Restraining the Size and Scope of Political power

Apparently, it is impossible to place mortal humans in positions of political power by any means, election, appointment or by their own overt actions that can effectively vote themselves the ability to restrain their own powers and influences. It may be a slow expansion of powers but none the less in total a significant one.

In 8,000 years of recorded history, do we know of any culture that has been able to place enough people with integrity into positions of political power that have successfully protected the inalienable rights and property of their fellow Citizens?

Representative government is, thus far, an elusion that has always placed money and power ahead of the majorities best interest. How quickly a portion of the electorate will attempt to overthrow the majority once they realize they can indirectly vote themselves greater benefits through their representatives, at the expense of their own Citizens, often determines the long term economic fate of their society.

It appears to me we have reached this phase in U.S. history. As many countries have found, it is easy to destroy free-market capitalism with enough taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy. It however thus far alludes us in finding a better replacement.

Advertisements

Who Are Those Democrats?

September 6, 2019

Paloma Funds, Donald Sussman, CEO, $21,613,800 campaign contribution. The is the founder and Chief Investment Officer of the Paloma Funds and the founder of New China Capital Management LLC. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of Carnegie Hall,[5] a member of the Board of Directors of ProPublica,[6] and an Honorary Trustee of the Ethical Culture Fieldston School.[7] His company Paloma Partners, was the largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 .[8]  Sussman was born to a Jewish family[9] in June[10] 1946, the son of Beatrice (née Zimmerman) and William Sussman.[11] His father was a real estate developer.[11] They were the single largest individual contributors to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016

Pritzker Group, Pritzker Family $16,626,207 campaign contribution The Pritzker family is an American family engaged in entrepreneurship and philanthropy, and one of the wealthiest families in the United States of America. Family members still largely own Hyatt, and owned the Marmon Group, a conglomerate of manufacturing and industrial service companies that has since been sold to Berkshire Hathaway.[1] Other holdings have included the Superior Bank of Chicago, which collapsed in 2001, the TransUnion credit bureauBraniff airlines, McCall’s magazine, and the Royal Caribbean cruise line. J. B. Pritzker (born 1965), founder of Pritzker Group Venture Capital (formerly New World Ventures), co-founder of Pritzker Group, Governor of Illinois (2019 – present) The Pritzker family is of Jewish descent[2] and based in ChicagoIllinois.[3] They were the second largest individual contributors to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Renaissance Technologies, James Harris Simons Founder and Chairman $16,543,000 campaign contribution. James Harris Simons was born on April 25, 1938[15][16] to an American Jewish family,[17] the only child of Marcia (née Kantor)[18] and Matthew Simons, and raised in Brookline, Massachusetts.[19] His father owned a shoe factory.[20] When James Simons was a teenager, he worked a job in the basement stockroom of a garden supply store. His inefficiency at the job resulted in his demotion as a floor sweeper.[21],  Renaissance was the 3rd largest individual contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 .[8]  

Saban Capital Group, Haim Saban $12,283,411 campaign contribution is an American investment firm based in Los Angeles, California focused on media, entertainment, and communications investments. Formed in 2010 Saban Capital Group owns Saban Films,[1][2] part of Univision Communications,[3] and part of Celestial Tiger Entertainment.[4][5] He was a part owner of FOX Entertainments, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Israeli American Council. Saban Capital was the 4th largest individual contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 .[8]

Newsweb Corporation. Fred Eychaner, $11,016,642 campaign contribution, (born c. 1945) is an American entrepreneur and philanthropist.[1][2] Eychaner is the Chairman of Newsweb Corporation.[3][4] He was included in Chicago magazine’s 2014 list of the 100 most powerful Chicagoans.[5] In 2005, the Chicago Tribune estimated his wealth at $500 million.[1] In 2015, he was inducted into the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame.[6] Eychaner is a major donor to Democratic campaigns, gay rights advocacy groups, and arts organizations.[7] m Newweb was the 5th largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016 .[8]

Soros Fund Management George Soros $10,556,793 campaign contribution is a private American investment management firm. It is currently structured as a family office but formerly as a hedge fund. The firm was founded in 1969 by George Soros[1] and in 2010 was reported to be one of the most profitable firms in the hedge fund industry,[2] averaging a 20% annual rate of return over four decades.[3] They are headquartered at 250 West 55th Street in New York.[4] Soros was born in Budapest in the Kingdom of Hungary to a prosperous non-observant Jewish family, who, like many upper-middle class Hungarian Jews at the time, were uncomfortable with their roots. Soros has wryly described his home as a Jewish antisemitic home. The Soros Fund was the 6th largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

ASANA, Justin Rosenstein and Dustin Moskovitz formally a co-founder of Facebook. $6,005,556 campaign contribution. Allegedly, Providence, Rhode Island runs an efficient government with Asana who provides workspace management software resources to public and private entities. Asana was the 6th largest individual contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Slim Fast Foods, Daniel Abraham $6,005,400 campaign contribution, born August 15, 1924, is an American businessman, investor, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Thompson Medical, whose main product is Slim-Fast, a diet program. He has endowed the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and he supports Jewish causes in Florida and Israel. Slim fast foods was the 7th largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Abraham is a long-time donor to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation. He gave $1.5 million to the party and ranked as the number one contributor of soft money to the national parties in 2000.[16] Abraham donated $3 million to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC which supported Hillary Clinton‘s 2016 presidential campaign.  

Lone Pine Capital. Steven Mandel $5,015,300 campaign contribution is an American-based hedge fund headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut, established in 1997 by its president and portfolio manager, Stephen Mandel.[1] The firm has offices in London, New York City, and San Francisco.[1] They were the 8th largest contributor to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Almost all the above information came from either Wikipedia or the company website and the contributions from http://www.OpenSecrets.org

Hillary Clinton’s Bundlers

The following info came from this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/bundlers

Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate.

The Federal Election Commission requires disclosure only of those bundlers who are registered lobbyists. Beyond that, it’s up to the candidate. The Clinton campaign is releasing information about bundlers who raised over $100,000 (see list below); the campaign does not specify how much each of these individuals has raised beyond that. The Trump campaign has released no information about its bundlers whatsoever.

Together, 1,129 Extremely wealthy were directing at least $112,300,000 for Clinton’s election efforts — money that has gone into the coffers of her campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee.

Lawyers & Lobbyists, $21.9M, Unknown, $22.3M, Misc Business, $19M, Other, $17.2M, Defense, $100K, Labor, $100K, Transportation, $900K, Agribusiness, $1.2M, Construction, $1.4M, Energy & Natural Resources, $2M, Ideological/Single-Issue, $2.7M, Health, $5M, Communications/Electronics, $13.9M, Finance, Insurance & Real Estate, $31.5M, Top Economic Sectors of Clinton Bundlers, 2016

Top Industries of Clinton Bundlers

Industry Min. Raised # of Bundlers
Lawyers/Law Firms $18,800,000 188
Employer Listed/Category Unknown $17,400,000 174
Securities & Investment $14,500,000 145
Business Services $10,500,000 105
Real Estate $10,200,000 102

Clinton Bundlers

*The “Contributions” column indicates the total amount that the bundlers and their spouses have given to all federal candidates, parties and PACs in all election cycles since 1990.

Name City State Employer *Contributions by bundler 1990-2016
Tom Steyer Redwood City CA Fahr LLC/Tom Steyer $143,044,701
Fred Eychaner Chicago IL Newsweb Corp $68,447,376
Donald Sussman Rye Brook NY Paloma Partners $47,519,441
Marilyn Simons New York NY Simons Foundation $38,211,250
Haim & Cheryl Saban Los Angeles CA Saban Capital Group $30,573,212
George Soros New York NY Soros Fund Management $28,182,899
J.B. & M.K. Pritzker Chicago IL Pritzker Group $22,620,174
Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna San Francisco CA Philanthropist $16,525,000
S. Daniel Abraham West Palm Beach FL Slim-Fast Foods $15,709,060
Bernard Schwartz New York NY BLS Investments $15,152,913

 

Do You believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?

For those that have never heard of it, you’ll see later why it’s “not” something the two major political parties and mainstream media want us to talk about or discuss its merits.   

The NAP, as it is often referred to, is a philosophical legal concept which precludes individuals from harming other individuals or their justly acquired property, with the exception of protecting themselves and/or others and their justly acquired property from someone else who is breaking the NAP.  Simply, you’re not supposed to harm others or their property and if you do, they have the legal right of self-defense to stop you.

This is actually the underlying basis of most modern-day legal systems in our world. So of course, you believe in it, right?  Most laws are based on this ethical principle of not harming one another called “mala in se” laws and when people do break one of the laws we classify them as a criminal.    

From Wikipedia: Malum in se (plural Mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited by political mandate.   

A judicial citation: An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

Now here is the problem or really a dilemma with the NAP.  It doesn’t necessarily apply to those individuals who represent and/or work for the nation-state, i.e. the government.  The nation-state can simply enact mala in se and mala prohibitum laws and use force and coercion to enforce them.  All your drug laws, vices such as prostitution, gambling, and alcohol, DUI, licensure laws such as driver and real estate licensing, permits, income taxes, public education, property taxes, etc. are all laws that break the NAP. They must use the force of coercion to enforce them or the Citizens would simply ignore them. Of course, the government will fine or incarcerate those that break the various laws, hence the use of force or coercion as the physical means of enforcement.  I think it is pretty evident that everyone agrees that malum in se laws should be rigorously enforced but malum prohibitum laws is where the debates and differences of opinion really become apparent. 

Their enforcement requires the use of force or coercion by those in the nation-state to carry out the politically derived mandates. They must physical steal or coerce people into giving them the money it requires to fulfil the governments social policies.  

It’s not OK for an individual to break the NAP, but those who form the largest or most powerful political party and their employees can and do. I’m not here to try to determine right and wrong at this point or what laws we should or shouldn’t have, I’m here is help people understand the principle and how it affects our lives. Later I share what a few of our founding fathers said.   

Every tax, fine or regulatory fee is a breach of the NAP because it takes money or property from those who justly earned it and thus it “Rightfully” belongs to and gives it those that didn’t justly earn it and thus it does NOT rightfully belong to. This is the ethical foundation of our “Inalienable Rights” and why the Citizens required a Bill of Rights be created before they would ratify the U.S. Constitution.  These rights were specifically to stop those in government from taking the Citizens money and enacting malum prohibitum laws. 

Of course, those in government have twisted the very words in the Bill of Rights and Constitution where today government just about goes unstrained in both size and scope of powers. Instead of check and balances between the three branches, they are either rubber-stamping one another’s decisions and actions or suing one another when they breach or overstep their constitutionally mandated scope of powers. The various branches of our government and those individuals in the bureaucracy are in constant legal battles. The Federal government alone cost taxpayers over $4 trillion “annually” and requires over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees to pay for it all. 

To give you an idea of what our founding fathers set out to establish with our founding documents, all one must do is to read a few of the quotes of the first three Presidents.  

Thomas Jefferson, the Third President “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.

George Washington, the First President “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

John Adams, the Second President “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.

One of the most important rights is that of “property” protected by our Constitution as well as the NAP.   How have we gone from a society set up to protect our property and money from being confiscated by criminals and the government, to one where the government is now the greatest confiscator? The greater questions are 1. can government be restrained from confiscating to much of the majority’s wealth and if so 2. how do we do it when it starts to cause such great problems for the majority and our society as a whole?

Bankruptcy or Prosperity

As the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) on Wednesday the 31st of July, 2019 lowered the discount rate to 2% to 2.25%, 1/4 point lower from 2.25% to 2.50% I couldn’t help but think of the real underlying cause. The lowering of this rate even a 1/4 point indicates the greatest economy in U.S. history as President Trump and no one else is claiming, because it’s simply far from the truth. This has been one of the worst financial recoveries in U.S. history and we are really really far from being out of the proverbial hot water.

First, if the economy was booming as Trump triumphantly decries, the FRB would still be trying to normalize rates by continuing to raise them. Nor would they have recently stopped selling the over $4 trillion in Treasuries and MBS’s on their balance sheet as they were doing. This is the actions of an FRB trying to preempt a recession, also understanding major components within the Treasury Yield Curve remains inverted, another reliable indicator of a coming recession.

The concept and legislative enactments of allowing Government to both print and borrow money is a “really” horrible idea, that will eventually bankrupt our society. The fact that no society in history has been able to curtain their government from bankrupting their society is surely evidence of how horrible an idea this has been.

If it were a unique situation, it would be one thing, but the fact it is one of the more common occurrences prompting both long term depressions and total social failures should give us a clue to their devastating effects. Almost every major industrialized government in the world today has experienced this. In 1989, the United Soviet Socialists Republic became the largest government to have done this to their people, so big and mighty does not equate to Prosperity. You may not know it but the Roman Empire even bankrupted its government and society.     

With government printing and or borrowing the fact that a generation or two may escape the catastrophic results does not limit the pain for many, as the resultant periods of inflation ravish especial the young and old with low and fixed incomes. Thinking that a group of people are any more responsible than an individual is obviously foolish and one could argue just the opposite.     

Understand that government is supposed to be a projection of our own humanity as a community. An individual surely cannot print their own money nor borrow without limits, yet we have allowed our politicos to do both on our behalf.  

Because of the long-term catastrophic results, there is no justifiable reason, not even to fund a war or increased military defense.  Matter of fact, a bankrupted society becomes an easier target than does an underdefended society especially from being overthrown from within. The fact that there are now many underdefended countries that have survived over long periods also negates this rationale. 

From my own study, especially in the more modern times it appears to me governments are now taking positions with groups of other countries working together to overthrow heads or State and destabilize various countries who they have economic or social conflicts with, so mankind is really not doing the mass evasion strategy that requires massive expenditures any more.  WWII was supposed to be the war to end all wars as also told to us about WWI. Then you have the ill effects of the guns or butter principle as the U.S. and other big defense spenders are experiencing today. Will we ever learn?    

I could only think of one potential cause to allow a government to expand the money supply via borrowing or printing. If someone were to invent a low-cost energy source requiring an initial high capital investment that just could not be funded by the private sector, that would be a reasonable use of the funds because it would be a one-time investment and it would lower the costs of energy making the payback of the investment plausible. Most economists today understand both U.S. and world debt today will never be paid back and as such, and thus more printing and borrowing is only differing eventual default.

So, if you wonder why the U.S. is now the largest debtor nation in world history with approximately 1/3 of our society living at or near the poverty line, simply ask a member of Congress and wait for the proverbial baloney and nonsense to come spewing out of their mouths. They have always been very good at coming up with a rationale for both printing and borrowing money and their pensions and personal growth in wealth are the real proof of why they do it. The numbers do not lie though that prove printing and borrowing money by the government are bad for the majority.

This article gives some of the economic facts on the U.S. as it relates to borrowing and or printing money. https://www.faithandfreedom.com/the-path-to-prosperity-or-bankruptcy-staggering-facts-on-americas-rising-debt/

More Than Just Slavery

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

As these Declarations from the southern States show, their secession was much more than just about slavery. Since slavery was still protected by the Constitution, it was one of the clearest violations by the Union against primarily the agricultural interests of the southern States. High Tariffs on southern farm exports was surely another, but many protectionist policies and corporate welfare to those like the northern shipbuilders and smack owners and railroad subsidies to corporate interests played a key role in the “War of Northern Aggression” which I now from a libertarian perspective, believe is a more appropriate name for the first Civil War of the United States of America.

Our Government textbooks, government-subsidized media such as PBS and even Hollywood productions by the corporate giants have given us a history much more incomplete as these Declarations show. It proves that those in the leadership positions within the government are almost always in bed with special interests and that the call for some public good is often a disguise for a more devious activity. To be continued…..

The Importance of the Treasury Yield Curve

During the latter part of 2018 the Treasury yield curve started to invert as economists call it. The shorter term maturities, 1 month (1M), 3 month (3M), and 1 year (1Y) yields were all higher than the 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y and 10Y Treasury yields. Only the 20Y and 30Y maturities remain higher. As you can see, with the two prior years, the yields of the various maturities were normal in that the short term Treasury yields were lower then the longer term Treasury yields, which is the way they should be in a good and/or normal market.

So what is the significance and importance of the partial inversion of the Treasury yield curve? 1. It means the Federal Government is having to pay more interest to investors who buy the Treasuries that fund the $1 trillion+ annual deficits the U.S. is now consistently having to borrow to fund our government. 2. Historically, in every single occasion this has occurred, the U.S. was soon in a recession. Today now only is the U.S. economy slowing, so is most of the rest of the world, according to numerous indicators and high profile sources.

It is important to understand, that the debts of both the private and public sector are much higher today indicating that the recesssion will most likely be deeper or longer than the great recession of 2008, potentially even another great Depression.