreign policy couldn’t contain more fallacies. But my favorite of this litany of spooky words is “Islamofascism.” The term, when left to its own devices, is an oxymoron at best. When used the in the phraseology of an ignoramus like Rudy Giuliani, the term becomes a hostile world of hate in American dialog.
It’s not that I do not recognize we have enemies abroad. Instead, it’s the way neocons inflict fear in a rather ignorant demographic. Giuliani said in 2007 that our enemies “follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism, which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian goals and aims to destroy the existing international system.”
That sounds scary, doesn’t it?
Of course, I’m sure there are some in the world, non-Muslims most certainly included, who wish to see the destruction of this “international system” that Mr. Giuliani speaks of. What that international system is, I’m not entirely sure. Perhaps he meant international trade?
Islam within itself is anything but fascistic. Fascism was a government system designed by Italians prior to Benito Mussolini’s reign in the 1930’s. Fascism was a response to the failed democratic experiment in Weimar Germany after the First World War. Mussolini sold the system as a necessity for Italians to progress away from democratic failures and stimulate the Italian economy through unity. The idea of the collective being a dominant force against the individual sold rampantly throughout Europe, but especially strong in a weakened Italian state.
Fascism was a term that originated from the Latin “Fasces” which meant “bundle” or what ancient Romans referred to as “a bundle of tightly packed sticks.” Analogous to the collective, a bundle of sticks represented a bundle of people, in which the individual stick, or person, was ineffective in relation to a group that sacrificed individual freedoms for security (sound familiar?). This security was economic and national.
Islam, on the other hand, by nature is very market-driven. In Islam’s early beginnings, hundreds of “Silk Roads” littered the Arab world where trade and commerce dominated the climate. Sultans and Caliphs often appointed a “muhtasib” who served as a market supervisor at bazaars to eliminate fraud and ensure a balanced and fair trade. They were officers of public morals. Today, several Middle Eastern countries function through heavily regulated and restricted markets due to a hundred years’ worth of interference from the West. From British and French conquests of Arabia and North Africa to the manipulation of oil markets and the propping up of rogue states in the Middle East, the United States has manifested “Islamofascism” for itself, if it even exists.
Our enemies abroad don’t necessarily even have an economic policy as they’re more concerned with the withdrawal of American occupation troops. And of course, you’ll always have the crazies of any movement or organization who call for total destruction; however, I feel that even leaders that neocons dub as enemies and threats like Muqtada al-Sadr understand that state boundaries exist for reasons and the United States isn’t going away as a superpower anytime soon.
To call our enemies abroad “Islamofascists” is awkward and wrong on historical, philosophical, and political bases. Fascism is a European invention, exported by the West under the mask of regime change, and requires the total surrender of a nation’s economy to the government. The Kuwaiti government actually pays its people to live in Kuwait (kind of like reverse fascism). Fascism is a government system that denotes total control of a state’s economy. I highly doubt our enemies abroad are concerned with economic policy when half the Middle East is in flames due to an insurgency angered by the presence of American soldiers harassing their property. Islamofascism is a scary term at best, misused by political figureheads to promulgate their own agendas abroad.
Tom Vendittelli: Finally, A Candidate I Can Support
Posted by Roy Antoun in Democrats, Economics, Foreign Policy, Libertarian, Politics on July 17, 2010
On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama told us not to question whether government is too big or too small, but if it works. Well, it’s no coincidence that a government that continuously grows, continuously fails as well. The Democrat solution to societal problems is more intervention. They have successfully developed a Keynesian take on economics and a Leviathan take on government as a whole. When markets “fail,” they say we need more regulation; and the regulation passes with little legitimate opposition. The sad part to the story is that we’ve been heavily regulating markets since the turn of the last century. From the creation of the Federal Reserve to the Wall Street bailout, government’s sole response to any problem is more regulation. The practices of free market Austrian economics of the 19th century are but a footnote in history text books. Those who tell us that the “free market has failed” are ignorant to the fact that we haven’t practiced a free market in over a hundred years and every financial downturn we experience today is a direct result of government intervention in the market. Crony Capitalism has friends from both the Left and the Right. And Republicans are still no better than their Democrat counter parts in most instances.
Republicans in the past century have increased the size of the Federal government in ways unimaginable by the Framers of this country. From increased healthcare benefits at taxpayer expense (See G.W. Bush 2003 Medicare Legislation), to undeclared wars of outright aggression, Republicans have taken the philosophy of small government and essentially threw it down the trash.
Third Parties today hold little legitimacy in the political culture of America. In States like New York, which have co-opted the parties, it’s extremely hard for Third Party candidates to get on the ballot and campaign. This system is flawed. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that Americans should be limited to a two-party system. What’s worse is that our “two-party system” has fortified what I like to call, the Republicrat. Both Republicans and Democrats have endangered our freedoms at home for their personal gain and the expansion of big government. So, in essence, Americans have little choice in the system and that is why I outwardly encourage Third Parties to rise. A more diverse political setting will give Americans more choice in representation and will also shake and challenge the establishment in DC.
Tom Vendittelli, Candidate for Congress
Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting Congressional Candidate Tom Vendittelli, running on the Libertarian Party line in the 13th Congressional District which covers Brooklyn and Staten Island (gerrymandering? You bet). A young, enthusiastic champion of liberty, Tom expressed his distaste for establishment politics and wanted his campaign to shake things in the political culture of New York. He pointed out one major flaw: it was lacking some liberty. For a city that is entrenched in a history of revolution, reform, and industry, most people in New York are so wrapped up in their 9-to-5 that government regulation and intervention seems either status quo or another obstacle to just go around before reaching their home or apartment to relax for the night. The Tea Party is ignored or laughed at and the small Tea Party that does exist is actually George Bush relic of neoconservatism at its finest; it’s standard hypocrisy. The Tea Party, which supposedly stands for limited government, apparently supports a very expensive, expansive, and interventionist foreign policy that has been “draining a third of the entire Federal budget that could otherwise be refunded back to the taxpayer,” said Vendittelli. And I couldn’t agree more.
Tom also brought up issues like the Federal Reserve, something Republican candidate Michael Allegretti knew practically nothing about. Vendittelli told me of a time he ran into Allegretti and asked him what he would do about the Federal Reserve. Allegretti’s response? “Well… I know that the Federal Reserve is a bank… but that’s pretty much it.” And that’s pretty much what’s wrong with the Republican Party and the Federal Government. Little did Allegretti know the vast, unchecked power that the Federal Reserve has. It audits itself every two years, has complete control over how much money is printed in the U.S., can take or give loans to foreign countries at its own discretion, and regulates interest rates without any forewarning, all at taxpayer expense. Vendittelli, who was aware of the Federal Reserve’s unconstitutional powers, knew that something had to be done with the political climate whereas Allegretti did not. A Congressman should, at the very least, have expansive knowledge of the monetary beast otherwise known as the Federal Reserve. The system plays with your money, the fruits of your labor and Congress should be seeking to protect your property, not devalue it. Vendittelli understands this concept whereas Allegretti does not.
Tom Vendittelli was a genuine individual with a knack for political philosophy that you otherwise don’t get in New York. He’s extremely principled in the ideals of liberty and economic freedom and comprehends the notion that a large government equates to a restricted marketplace, something New Yorkers are being choked by on a daily basis. I know Tom Vendittelli is getting my vote. The other establishment hacks have already proven themselves to be… establishment hacks. To all my conservative and Republican friends, please remember that conservatism as a political theory is deeply rooted and founded in the tenets of libertarianism. I fully support Tom and his efforts to run for Congress.
Why All My Congressional Candidates Suck
Posted by Roy Antoun in Democrats, Economics, Libertarian, Politics, Republicans, money on June 18, 2010
Apparently, there’s a Republican Primary for the 13th Congressional District and the incumbent is… well I don’t know what he is. New York politics can sometimes be sadder than a 60 year old attorney trying to make a name for himself by parading with Michael Bloomberg. And while I respect each candidate’s eagerness to “run our country,” I have to say, all the candidates are simply awful… and for many reasons, partially because people run this country and not some bureaucrats in DC.
There are three people vying for the 13th Congressional seat: Michael Grimm (R), Michael Allegretti (R), and Michael McMahon (D- Incumbent). And why do all of them colloquially “suck”? Because they all stand for the same things. Taking a look at their websites’ listed issues, you’ll find very neatly organized lists of essentially crap that dictate the same things coming from all sides. It’s the same sound-bite garbage that forces the voter to choose a candidate based on specific issues rather than a principled philosophy.
Take Michael Grimm, for example. On his website he states, “I pledge to… redirect the remainder of the unspent stimulus money to small business programs.” But he says he is against high taxation and the Obama agenda. Well, Mr. Grimm, stimulus money is generated through taxation and rather than playing economic czar and redistributing this “excess” stimulus cash where you deem fit, why don’t you just return it to the people the government stole it from? It would be great if we, as a society, for once ran a candidate who wasn’t some technocrat but instead was an educated advocate of free market principles. Free market means -free market- and not a twist of what “looks” like the okay thing to do. The sad matter of fact is that Mr. Grimm still wants to actually use the stimulus money and redirect it himself. As far as I’m concerned, the “free market” means government (a Congressman) does NOT distribute where he/ she thinks the money should go. That limits growth. That is a Keynesian market system.
Don’t worry, Michael Allegretti is just as laughable. His Issues state: “I do believe that government has a role to play in helping consumers protect themselves in the marketplace and in rewarding certain types of behavior by the private sector, but it cannot be allowed to make decisions for the private sector.” Ok, fair enough- government cannot be allowed to make decisions for the private sector. But government apparently has to help consumers protect themselves? And it’s government’s role to “reward” behavior? If you’re running on the Republican ticket, you need to come to the realization that you’re running on the party line that is supposed to limit government, not give it an inch and watch it take three miles. No one rewards “certain types of behavior” except for the market and the consumer. When government “rewards behavior,” that’s called crony capitalism. It’s glorified Keynesian economics at best. Government’s only role in the market should be to eliminate fraud- not reward or helping consumer “protect themselves.” Consumers should be able to make a purchase without the heavy hand of government. Those candidates who “protect” consumers are called Democrats and they tend to take protection two steps further; they tax you.
And of course, there’s Michael (Jesus, three Michaels?!) McMahon, the incumbent. I had the chance of meeting Mr. McMahon in Washington, DC. I told him I was a resident of his district and wanted to chat with him for 5 minutes. I never got a response. You know what that means? He just lost a vote. That’s right, Mr. Congressman; when you don’t give your own constituent the light of day, he won’t vote for you. In any case, Mr. McMahon sounds more like a Republican than the other two hacks running for Congress… except Mr. McMahon is a Democrat. Just listen to what he has to say about economic recovery:
First, HR 1 provided tax cuts for 95% of all Americans through payroll tax reductions. It eliminated the AMT for middle class workers, provided a first time homebuyer tax credit of $8000 to revitalize the housing market, a sales tax deduction to help encourage people to buy cars, and a $2500 tax credit for students attending college.
It also provided billions of much needed support for our schools and State and local budgets to avoid painful layoffs among our teachers, and to avoid dramatic cuts in our health care services.
And of particular importance to our district are the $64 billion provided to rebuild our infrastructure.
First, this guy actually wants to lower taxes (and actually voted against Obama’s “historic” healthcare overhaul). Second, he mentions funding for schools and that’s where the free market starts crying in a corner, rocking back and forth while muttering to itself obscenities. Dear American people and good citizens of the 13th Congressional District, education is NOT a right. The Federal government has NO jurisdiction to fund anything related to “education” because it appears nowhere in our constitution. Allowing the government to control education has created a financial and cultural mess within itself. And lastly, Mr. McMahon is directing funds to something Congress is actually supposed to do- “establish post roads,” as stated in the Constitution.
So the Republicans are essentially unsure as to where they stand when it comes to playing with your tax dollars and the incumbent Democrat has it half-right but still has the “D” next to his name for a reason.
It’s not “Left versus Right.” It’s the State versus You. It comes down to whether you want government to expand its power or government to understand its limits. Everything costs money, from the wars overseas to infringing on your civil liberties to paying for healthcare reform. Nothing is free and government is playing with your money to pay for it all. It seems, sadly enough, that each of these candidates want to play Risk with your money, just in different ways. Why don’t we run a candidate who comprehends the true tenets of the free market? Someone who actually believes in Liberty and has read the Constitution…
Who is Roy Antoun?
Roy Antoun is a Rutgers University undergraduate student double majoring in History & Political Science. He is also a Young Americans for Liberty Foreign Policy Researcher and Editor-in-Chief of YAL's Foreign Policy Handbook. Roy hopes to attend Law School and work in international law.