How Was Work Today?
September 27, 2008 by Aspen Eggimann · 5 Comments
I had to hold back a laugh a few days ago when I heard the above question. My cousin had just asked it to his brother in law.
The reason for my laughter? I was caught up in seeing the huge difference in the two people having this conversation about work. My cousin, David, had just gotten back leading a group, myself included, backpacking and exploring in Mexico. As part of his work he takes small groups down to Copper Canyon on cultural/humanitarian work. The trip goes thru the third world area of Copper Canyon to visit the Tamarah indians. Filled with helping people and moment by moment adventures. When he is not in Mexico he teaches wilderness survival. He doesn’t do it for money and he certainly doesn’t do it for prestige. He does it because its his passion, his dream.
As he asked his brother in law the “How was work today?” question I thought I saw a twinkle in his eye. “Oh you know, its work.” was the long faced reply. He brother in law is a banker.
Neither one leads a life the other should be leading. But one has a job, the other a dream come true.
After the humorousness of the moment was gone I was left deeply impressed by what I had seen. And it made me think a lot about my life and those around me.
I am sure most have heard the quote;
“Most people spend their lives working at a job they don’t like, to get money they don’t need, for things they don’t want, to impress people they don’t like.”
This may be an extreme statement on first hearing it, but for most it rings partially true.
Many people lead a life wishing they could do or be something they aren’t doing. They have a dream that they want to live, and yet when asked if they are living that dream they aren’t.
I believe everyone has a dream. Maybe from childhood, maybe not, but its real none the less. Dreams are important to an individual. When talking to people about their dream they come alive, their eyes sparkle and their voice gets excited. And then comes a statement I am sure we have all heard and said, “Oh well, maybe someday.” and the sparks are gone, the passion fizzles out and they go back to life just thinking about their dream.
Men and women all have a dream. Not just some or those who have thought about it or have been told they should have one. I mean ALL. Every single person if you search long enough has a dream inside them. And most of them aren’t living it.
The excuses for not living a dream are wide ranging. No money, no time, no resources, no skills, no support. In other words, no reason.
Why don’t we live our dreams?
Simple question, hard to answer. The answer is hard because it is so elusive. You really can’t tell why exactly. The excuses we use are just that… excuses. So what is the real reason? Fear? Laziness? Lack of faith?
If you are scared well… you should be. Living a life of dreams is scary. Not in the spooky sense. But in the difficulty and challenges. Its not easy and you will be tried, talked out of it, have road blocks put in your way and cross into unknowns. Yes it is scary. But worth it? Completely.
As for being lazy there really is no other reply then to get off your rump and start working. This life is short and there is no time to waste.
There is an old western quote that says;
“The cowards never started and the weak ones died on the way.”
At least start. Then you can figure out the rest as you go. But the truly strong start living their dreams now.
If we live a life without faith then it is no life. You were given your dreams for a reason and there is no power that would give you dreams and desires only to not give you a way of fulfilling them. Have a little faith.
“To dream anything you want to dream. That’s the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do. That is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself to test your limits. That is the courage to succeed.” - Bernard Edmonds
We are limitless in our capabilities, endless in our resources and have and untold potential to build anything we can imagine. So why hold back?
What is the one thing that makes you come alive? The one thing you would die for, or more importantly, live for?
What is your dream? And what do you need to do to start living it?
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Fear, Expediency, and the Economy
September 25, 2008 by Mike Wilson · Leave a Comment
So leave everything you know and carry only what you fear.
Daily we face the onslaught from the media. A murder here, a rape there. Illegal immigrants taking your jobs here; globalism outsourcing your job to over there. It is called news. Fundamentally, however, it is fear-mongering — and if succumbed to, it is fatal to our soul.
Both political parties attempt to play on fear, portraying the opposition candidate in the most negative light possible to the point where this campaign has become more immature than a kindergarten shout-down (”My dad can beat up your dad!”). In order to achieve support for means that we know are questionable, those in office instill fear of the unknown or the different. Fundamentalism Muslims are referred to as “Islamo-fascists” (a convenient compounding of any word to denigrate the former term).
Our current economic situation is a result of fear…fear of work, fear of hard times, fear of the housing
market plunging more deeply. This fear will cause us to operate from a position of expediency. Expediency resulting from fear pushes us towards means that seem to be fixes to the fearful problem, but are really methods that will, like termites, slowly eat away at our structural foundation.
In the years of the Roaring 20’s, economists (mainly following the theories of Irving Fisher) were convinced that slowly increasing the money supply would allow for continued expansion of the economy without increasing prices too much or causing any damage to the financial and industrial structures. However, an economist in Austria (Ludwig von Mises) was writing a contrary view, contending that increasing the money supply, thus lowering interest rates and making borrowing cheaper and more attractive than savings, might just pull the rug out from under the glass table on which the economy sat. He felt that “if monetary policy pushed ‘market’ interest rates below the ‘natural’ rate, the central bank could create an unstable business cycle that could lead to financial disaster” (’natural’ rate of interest defined to be “the rate that equalizes the supply and demand for saving based on the social rate of time preference”) [Skousen--The Big Three in Economics].
Mises predictions were ignored and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. continued to increase the money supply and lowered interest rates below the natural rate such that structural imbalances were introduced into the economy, contributing to the Great Depression.
Fast-forward to the 1990’s, a time of great economic growth and increases to the money supply as demonstrated by the decreasing interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve over the last 18 years. What are we facing again? An economy that isn’t saving because the cost of borrowing was cheaper than it should have been is loading the investment market with mortgage-backed that are described as “radioactive toxic waste.” Fear of the economy slowing down during the 90’s and the early 2000’s gave impetus to regulators to adjust the money supply to such a degree that it is likely to have dropped the market rate of interest below the natural rate of interest, leading to the instabilities we’ve seen over the last few months, coming to a head these last ten days.
We know that in order to prosper we need to save. However, we buy into the information spoon-fed to us by a media that is inherently a business and operates on a 24-hour news cycle, thus it is not only subject to fear-mongering, but media is also an objective participant in the generation of economic fear. Politicians also aren’t hesitant to promote fear since our fear gives them greater power as we feel a deeper need for security and every politician will tell us that “changing horses midstream” is a dubious and dangerous proposition.
I started this post with a line from Bruce Springsteen’s ironic warning entitled Magic. We need to listen to the warning voice by holding onto “everything [we] know and [letting go of] what [we] fear”. We must recognize that fear, as described in the following lyrics, is a dangerous thing and if allowed, will turn our heart black and take our God-filled soul and “fill it with devils and dust.”
Now every woman and every man
They want to take a righteous stand
Find the love that God wills
And the faith that He commands
Well I’ve got God on my side
And I’m just trying to survive.
What if what you do to survive
Kills the things you love?
Fear’s a dangerous thing.
It can turn your heart black, you can trust;
It’ll take your God filled soul, fill it with devils and dust.
Decisions based on fear using expediency instead of principles will most often destroy those fundamental principles. Let us be aware of what is seen and unseen and make decisions based on principles and re-establish liberty.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
The Bitter Ironies of September
September 24, 2008 by Rob Benson · 1 Comment
(Guest Contributor)
These days have produced some great ironies. Not the least of which is the current scene on Wall Street: The “free market capitalists” are the ones at the helm when we have the biggest fiasco of the financial system to date, and they are proposing a bail-out? The free marketists created the very system which will result in the biggest regulatory intervention ever: so far $1 trillion proposed to bail out the Wall Street financials.
Ironic that under Bush, the conservatives allow the governmental bail-out in the first place. Furthermore, the RTC (governmental commission to oversee and take in conservatorship of the assets that are upside down) and other heavy-handed governmental regulatory agencies that will come from this are far more heavy-handed than the regulation repealed by the GOP in the 80’s!
Ironic that while the Chinese have worked to “privatize” their biggest banks over the last decade, the US of A has just “nationalized” it’s biggest banks!
Ironic that the American taxpayer will bail out the CEO’s of Wall Street, whose taxes the American taxpayer, through the representatives, voted to decrease!
Ironic that the American taxpayer will bail out the biggest financial giants whose shares are widely held by foreigners!
Ironic that Morgan Stanley, an age-old American financial, is being looked at for purchase by a Chinese bank.
It’s ironic that John McCain who has defended the SEC and the “down-regulate” culture of wall street now calls for Chairman Cox to be “fired!” Further ironic that he was considering Cox for his VP.
Ironic that Bush spent us into uncharted deficit territory, while Obama is vowing to cut spending and cut taxes on the middle class.
Ironic that during the Clinton years, we saw more economic growth, less governmental spending and saw an expansion of global trade activity, while during the Bush years we’ve seen more spending, less growth and a decrease in our ability to expand trade.
It’s ironic that the mean income of the majority of the conservative voting block is “middle class” while the two groups of voters for Obama are “wealthy/upper class” and “lower class/poor” — yet, Obama is proposing a sizable “middle-class tax-cut.”
Furthermore, irony strikes broadly in politics these days: The “family-values” party nominates a man known for NOT being a family man and a woman who chooses to run for the highest office in the land right after having a baby!, while the other party’s two nominees are well known family men.
The party who claims to defend fighting for the rights of women misses the opportunity to nominate the first woman to the highest office. While the other party chooses a woman to run as VP.
The minority nominee is the most educated in the running. The minority nominee has the most statesman-like temperament.
While John McCain accuses Obama of being inexperienced, he chooses a green governor of a small state who’s only other experience is mayor of a town of 7,000 people.
It’s ironic that the man who fought for campaign-finance reform is now being out fund-raised by his counterpart because of his own rules.
Ironic that the party in favor of a “free press” cloisters their VP nominee, Palin, from any exposure to the press.
Ironic that Palin, a staunch opponent of sex education in schools — even if it’s limited to teaching abstinence — has a teenage daughter who is pregnant.
Ironic that McCain calls Obama “elite” while the combined net worth of Obama and Biden is a fraction of the networth of Palin, and Palin’s net worth is a fraction of McCain’s!!
Ironies that may shift the entire political and economic field.
Have something important to say? Light a fire on the Cause of Liberty blog.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
What Trampolines Can Tell Us About Ideal Society
September 23, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
I was jumping on the trampoline today with my three kids — eight year-old Alex, three year-old Liberty (Libby), and eleven month-old Avery — and, like I am prone to do, reflecting on ideal society.
Alex, skilled and energetic, wants to jump as high as he can and perform tricks. Libby, unaware of her surroundings, jumps wildly, often upending Avery. Avery has a good time, yet she’s at risk from her older, heavier, more capable siblings. Much of the time was spent cautioning Alex and Libby to be careful with Avery. In fact, the experience revolved around catering to Avery, the youngest, weakest, and least capable in our family.
One adult and three kids on a trampoline — a microchosm of society, or at least what it should be. The following are the lessons I identified:
1. Cater to the weakest.
Just as we cared for baby Avery on the trampoline, in the ideal society, individuals voluntarily serve and uplift the weak, the poor, the aged, the disabled. Competition and cooperation go hand-in-hand; competition increases quality while cooperation ensures peace and stability. Competition should never create ill feeling; cooperation should never create dependency. The goal of this ideal isn’t to take the strongest down to the level of the weakest; rather it is to uplift the weak to increased capacity, thus raising all of society without creating wide discrepancies in social status and/or wealth distribution.
2. Create outlets for all skill levels and interests.
While the ideal caters to the weakest, it also allows for full expression of every individual, including the most talented and capable. The disease of socialism is that it tends toward mediocrity, tearing down the able in the name of “helping” the weak. In the ideal, catering to the weak is never done at the expense of the strong. In the case of our trampoline experience, we took turns so that each child could do what they wanted and grow on their terms. Alex took a turn alone, doing flips and aerials. Libby did her crazy thing. Then, I held Avery in my arms and we all jumped together. No desires were sacrificed, Avery was protected and made to enjoy the experience at a higher level than she could alone.
Think of this concept in a public school setting. Inevitably, in a class of 25 or more students, the “slow” learners get left behind, while the “fast” learners quickly become bored. Both the weak and the strong suffer.
Imagine a setting where each individual is allowed to learn and progress on their own terms, at their own speed. Then, having grown, they help others to do the same.
3. Protect rights.
Just as my youngest daughter needed to be protected from physical danger posed by her siblings, the ideal society has a strong institution that protects the rights of every individual. Keeping individuals safe from harm from others is not the same as giving every individual the same material goods.
4. The ideal is for all of this to happen at the level of family and community.
Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have no intimate knowledge of, nor a relationship with, the members of our communities. While families and community members voluntarily serve each other, the federal government relies solely upon force to institute “goodwill.” Top-down, removed-from-the-source charity always tends toward bureaucracy, wastes money and misemploys resources, and depends upon force as its animating factor.
Ideal charity is animated by voluntary love, is based on intimate relationships, makes the most productive use of resources as possible, and creates independence from dependence, and interdependence from independence.
Conclusion
So who cares? There’s no startling revelation here. What matters is what we do with this knowledge, not what we sit and ponder on. Be a bridge-builder: Identify where society is, where it should be, then quietly and powerfully insert yourself in the middle. Find people that need to be served and serve them. Help the unemployed develop skills and find employment. Help addicts find freedom. Care for your aged parents in your own home instead of sending them to a retirement center. Be active in your community. Be true to your spouse and loving to your children. Teach your children the importance of service, especially through your example. Remove the need for federal government force by replacing it with family and community-centered voluntary charity.
The next time you’re disgusted with federal government waste, deception, and/or force, turn that disgust into positive action by building your family and community. The stronger our families and communities, the less involved and smaller the government can be. And spend some time jumping on a trampoline — there’s no telling what you’ll learn.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Adjusting Interest Rates (errr…What’s Really Going On)
September 22, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 1 Comment
This will be short. While we are witnessing some of the most aggressive and interventionalist economic policy we’ve seen in decades this week, I’ve had the chance to be reading ideas from free market gurus like Adam Smith and Frederic Bastiat. I don’t agree with everything Bastiat has to say (I agree with most of Smith’s points) but I wanted to discuss two policies that are used to deal with economic difficulties in the United States and talk about their ramifications.
Fiscal Policy
Fiscal policy is the idea promoted by John Maynard Keynes that when the economy isn’t growing, the quickest and most sure way to increase economic growth is to stimulate demand. This is most efficiently done by deficit spending (he only recommended it over the short term) wherein the government directly plants money into the economy. The “stimulus checks” that went out earlier this year were examples of fiscal policy in the Keynesian sense. Does it work? Growth in the second quarter increased to the extent that economists expected. Does it fix things long term? No. It’s a short term solution, most often in response to fundamental problems with saving and investing. We’ll discuss this in a later post.
Monetary Policy
The second type of financial policy used to adjust the economy is referred to as monetary policy. This idea was promoted by Milton Friedman and implemented during the 1990’s and earlier part of this decade by Alan Greenspan. It’s name, monetary policy, would indicate that it has something to do with money policy, which it does. However, when the Federal Reserve meets to discuss monetary policy it is presented as an adjustment to the interest rate. The lower the interest rate the cheaper it is to borrow money and this cheaper credit encourages the economy to expand. It encourages borrowing for capital investment, home purchasing, car purchasing. It discourages savings (again we’ll talk about saving in a minute).
How, then, does the Fed adjust the interest rate? They do so by affecting the money supply. In order to make money cheaper (lower the interest rate) they do what microeconomics says will cheapen any commodity — they increase the supply of money. They do so mainly by buy bonds on the bond market and thus increasing the amount of circulating capital. With an increased money supply, banks are more willing to lend to each other and to consumers and consumption increases.
Besides the inherent problems with increasing consumption without addressing production and supply, monetary policy (although less traumatic to long-term economic fundamentals than fiscal policy and deficit spending), because of the way it’s described, has the tendency to impoverish the poor. Increasing the money supply doesn’t make anyone richer. All it does is increase the number of transactions and thus stimulate exchanges, but if there isn’t any more production of labor and capital to purchase, no real growth takes place. But because it is couched in the terminology of “lowering interest rates” instead of “increasing the money supply”, most people don’t realize that it is the money supply that is being adjusted, not the interest rates directly. This affects the laborer more than the owner/merchant in the following way. From Bastiat’s What is Money?:
Under the influence of ignorance and custom, the day’s pay of a country laborer will remain for a long time at a franc, while the saleable price of all the articles of consumption around him will be rising. He will sink into destitution without being able to discover the cause…But this rise in prices is not instantaneous and equal for all things. Sharp men, brokers, and men of business, will not suffer by it; for it is their trade to watch the fluctuations of prices, to observe the cause, and even to speculate upon it. But little tradesmen, countrymen, and workmen, will bear the whole weight of it. The rich man is not any richer for it, but the poor man becomes poorer by it. Therefore, expedients of this kind have the effect of increasing the distance which separates wealth from poverty, of paralyzing the social tendencies which are incessantly bring men to the same level, and it will require centuries for the suffering classes to regain the ground which they have lost.
Remember that this is from one of the most outspoken free market promoters of all time. I think that his assessment is correct. It takes longer for the day laborer, the wage earner, to realize that everything is costing more money because of the increase in supply of dollars, while he is making the same amount of money, than for the business man whose decision-making awaits all the financial news on Bloomberg, FOX, or CNN. One way to lessen this effect would be to change the terminology for what the Fed does: tell everyone that the Fed is increasing the money supply, not that it is lowering interest rates. And be aware when ever anything is done for expediency. There are almost alway unseen costs associated with those interventions.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...