*Written by Rob Rimes.

Introduction:

I don’t hate Mitt Romney but I am certainly not a fan, which should be obvious at this point. I do hate the goddamned media for giving him an unfair advantage over the other candidates but truthfully, that isn’t his fault. Romney isn’t the absolute worst presidential choice out there, which many of my colleagues and readers may disagree with vehemently, but he is still a progressive statist bastard that is hellbent on controlling the lives of all of us in an effort to keep the giant wheel of the establishment machine rolling. I have been nasty to the guy many times in my countless diatribes about the 2012 election but my distaste and malcontent has been for a very good reason. Point being, I know that Romney can’t save this country and I feel that this is painstakingly obvious even though I find myself completely befuddled over the fanfare and support that this guy gets, not just form the media – their support is understandable, but from the conservative voting public who are all pretty much in unison behind this guy’s idea of smaller government, less taxes and squashing the budding police state. This guy will not solve any of those problems. In fact, he will only magnify them and dig our giant pit of legislative bullshit deeper and deeper. Hell, the pit is practically bottomless at this point but electing Mitt Romney will only solidify that fact even further.

I’m certainly not saying that Obama is a better choice out of the two. Realistically, I don’t think there is much difference between one or the other. This is a prime example of there being just one big government party with two wings: one that wears blue shirts with donkeys on them and one that wears red shirts with elephants on them. The worst part about this is that most “conservatives” are following Romney, as well as Gingrich and Santorum, believing in the hypocritical rhetoric that they’ve got a small government guy on their side who will fight for them. Realistically, those who support these guys are ignorant in economics and foreign policy. It is incredibly unfortunate but as Ron Paul said in a recent debate, “Conservatives have lost their way.”

Now I can’t completely cover every negative thing on Romney’s record, as there is a lot, but I am going to talk about a few points. In the end, it is really your decision as to where you want to put your vote but you really need to think this through and ask yourself where you want to be in four years. Do you want to be climbing out of the hole or do you want to be yelling at the guys that are still digging and digging?

Smaller Government:

The first thing worth getting into is definitely the issue of Mitt claiming that he’ll work towards making government smaller. Mitt Romney, who has preached for this over the course of all these debates, has a really shitty record of practicing what he’s been preaching. In reality, Mitt has been feeding into the desires of the voter base and has been stringing them along with his version of the popular rhetoric of the day. The sad thing is that many of the people who support this douchenugget are taking all this bullshit at face value and not looking at reality. Truthfully, maybe Romney actually believes his empty words and his supporters might not be adept enough to see through the Orwellian doublespeak. Let me rundown his track record of big government bullshit by ripping the fucking band-aid off: exposing the man’s economic sores.

I could write a whole damn article about the monstrosity that is Romneycare but I won’t bore you or myself with the details that have already been recycled a million times and beaten into the ground with Thor’s hammer by every critic for several years now. I’m over the Romneycare issue personally. I don’t like it, I think it’s shit, it was the blueprint for what became Obamacare but it was done at the state level, not the federal level and most Bay Staters still approve of it, so that is their economic cross to bear.

One thing that many Romney supporters don’t know or just choose to ignore is the fact that he significantly raised taxes in Massachusetts while he was governor. While preaching fiscal conservatism and pimping himself out as friendly to business, Governor Romney increased the tax bill on businesses by $300 million! He and his cronies also approved hundreds of millions of dollars worth of higher fees and fines on businesses in just four years! Many business owners were incredibly dissatisfied with Romney as governor. Essentially, corporate taxes under Romney almost doubled in just his one term.

I guess the tax hikes were necessary though, as Romney drastically increased spending in Massachusetts. In 2006, Ol’ Mittens increased spending in just that year by 7.6 percent. In 2007, he increased spending again, this time all the way up to 10.2 percent. During just his four years in office, he increased state spending by a total of 20.7 percent! That’s a lot of debt thrown on the taxpayer but at least those hefty tax hikes on corporations absorbed some of the burden. Maybe this tax burden accounts for the fact that Mitt Romney managed the 47th ranked state, out of 50, in the realm of job creation. That brings me to my next point.

Romney has been touting his job creation success while working at Bain Capital. He proudly boasts about creating corporations like Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics, all of which have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, as governor, unemployment was a real problem in Massachusetts. Sure, he did great in the private sector and as Romney himself has said, “Jobs are created in the private sector.” However, all of his job creation skills didn’t translate to success when he reached office. So what makes the public think that this job magician’s magic wand will suddenly work this time? Yes he is a self-professed business master but he couldn’t tap into that while running Massachusetts so essentially his trial run at it was a failure. On the issue of Romney’s job creation woes, Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends wrote:

During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.

The question no one ever seems to ask Governor Romney is how many jobs were destroyed in an effort to build his monstrous corporations. Now I am not attacking him for building giant successful businesses, as that is the nature of the beast – good or bad. I am just trying to point out how skewed these sorts of statistical claims are because if you created say 300,000 jobs but your new businesses eliminated the jobs of say 250,000 people whose businesses you closed down through competition, well then you’ve only really created 50,000 jobs. This is a simple ballpark example but it should show you how some statistical claims can be made when you only tell one side of the story. Hell, government has been using these sorts of statistical tactics for years when releasing inaccurate numbers to sway public opinion for a candidate, a bill or whatever else they have needed public approval on.

Another issue that shows how non-small government this ass clown is, is the TARP bailouts. Mittens hates when people bring the subject up and has gone as far as lying and completely denying that he ever supported it but there is tons and tons of evidence that says otherwise. In fact, Romney was incredibly passionate about poorly run banks getting a massive taxpayer funded bonus for sucking at business. On CNN, a few years back during the bailouts, Romney said:

I think there is a need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion dollars in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion dollars a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

Sounds like small government to me! So why would he be so pro-big bank? Well, let’s look at his top campaign contributors from a recent list. His top contributor is Goldman Sachs who gave $354,700. Next up is Credit Suisse Group at $195,250 and Morgan Stanley at $185,800. Every other contributor in the six figures is also in the banking industry. You’ve got HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp. & JPMorgan Chase. His top ten contributors are all fucking banks! Occupying Wall Street should start on Mitt’s front lawn! This shows a sharp contrast from Ron Paul whose top three campaign contributors are the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. Paul’s biggest contributor is also a lot less than six figures. So who really understands the plight of the average person? Romney is so far up on the Wall Street crony capitalist ladder than he can’t remember how to get down – not that he wants to.

People that call Barack Obama the Wall Street president haven’t seen anything yet. On campaign contributions from the big banks, Obama has made significantly less than Romney. Goldman Sachs gave Obama $49,124, Morgan Stanley coughed up $28,225, Bank of America gave $46,699, JPMorgan Chase came in at $38,038 and Citigroup was at $36,887. You do the math but it is obvious who the bailed out banking industry supports.

Another thing worth noting is that Romney has gotten more money from lobbyists than all other Republican candidates combined. I guess you need all that special interest money to work towards smaller government. Damn it! That Mitt Romney doublethink is taking over my brain!

The fact of the matter is, love it or hate it, Mitt Romney has a proven track record of being nothing less than one of the heads on the big government hydra. He is an economic nightmare but because people take him at his word and don’t look at his record, he can continue to dupe the masses into thinking that he’s on their side.

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected.

Continued in Part II: Foreign Entanglements..

*Written by Rob Rimes.

We are practically 30 debates in and we still have like 120 left. There are so many now that I have to date the debates in the article title. I can no longer write early, mid or late before the month. It’s only the 9th of November and this is the second debate just this month. We still have at least three more in November alone. There is actually another one in just three days. It’s maddening and it is getting to the point where chronicling all these GOP shit shows is taking a lot more time than I ever anticipated. At the end of the day, I do actually like writing about them and bringing you, the reader, my extended two cents. It’s just time consuming and intrusive to my life when I work more than full-time and party on top of that every waken moment. But whatevs, I’m out of mini bottles of Seven Tiki at the moment, so I guess it’s time to direct my attention at something much more important.

This debate was pretty good overall, other than the typical lack of time given to Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul, when given time, was on his goddamned A game! He was hotter in this debate than any other. His answers were on point and exacting. I think in the eyes of the standard Fox News watching conservative viewer, he may have gained some points simply for the fact that this debate was strictly economic. This allowed Paul to hit some home runs without being scrutinized every other question like when the talk of the moment is foreign policy. Not that Paul is wrong on foreign policy, he is dead right but conservatives refuse to accept reason, logic or common sense and instead continue down the path of repetitive stupidity and fear-mongering when it comes to handling our “enemies”. Anyway, this is about the debate, not conservative idiosyncrasies.

CNBC hits us weakly with their subpar video introduction which makes note of the fact that the debate is all about economics and that it is in Michigan, in the backyard of the companies that received the auto industry bailouts. Thanks for cluing us in and reminding us that Detroit is in fact in Michigan. CNBC, after the intro, lets us know that there will be no opening and closing statements, as they want to dedicate more time to the debate. Well that’s nice of them! We can’t have Bachmann wasting five minutes on telling us how her 18,371st foster kid Bruce whittled a recorder out of oak with a wolverine’s broken jaw bone. It is probably worth noting that Michigan native Romney got the loudest pop from the crowd during the brief introductions.

The moderators for this debate were pretty decent and straightforward for the most part, although this was overshadowed by the fact that they had Jim Cramer from “Mad Money” on the panel. This guy is a fucking dickwad that claims to be a real capitalist while calling for more regulations and other ridiculous bullshit. Not only that but Cramer is just a loud obnoxious moron that sounds like he is cutting a wrestling promo against his opponent whenever he asks a question. Having Jim Cramer as a debate moderator is like having the Ultimate Warrior read children’s stories after he rubbed angeldust on his gums. He’s a about as colorful, as scary and as unfunny as a clown’s dick. I’d rather have CNN’s John King throat gurgle through the entire debate than listen to Cramer ask even one question.

Another thing worth noting, moderator Steve Liesman looks like Todd Packard from “The Office”.

I’m going to start off with Rick Santorum, just to get him out of the way. Per usual, he was ineffective and barely noticeable in this sea of shitpickles. His inclusion in these debates has gone beyond just being a joke and has gotten to the point that he is wasting everyone’s time, even his own. He needs to graciously bow out and just support whomever he feels he needs to latch onto to stay somewhat relevant. Problem is, Santorum staying relevant is like a stripper staying on the night shift after her 30th birthday.

It’s hard to even pay attention to Santorum, as he just spews his relgiotarded nonsense to the point that even the relgiotards aren’t listening anymore. His poll numbers are dismal and if Gary Johnson isn’t invited to most of these, Santorum shouldn’t be either. The same could be said for Jon Huntsman but I’ll get to him in a sec.

All I learned from Racquetball Rick this round is that he was a coal miner’s daughter. There was talk of Jesus and tennis but none of that really funny whining and crying he is synonymous with. Although when Ron Paul and some others were touting health savings accounts, Santorum said that he has been on that train for years and that he pretty much invented them. When everyone is asked about Obamacare, he is the only one without a real answer, as he just uses his time to boast about all the things he has done for health care. None of these things were really solutions, they were just attempts to build up and reinforce his wobbly house of cards with an empty hand. And that’s it for Santorum. He contributed nothing except his douchenugget dorkdick smile.

Jon Huntsman, another ding dong that needs to bow out was at least a bit more engaging than Santorum. At least a few of his answers and points come to mind when looking back, where Santorum gave us nothing.

The first thing Huntsman said that is worthy of a mention is that banks that are too big to fail will cause economic contagion. He also said that he is the president of the 99% but also the president of the 1% because he was going to unify everyone. People aren’t Voltron lions dude; they don’t just come together in times of need. He also said that spending $68 billion on bank bailouts was wrong. No shit cockwart! Huntsman also says that the government needs to charge extra fees to bailed out banks to alleviate the burden shoved onto the taxpayers.

As for Obamacare, Jon Huntsman says that as president, he would sit down with all the state governors and work out state specific health care options. Huh? WTF? Are you meeting with all of them at once or on a one-on-one basis? Cause this shit could take a while homie and we ain’t got the time! I guess it’s better than spending 90% of your time playing fucking golf though. Huntsman promises to find a solution to the high cost of health care. He needs to elaborate on this but really that’s just a waste as there are far simpler options.

On Mitt Romney’s plan to deal with China, which will be touched on here in a bit, Huntsman says that it isn’t a real solution and that he is just pandering. I’m assuming he means that Mitt is pandering to the crowd because I feel the same way. Mitt claims China is manipulating currency but Huntsman points out the the U.S. is manipulating its own currency with quantitative easing. Huntsman then goes on a rant about oatmeal and swords or something and that’s it.

Michele Bachmann was her typical self and just like a throwback to mainstream media Palin bashing, I have to point out this lady’s poor fashion choice. Basically her jacket was the exact same jacket Dr. No wore in his self-titled film “Dr. No”. Granted that was a James Bond movie, but Dr. No jacked the film title like Bachmann jacked Dr. No’s jacket. In any event, I could’ve sworn I saw Bachmann wiping 007′s blood off of her sleeve when she thought the camera wasn’t on her. Sorry, this makes Bachmann bashing too easy but it is hard to knock the guys fashion sense since they all were dapper suits. Being a woman in politics must suck because of assholes like me. Whatever, just stop dressing like a high-ranking member of SPECTRE and I’ll shut up.

Bachmann once again proves that she is just too fucking nice when the moderators give her a the perfect opportunity to go after Romney. She praises him and then switches to her standard Obama-bashing rhetoric. We’ve heard the catchphrases a few thousand times now lady. All I know is that she compared taxes to Happy Meals or something. Um dude, Happy Meals are happy, taxes are sad. I’m not following you.

When asked another question, she doesn’t really answer it. She just informs us, who are apparently clueless, on how Obama is doing it wrong. Well what is the right way lady? People who are supporting this woman are just supporting senseless substance-less Obama-bashing without any real answers, solutions or fixes. Bachmann calls Obama policy “lunacy”. Yes, she described something as “lunacy” and she wasn’t even looking in the mirror.

Michele Bachmann then warns us that the Chinese live in the Pentagon’s computers. I can understand that since the country is very heavily populated and they might want some peace and quiet from the hustle and bustle of Chinese life. Bachmann also points out that they are building secret tunnels to hide weapons and snacks. She says that the American taxpayers are the ones paying for it as we keep borrowing from China. Wait.. have we been paying them back? Damn! Well I want a ride on the Chinese aircraft carrier then!

Bachmann doesn’t say anything else. Well, she does but I have a hard time with my idiocy filter on. Yes, I am probably too hard on her but she is another candidate like Huntsman and Santorum, as she is just wasting everyone’s time. These debates would be so much better if we trimmed the fat. It’s about time for this to start happening. And unless she has some more concert tickets to give away for straw poll votes, her campaign is doomed at this point.

Another candidate that should definitely hang’m up, especially after this debate, is Texas Governor Rick Perry. This debate was career suicide for Perry and as much as I severely dislike this guy, I almost felt sorry for him. The biggest fuck up in debate history that I can remember came when Rick Perry went to tell us the three government agencies he would eliminate. After he listed the first two, his mind drew a 53 second blank on the third. The extremely awkward moment was capped off by him staring at the moderators completely dumbfounded until he uttered, “Oops”. The fact that he can’t even remember the basis for a huge part of his platform is fucking scary!

See for yourself:

Knocking Rick Perry on this is just too easy and the world has given him enough heat already. He’s still an asshole in my eyes and always will be but damn, I’d be surprised if he could win a fourth term as Texas Governor at this point.

There are some other notable Perry moments from the evening. The first is when Perry sends a message to the big banks when he says, “If you are too big too fail, you are too big.” M’kay? Perry then spends time pimping out his tax plan and other ideas he has, it only took him months to get his shit together and give us something. All previous debates were sprinkled with, “I’m working on it! You’ll see it soon at RickPerry.com! Yeeeeeehaaaaaw!!! (accompanied with gunfire)”.

Perry also goes on about how America needs to get energy going. He tells us that regulations are killing America. He then gives props to Santorum, thus giving the audience a little Rick on Rick love. I bet Santorum gives Perry tennis lessons.

When it comes to the Obamacare questions, Rick Perry says that people need to be given a “menu of options”. He says, “Doctors need to be given incentives on health care rather than sick care.”

He then goes on about how he created a job creation climate in Texas with no regulatory strangulation. He says that his tax plan will help balance the budget in 2020. Yeah bro, that’s like 8 years away. Is this so that you don’t have to answer to critics when your plan fails because just by chance, if you became president, and even won a second term, this would be at the very tail end of your eight year lease in the White House. 2020 is not today, we need a fix now!

Perry goes on a tangent about how universities need to be forced to be more efficient. Okay sir, did you get that idea from Hugo Chavez? Perry then closes out his portion of the debate by bitching about the corruption caused by corporate lobbyists. As he says this, he pauses to check his Wells Fargo app on his iPhone to make sure that check from Merck cleared.

The time thief Mitt Romney was successful at monopolizing every moment he could once again. I don’t blame Mr. Mittens however, as CNBC, just like Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, spent more time asking Romney questions than anyone else. I think Mitt alone gets about 30-40% of the time in these debates. That’s the mainstream media for ya though, proppin’ up their fancy handpicked golden boys.

Romney is first asked if the United States should bailout the European Union. The fact that the moderators even ask this question is proof at how many dumbasses work under the NBC banner. Romney says that the EU can take care of their own problems and that we don’t need to bail them out. Romney goes on to say that Europe needs to take care of their own problems and the United States shouldn’t be bailing out our own banks let alone Europe’s. I can’t disagree with that. When pressed however, Romney admits that he supports the World Bank and the IMF. Yep, I knew he couldn’t give a good statement without finding a way to fuck it up. After this, Mitt claims that he saved the Olympics. From what dude? Did the Skrulls attack or something?

Mitt’s had some other noteworthy quips and I’m not referring to the little swirl at the top of Dairy Queen products. Mitt said that we need profitable businesses that can hire people and the current administration is failing at this. He also says that we need to simplify the tax code but we need to lower taxes first. When asked about Obamacare, he says that health care should be a state issue. He also agrees with Ron Paul’s point that we need to push health savings accounts. Mitt also said that people need the broadest array of health care options.

In the second hour, Romney goes on to explain that Obama is only focused on his re-election. Apparently Romney needs to re-focus on his hair because it’s starting to melt under those hot lights. Maybe his hair is wax! He’s really just some weird bald guy under there!

Disregarding his wax sculpture, Mitt tells us that he promises to not raise taxes and that he will cut spending dramatically. Funny, because Reason Magazine analyzed Mitt’s fix-it plan and discovered that his “cuts” would actually expand the federal budget (read this).

Mr. Romney then tells us a spooky tale about the Chinese boogeyman. He states that he believes in free trade but not with China because they are evil. Actually he calls them “predatory” about a dozen times over the course of two minutes. Mitt says that China is hacking our computers and manipulating our currency. This causes Huntsman to butt in with the QE comment I referenced earlier. All I hear is “I love free trade but..” and “I love free trade but..” Mitt is a doublethinker and doublespeaker. Mitt’s solution in dealing with China is to assault them with tariffs. Yep, great idea ass bastard.

In the shadow of his sexual harassment circus, Herman Cain tried to ignore the media assault in an effort to see if he could fit the slogan “Nine.. nine.. nine” in the debate 999 times. I think he succeeded. In all seriousness, I’m fucking tired of this goddamned slogan and the people en masse are vehemently opposed to this plan. Then again, there are still a shit ton of Cain Brains supporting this inexperienced hack, who quotes Pokemon, can’t answer tough questions and often admits he spoke without thinking. With all of his weaknesses and with it being incredibly apparent that his inexperience is a major hinderance, this guy is still polling insanely well. Well, lets look at Herman Cain Superstar and his performance this debate.

All things considered, with all the shit he has been put through the last few weeks, Mr. Cain did pretty well overall. That is, if you’re into his flavor of Tea. For starters, he gets the first question and being the show starter he tells us that “We must assure our currency is sound.” That’s laugh-out-loud funny coming from a Federal Reserve insider that spends a lot of his time defending and pimping the most tyrannical institution in our country’s history.

Even though the moderators said the debate was to be focused on economics, the NBC-paid moderators are quick to question Cain’s character over the sexual harassment allegations. Cain brushes off the bullshit attempt to catch him in a “gotcha” question. The crowd erupts when Cain essentially says “I did not sleep with that young intern (or the other women either)!” They asked Cain if voters care about character. Cain responded by saying that voters don’t care about character assassination.

The next time Cain is questioned, he malfunctions (or does he) and starts chanting “Nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine.. nine..” over and over. He says that his solution is the only solution to the tax problem. Sure, if you believe hype and pro-Federal Reserve rhetoric. When challenged, once again, at how his plan could possibly stay at the rates of 9-9-9 with government being government, Mr. Cain said that it is transparent and that Americans will make politicians keep the rates at 9. ROFLMFAO! Yeah, just like Americans have been able to get those Tea Party Republicans to balance the budget and solve our economic woes as they promised before the 2010 midterm elections. C’mon people, unless we’re going to start cloning Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Justin Amash, all we’re ever going to get is full of shit candidates like everyone else. Maybe Cain just assumes that Republicans and Democrats are never going to hold office again. But wait.. he’s a Republican, so never mind.

Cain spends almost every other question finding a way to insert “nine.. nine.. nine..” in his answers. When he doesn’t say “nine.. nine.. nine..” he says “I have a bold solution” and then winks nine times.

When not shoving the number nine down our throats like the Count on Sesame Street, he does give us some substance. For instance, after referring to Nancy Pelosi as “Princess Nancy”, Cain tells us that the solution to Obamacare is to pass H.R. 3000. Wait, didn’t Cain say he wouldn’t sign any bill longer than three pages? Well H.R. 3000 is 270 pages. Maybe he meant he’ll sign every three pages. If that’s the case, he’ll have to sign H.R. 3000 into law 90 times! Seems like a waste of BIC SoftFeel Retractable Ballpoint Pens. I need to read up on H.R. 3000 but it seems like crap to me.

Towards the end of the debate, Cain actually talks in rhyme a few times. C’mon dude, really? We need a fucking president man! Are you running for the highest office in the land or are you auditioning for the role of Roadblock in the next “G.I. Joe” movie? FYI bro, the role was given to The Rock.

One thing is for certain, Cain is on to something. Every single time I heard the number nine, I felt a pain in my stomach and the need to drop a shit. I have a feeling that the 999 Plan is the long lost key to discovering the legendary brown note.

Now I’ve got to talk about Cain’s sweetheart, Newt Gingrich. Rumor has it that they were holding hands, when the camera wasn’t on them. Newt’s doesn’t care though, Newt doesn’t give a shit. Honey Badger comes out with a bang and with the first question asked him, his answer receives the loudest pop of the night. Not even because it was a great answer, it was just typical Newt. It was how he said it that got the reaction. Newt, who was considered “dead on arrival” by all the expert pundits when he entered the race, is now the hottest muthafucka in the streets since that time Nas dropped his Jay-Z diss track “Ether” back in 2001. Newt’s proving that he’s Stillmatic.

Out the gate, Newt calls the results of Ben Bernanke’s policies “wreckage”. Newt’s right but I love how all these conservatives are loudly applauding Newt’s criticism of the Federal Reserve when he’s just recycling the same talking points Ron Paul has been using for decades. Yet, conservatives still can’t see that Ron Paul IS the solution. Nope, but they’ll continue to jack his policy points and call him crazy.

Some Newt highlights are when he challenges the Occupy Movement by asking if Bill Gates and Henry Ford were a part of the 1% or the 99% when they started out. Point being, the 99% can make something of themselves if they try. The moderators try to “gotcha” Newt a few times but these people are just like the buzzing of flies to him. He treats “gotchas” like steak and devours the fuck out of them! Newt bashes Dodd-Frank and says that if you want the housing to come back, that the economy must come back first.

When his turn comes up on the Obamacare issue, Newt says that it is a state issue and that we need to focus on brain science. He also uses the moment to challenge Obama to a 3 hour Lincoln-Douglas style debate on health care. While that would be great, Obama would never accept the offer because he knows he’d get destroyed like Apollo Creed in “Rocky IV”.

Other Newt Points include him pimping out the Chilean model for social security and letting the world know that college is not a right therefore tuition isn’t free. In the end, Newt just kills it. Like I’ve said again and again, I don’t agree with several of his points but he has the skill and the fire to run the show, more so than anyone else on that stage. However Dr. Paul is still the best all around, which brings me to him.

Ron Paul had his best debate yet; he keeps getting better and better. I hope he keeps gaining steam through January. Truthfully, it was pretty fortunate for him that this debate was strictly economic. It allowed him to hit his economic points without having to defend himself from confused conservatives that don’t “get” his crazy stance on foreign policy.

Ron Paul says that our debt is unsustainable and that we need to liquify it. He says that our current actions are just prolonging our agony and that drastic changes must be made quickly. He calls spending a disease and points out that spending in and of itself is a tax. He promises to work towards eliminating the income tax altogether by cutting a trillion dollars from the budget each year and curing our fiscal idiocy. Paul also promises that he will try to combat price fixing. He says that the market should determine interest rates. He basically gets a “fuck the Fed” in there without actually saying it.

With Obamacare, Ron Paul says that we have to get the government out of medicine. He is the first to bring up medical savings accounts, which gets support from Mitt Romney.

On education, one of the moderators points out that students loan debt is near a trillion dollars and that Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt. She also points out that college seniors have more than $25,000 in debt on average. A video is then played about how tuition rates have increased by 428% since 1990. The moderator then refreshes us on the fact that Ron Paul has said that he wants to get rid of the Department of Education. She then asks, without the DOE, how would he make college more affordable. Ron Paul points out to the idiot moderator that her argument proved that the Department of Education is obviously ineffective and a total failure. Dr. Paul then points out to the moderator that was so sure of her stupid argument, that the quality of education has gone down, the cost has gone up because of inflation and students are essentially getting ripped off and the burden is falling on the taxpayer. Ron Paul then makes sure that everyone knows, which they already should, that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to be involved in education.

Ron Paul is asked if he thinks that Rick Perry is a crony capitalist. Ron Paul refuses to answer the question and says that people in this country need to understand the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism as many don’t. With that, the debate is over with about ten minutes to spare on the clock.

Luckily for us there were no fights like the last big debate. I mean, that shit was entertaining but in the end, it just took away from the meat and potatoes and made the candidates involved in the bitch and whine fests look like bitches and whiners. This debate just flowed so nice and CNBC did a decent job. Well that is except for including that over-caffeinated freak Jim Cramer. I thought homeboy’s heart was going to explode a few times.

In the end, nothing really changed, everyone looks like they always do. Paul and Newt were on fire, everyone else was typical. Like I said, a couple of these people need to realize that it is time to step the fuck off.

I missed Gary Johnson, as always, but he was tweeting during the debates and in one of his tweets he texted, “I will be proposing a 43 percent reduction in federal spending. 1.5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending.” God I hope so! He just upped the ante on Ron Paul by half a trillion! If they are going to waste our time with Santorum, Huntsman and Bachmann then Gary Johnson should at least get some time. Ah well, fuck these debate organizers.

Grading Scale:
Grade A+: Ron Paul
Grade A: Newt Gingrich
Grade C: Mitt Romney
Grade C-: Herman Cain
Grade D: Michele Bachmann
Grade D-: Jon Huntsman
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade F: Rick Perry
Grade I: Gary Johnson

The Greece drama continues. The Greek bailout proposed by the Eurozone has the possibility to bring the world economy to its knees. It has been proposed by to have Greece removed from the Eurozone. This many say is a frantic attempt to help save the drowning currency. Many believe Greece is the scapegoat for a much larger problem. Gerald Celente, publisher at The Trends Journal, gives us his take on the messy situation.

My Two Cents: This girl is as smart as I am not sarcastic. End Two Cents.

My Two Cents: I wish the American elderly were as bad ass as the Japanese elderly. Maybe then I wouldn’t be paying for their mistakes and for their entitlements. If anything, you have to appreciate and respect the spirit of these people. End Two Cents.

*Taken from BBC. Video at link.

The Skilled Veterans Corps, as they call themselves, is made up of retired engineers and other professionals, all over the age of 60.

They say they should be facing the dangers of radiation, not the young.

It was while watching the television news that Yasuteru Yamada decided it was time for his generation to stand up.

No longer could he be just an observer of the struggle to stabilise the Fukushima nuclear plant.

The retired engineer is reporting back for duty at the age of 72, and he is organising a team of pensioners to go with him.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Everything PR.

Many users trying to access Skype today, had problems signing in and making calls. Skype already had similar issues last December, when the company’s response to the crisis was rather poor. Today, however, Skype was fast in announcing and admitting the issue on Twitter:“Some of you may have problems signing in to Skype and making calls. We’re investigating and hope to have more details to share soon.”

Many users speculated that Skype is moving its data on Microsoft’s servers, however, since the deal has not yet been finalized, this is a very unlikely cause for today’s outage. Media reports question Microsoft too, suggesting that this is a clear sign that the acquisition by Microsoft is a definite disaster. In the meanwhile, Skype announced that they identified the problem, and that they will be rolling out a fix soon.

Back in December we offered you six alternatives to Skype, for those who need to make voice calls. These are listed again below:

CONTINUED..

*Written by Rob Rimes.

1. Introduction:

Nothing pisses me off as much as the goddamned Drug War. It is one of those issues that people seem to get super-sensative about because they don’t want their kids living a life addicted to a bunch of crap while destroying the very fabric of our society. If you believe that that is what is going on, then you are a clueless and helpless dolt that needs to kick a hole in your T.V. because you’ve listened to and accepted the bullshit hype and scare tactics that the moronic media has been shoving down your throat for years. People like you don’t have the ability to look at a problem, truly analyze it and find a reasonable solution. The solution that the masses seem to put their faith in is one that combats the problem only to magnify and fuel that very same problem. The current solution enables the problem and IS the problem, plain and fucking simple.

Stop listening to guys like O’Reilly while taking in their bullshit rhetoric as gospel. Because while you are clicking on stupid ass “Pinhead or Patriot” polls, there is a war going on that most of you don’t even understand. So with this article here, let’s talk about reality. Let’s talk about what’s real. The truth is harsh and hard for most people to swallow. If you’re a little bitch, go read something else. Maybe that copy of “Bold Fresh” you’ve been using as a paperweight is your cup of tea. Anyway, let’s move this bitch forward.

2. Prison & The Police State:

The Drug War is quite possibly the biggest waste of fucking money and resources that our government is thievishly pulling directly from our pockets. Hell, the War on Poverty is also a tyrannical project that rapes our paychecks but that topic is for another day. The War on Drugs is the fish to fry right now.

To start, our prisons are full of thousands upon thousands of small time drug offenders that did nothing but smoke a damn joint and didn’t hurt anyone else. In most cases, their actions didn’t even have a negative effect on anyone else except maybe themselves and that is debatable. Point is, prisons are overcrowded and cost a shit-fucking-load of money that comes out of our pockets. Personally, I don’t mind contributing to the prison system when it keeps a serial rapist away from society. However, I do have a serious fucking problem when I am paying for the prison sentence of some guy that was just selling a bit of weed to pay for his monstrous cost of tuition. Why should that guy be sitting in a cell with the serial rapist and be treated in the same way? Is the dude selling a few joints as evil as the guy who has forcibly raped dozens of women with a knife to their necks? The law says “yes”.

See, that is how this fucked up system works. Nixon’s bullshit War on Drugs destroys the lives of small time offenders and in some cases, the lives of their families and children as well. I am not condoning that a parent should be pushing chronic and blow but I am certainly not condoning a police state that kicks in doors, shoots the family dog and terrorizes small children all because they got a tip that the guy inside has a fucking joint. This may seem like an extreme case but it happened in Columbia, Missouri in February of 2010.

In 2008, the police of Prince George’s County, Maryland were tipped off that there was marijuana at the home of Cheye Calvo. Apparently, a box of marijuana was accidentally sent to the residence during a half-assed drug smuggling operation. The cops then raided the house, scared the hell out of his family, shot his dogs and then arrested Mr. Calvo. It wasn’t until later that they realized that they made a huge mistake and that Mr. Calvo was actually the mayor of that very same town! After the incident, Mayor Calvo had this to say:

“When this first happened, I assumed it was just a terrible, terrible mistake but the more I looked into it, the more I realized (it was) business as usual that brought the police through our front door. This is just what they do. We just don’t hear about it. The only reason people heard about my story is that I happened to be a clean-cut white mayor.”

Another example of police state terrorism created by Nixon’s War on Drugs happened in Atlanta, Georgia back in 2006. A botched drug raid resulted in the murder of an innocent 92-year-old woman. Kathryn Johnson was shot to death by narco-cops during a warrant-issued “no knock” raid on her property. It was later revealed that the raid was based off of falsified evidence that claimed that illegal drugs were in the home. There were absolutely no drugs. This resulted in the Johnson family receiving a settlement of $2.9 million as well as a complete overhaul of the Atlanta drug unit. Three officers were also sentenced to prison after being exposed conspiring to cover-up the incident.

According to Reason Magazine’s statistics, there are over one-hundred police SWAT drug raids in the United States daily. 4,000 people are arrested every day for drug crimes in America. This is more people than those arrested for assault, burglary, vandalism, rape and murder combined! How many of these are legit raids and how many of them bring about terror and harm to those involved in the incident? How many are actually effective and justified? To put things into perspective, here is a map provided by the Cato Institute that shows where there have been botched raids or raids that have turned really ugly.

3. Drug Cartels, Terrorism & Organized Crime:

Are the risks and wasted resources really worth all the trouble? Is this war a war that can even be won? The fact of the matter is, this war has been going on for over 40 years and we have made no progress whatsoever. Sure, big arrests are made, massive stashes of drugs are found and turned over to authorities and here and there a life is saved but when one looks at the bigger picture, we are worse off today than we were during the Nixon era when it comes to drug crime.

Today, Mexican drug cartels terrorize our southern border and drug production funds the Taliban/Al-Qaeda network as well as other terrorist organizations. Two of our greatest threats have been created due to the existence of the counterproductive and incredibly destructive War on Drugs. What I am implying here may come across as completely fucking ludicrous but let’s look at facts, which in this case, disproves the logic used by the pro-Drug War masses.

For a pretty solid example, one has to look no further than alcohol prohibition. When alcohol was banned in the United States from 1920-1933, drinking became incredibly romanticized. The new law created a society where many more Americans were breaking the law because fuck the man, drinking was cool! When the Beltway suits made it illegal, they made it even cooler. Now one was truly living on the edge when they disregarded the new rules and decided to sneak into their local speakeasy to down fistfuls of bootlegged hooch. No one wanted to listen to Congress because no one wanted to be told what they can and cannot put into their own bodies. People chose to be rebels and to ignore the consequences of their actions. Many people were greatly fined and even jailed over sneaking sips of whiskey. However, that wasn’t even the worst part.

The prohibition of alcohol created large organized crime families in the United States. These families knew that the people wanted the freedom to drink and they provided them with that service. It was organized crime that created the speakeasies and made the moonshine the customers desired. Hell, the mob even snuck exotic types of alcohol into the country. This was done quite easily: bribing cops and killing anyone else who stood in their way. The prohibition of alcohol created a huge business opportunity for those who don’t have any respect for the law. You see, when you make an entire industry illegal, that industry will not cease to exist. Quite the contrary, it will go underground and exist in a way that causes a hell of a lot more harm than it did when it was left alone. This is exactly the problem we have today with the Mexican drug cartels and the Taliban.

With drugs being illegal, it is the darkest elements of society that will supply the rapidly growing demand. This creates the crime because if there is some sort of dispute in the illegal drug industry, that dispute can only be solved with violence as drug cartels and drug dealers can’t turn to law enforcement to help them sort out their problems. Just like during alcohol prohibition, rival gangs kill one another and if innocent people get caught in the crossfire, too bad for them! Prohibition doesn’t kill the dangerous product, it just makes it even more dangerous.

4. The Myth of the Risks:

There are also a lot of bullshit myths surrounding drugs that are manufactured and served on a silver platter to the nonintellectual masses. Many political pundits of the left and the right eat this crap up like the all-you-can-eat soft-serve ice cream at Sweet Tomatoes. All one has to do though, is look at the facts to see the mainstream media’s bullshit agenda in helping the easily duped plebeians support the War on Drugs. They’ve got to fight the nightmare and save the children!

Well, children today aren’t in as bad of shape as fucktard foundations like Drug Free America want you to think. Isn’t it NBC that uses their TV stars to pimp that whole “The More You Know” campaign? Well, they’re right. “The more you know” the more you will be able to see through the lies and deceit and falsified information.

When looking at things statistically, there are a lot of people that try marijuana and even harder drugs that don’t get addicted. The pro-Drug War foundations will lead you to believe that nearly everyone that tries anything will pretty much be instantly hooked. The truth is, very few people who try any of these drugs actually become hooked on them. It is much more common for someone to try something and decide that it isn’t for them. I’m not saying cases of instant addiction don’t happen but they are a lot less common than they would ever want you to know.

According to the federal government’s own data, 8 million people have tried crack yet there are only about 300,000 crack users. That means that only 3.75% of the people who have tried crack in the United States are regular users. That seems like an awfully small amount doesn’t it? Well, the DEA has the number at around 17% because they have to look like they are fighting an epidemic. Weird how the government’s data isn’t consistent with one of their own agencies, albeit the primary agency that is fighting this bullshit war. Anyway, crack isn’t the only example of these kind of shenanigans. The ratio of those who have tried to those who regularly use is virtually the same across the board with all the other drugs.

Another area where there is blatant misinformation and manufactured scare tactics is in the way that every couple of years or so the government announces that there is a new drug on the streets that is much stronger and much more highly addictive than anything we have ever seen. Beware and lock up your children otherwise they will become zombies whoring themselves out to greasy old men for quick fixes of this week’s new nightmare drug. Yeah, it’s fucking hogwash.

In the 20′s it was alcohol that was the target, in the 30′s it was all about “reefer madness”, then came opium and heroin and morphine and other “nightmare” drugs that they claimed were more potent and addictive than all the ones prior. In the 80′s it was cocaine and then crack. In the 90′s it was ecstasy and other “raver” drugs. Then it was crystal meth and a slew of others. There will be more in the future, trust me. The DEA and the Drug War cronies have to pimp their agenda and the only method that works is falsifying information, scaring the shit out of people and parading around with a few stashes and guns that they confiscated through a big raid here or there.

5. My Personal Experiences:

Now I am not going to sit here and try to preach that drugs aren’t addictive and aren’t harmful and aren’t a horrible thing to get involved in. There are those who can handle them and there are those who cannot. Word to the wise, it is best not to try and find out. However to act holier-than-thou and claim I am perfect would be a grave hypocrisy and it is something I cannot do. I have had my fair share of drug experiences: good ones and completely fucking devastating ones. The reason why I am sharing this is because I want you to understand that this opinion comes from someone who has experienced all the good and bad drugs can bring into one’s life.

In high school, I didn’t do many drugs. I would party and drink like a fucking pro and I would smoke some weed every now and then but as far as the hard shit and pills, I didn’t really partake in them. Well, at least not voluntarily anyway. I did have less than a handful of experiences were I came into contact with heavier stuff and inadvertently indulged in them.

On one occasion I noticed that my weed tasted a little odd. It also smelled different but my inquiries about it were met with “don’t worry man, it is just some really good shit.” That it was, because I came to find out that it was laced with cocaine. I was tweaking like a motherfucker and I quickly found out that cocaine makes me incredibly testy, if not just blatantly angry and incredibly destructive. On the car ride home, I found out that the guy driving was the one who laced the joint. Upon discovering this, I wailed on the asshole while he was driving. We were a couple of coked up violent forces of nature beating the shit out of each other. Actually, it was quite one sided, I was just hitting him and he was frantically trying to pull over before getting into an accident. He pulled over and jumped out of the car, it took three others to hold me back from killing the idiot. I got a ride home from someone else, calmed back down and eventually went to sleep. Cocaine was definitely not my cup of tea. The kid I tried to kill came over and apologized in person the next day. I had to respect him for that.

I also had other occasions were the weed I was smoking was laced with weird shit. One time it was laced with opium, which I loved. Another time it was laced with crack, which almost ended violently like the cocaine situation. I have even had weed that was laced with Raid. Yes, the bug killer. I was young and stupid and borderline suicidal. Actually, I was more genocidal I’d have to say. Anyway, after these adventures, opium became my drug of choice, at least when I could get it.

In my early twenties, I partied harder, went to raves, popped some pills here and there and tried to fuck as many chicks as I could. Ecstasy was fun and it made sex better, which didn’t help my sex addiction issues (which I later beat without drugs, therapy or any new age bullshit). When your cute girlfriend encourages you to do it just to have awesome sex while going out to find other chicks to join in the fun, your dick makes you listen. It makes you listen hard.

I did get through that phase pretty much unscathed and without disease or children (thank fuck). However, I did have an incident after that era of my life that started to change my outlook. Essentially, I died. If it wasn’t for my girlfriend reviving me in my bed, where I wasn’t breathing and my heart wasn’t beating, I would have been dead at 23. Instead, I got up, like a second wind hit me, I told her to leave the house and I woke my mum up and had her drive me to the ER. In the hospital I flatlined and had to be revived again. This nightmarish fiasco ended with yours truly being locked up in the psych ward on the 4th floor of Naples Community Hospital for nearly two weeks. I spent the first anniversary of 9/11 sitting around the television set with a bunch of addicts eating oatmeal, quoting the Bible and telling me how to live my life. I’m assuming most of them have returned there for several visits, I however have never been back.

That was the turning point. I woke the fuck up, started giving a shit and even though I knew I would be homeless shortly after that (a situation that I talked about in the article “Free to Lose: A Personal Statement on Socialism“), I refused to have to give in and not fight for something better. I chose to no longer escape. Luckily for me, I never became addicted to the substances I was using. I just liked them and was able to easily walk away from it all. Seeing the destruction I created around me, couldn’t prepare me for the heartbreak and hell I would feel when someone I truly loved died of drugs a few years later.

Further down the timeline, I had a very close intimate friend who I planned to marry. She and I talked about it quite often and it really started out as a joke that we would get married. As the years went on, the joke became a little more serious and there were feelings developing between us that were much more than friendship. There was a point, just before her death, where we were inseparable. I knew she had gotten into drugs pretty heavily but I didn’t realize how bad until it was too late. It was something I talked to her about but couldn’t truly put my foot down because of how I was in the past and the fact that she had witnessed a lot of it. Back during my hardcore party days she was the voice of reason that I ignored. When the roles were reversed, I felt like too much of a hypocrite to really put a stop to it and realistically, she would’ve done what she wanted anyway.

She died a few days after my 27th birthday from an overdose. I was devastated and it took about 2 years before I could get my wits together and even function like a normal human being again. In my mourning, I started experimenting again because a part of me wanted to join her. Luckily, I found my way out of the abyss and became much stronger for having lived through that devastating process.

The point of all this, is that even after going through everything I have experienced with drugs, I still do not want the fucking government having that control over me or my body. I chose the path I took and so did all of the friends that I lost. We knew the risks and there was no one that could have made us stop until we were ready to stop. The law being against us just made the act of complete disobedience even more justified. We all wanted to be rebels and even though we were killing ourselves, our actions were a big “fuck you” to the system. Sure, it sounds stupid now but one doesn’t think like a 32-year-old when one is 20. Especially when one is 20 and high.

Hell, it isn’t even about just control over our bodies, the War on Drugs just doesn’t work. All it does is make drugs look cooler to the users while creating criminal empires to supply those users. With alcohol being legal, you don’t see gang wars over who is going to import the bordeaux. In Amsterdam where drugs are legal, marijuana use by teens is much smaller than it is in the United States. Why? Because the Dutch made drugs boring.

6. Conclusion:

When one truly understands the War on Drugs, common sense should take over and tell you that it is a horrible monstrosity that must be abolished at all costs. I understand the dangers of drugs but as long as those who use them don’t harm anyone else or threaten their liberty, than whose business is it? If you want to smoke a joint in your home while watching a movie, you should be able to. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t punish those who get behind the wheel of a car but we have that system in place and if someone gets pulled over for being under the influence of drugs, it should be treated exactly the same way as if they were drunk. Actually, it is treated this way already. However, even though drug addicts get high and get behind a wheel now, there would be fewer addicts driving in a society without drug prohibition. As the numbers of users would go down, so would the number of users behind the wheel. Fact is, everywhere drug prohibition has been lifted, drug use has gone down and so has drug related crime. God forbid the DEA lets that cat out of the bag.

The War on Drugs, like most aspects of life that are plagued with government intervention, needs to be reanalyzed and looked at with reason and common sense. It has been proven ineffective yet the government still pushes it on us and convinces most of us that they are getting the job done. Apart from the War on Poverty, this is the longest running war in United States history. It is time to end this war. Shit, the effects that it would have on the economy would be fucking amazing. In 40 years, the War on Drugs has cost more than one trillion dollars! It would be nice to really cut government spending by cutting this cancerous growth out of our economy. Don’t expect the fiscal conservatives to do anything about it.

In closing, drugs are definitely bad but that doesn’t mean that it is the federal government’s job to regulate and prohibit them. Prohibition has never worked. Luckily for the citizens of the United States during alcohol prohibition, the government realized the folly of their ways in just over a decade and rectified the situation before it became much worse. The government doesn’t seem to be as smart as they used to be. Really though, they know what is going on. They know it doesn’t work. They just don’t give a fuck. Their stubbornness has been responsible for the incarceration of thousand upon thousands, if not millions, of people for minor drug crimes: people who may have been caught with a couple of joints or who may have just been trying to make a quick buck off of their buddies. Prison overpopulation wouldn’t even be an issue if the government could just effectively do their job and at the end of the day, do what is right.

The War on Drugs will probably never end. For it to end, the United States government would have to admit that they were wrong. There are way too many egos in Washington for that to ever happen, let’s be real. Look how much senseless bloodshed went on for over a dozen years in Vietnam before Congress finally pulled us out against the wishes of the stubborn president, who at that time was the idiot Gerald Ford. Unlike Vietnam though, we are not pulling out due to bloodshed. Quite the contrary, we are continuing to fight as the bloodshed is sold to us an effect of the drugs themselves, when in fact it is not. What it really is, is an effect of the Drug War. The federal government is victimizing all of us by trying to prevent others from victimizing themselves. So we all have to suffer to save the few who don’t even care and who most likely don’t want our help. But hey! That’s pretty much American policy on anything.

Milton Friedman talks about drugs:

Bill Cosby talks about people on drugs:

*Taken from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Murray Rothbard.

Protectionism, often refuted and seemingly abandoned, has returned, and with a vengeance. The Japanese, who bounced back from grievous losses in World War II to astound the world by producing innovative, high-quality products at low prices, are serving as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda. Memories of wartime myths prove a heady brew, as protectionists warn about this new “Japanese imperialism,” even “worse than Pearl Harbor.” This “imperialism” turns out to consist of selling Americans wonderful TV sets, autos, microchips, etc., at prices more than competitive with American firms.

Is this “flood” of Japanese products really a menace, to be combated by the U.S. government? Or is the new Japan a godsend to American consumers?

In taking our stand on this issue, we should recognize that all government action means coercion, so that calling upon the U.S. government to intervene means urging it to use force and violence to restrain peaceful trade. One trusts that the protectionists are not willing to pursue their logic of force to the ultimate in the form of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Keep Your Eye on the Consumer

As we unravel the tangled web of protectionist argument, we should keep our eye on two essential points: (1) protectionism means force in restraint of trade; and (2) the key is what happens to the consumer. Invariably, we will find that the protectionists are out to cripple, exploit, and impose severe losses not only on foreign consumers but especially on Americans. And since each and every one of us is a consumer, this means that protectionism is out to mulct all of us for the benefit of a specially privileged, subsidized few—and an inefficient few at that: people who cannot make it in a free and unhampered market.

Take, for example, the alleged Japanese menace. All trade is mutually beneficial to both parties—in this case Japanese producers and American consumers—otherwise they would not engage in the exchange. In trying to stop this trade, protectionists are trying to stop American consumers from enjoying high living standards by buying cheap and high-quality Japanese products. Instead, we are to be forced by government to return to the inefficient, higher-priced products we have already rejected. In short, inefficient producers are trying to deprive all of us of products we desire so that we will have to turn to inefficient firms. American consumers are to be plundered.

How To Look at Tariffs and Quotas

The best way to look at tariffs or import quotas or other protectionist restraints is to forget about political boundaries. Political boundaries of nations may be important for other reasons, but they have no economic meaning whatever. Suppose, for example, that each of the United States were a separate nation. Then we would hear a lot of protectionist bellyaching that we are now fortunately spared. Think of the howls by high-priced New York or Rhode Island textile manufacturers who would then be complaining about the “unfair,” “cheap labor” competition from various low-type “foreigners” from Tennessee or North Carolina, or vice versa.

Fortunately, the absurdity of worrying about the balance of payments is made evident by focusing on inter-state trade. For nobody worries about the balance of payments between New York and New Jersey, or, for that matter, between Manhattan and Brooklyn, because there are no customs officials recording such trade and such balances.

If we think about it, it is clear that a call by New York firms for a tariff against North Carolina is a pure ripoff of New York (as well as North Carolina) consumers, a naked grab for coerced special privilege by less efficient business firms. If the 50 states were separate nations, the protectionists would then be able to use the trappings of patriotism, and distrust of foreigners, to camouflage and get away with their looting the consumers of their own region.

Fortunately, inter-state tariffs are unconstitutional. But even with this clear barrier, and even without being able to wrap themselves in the cloak of nationalism, protectionists have been able to impose inter-state tariffs in another guise. Part of the drive for continuing increases in the federal minimum-wage law is to impose a protectionist devise against lower-wage, lower-labor-cost competition from North Carolina and other southern states against their New England and New York competitors.

During the 1966 Congressional battle over a higher federal minimum wage, for example, the late Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) freely admitted that one of his main reasons for supporting the bill was to cripple the southern competitors of New York textile firms. Since southern wages are generally lower than in the north, the business firms hardest hit by an increased minimum wage (and the workers struck by unemployment) will be located in the south.

Another way in which interstate trade restrictions have been imposed has been in the fashionable name of “safety.” Government-organized state milk cartels in New York, for example, have prevented importation of milk from nearby New Jersey under the patently spurious grounds that the trip across the Hudson would render New Jersey milk “unsafe.”

If tariffs and restraints on trade are good for a country, then why not indeed for a state or region? The principle is precisely the same. In America s first great depression, the Panic of 1819, Detroit was a tiny frontier town of only a few hundred people. Yet protectionist cries arose—fortunately not fulfilled—to prohibit all “imports” from outside of Detroit, and citizens were exhorted to buy only Detroit. If this nonsense had been put into effect, general starvation and death would have ended all other economic problems for Detroiters.

So why not restrict and even prohibit trade, i.e., “imports,” into a city, or a neighborhood, or even on a block, or, to boil it down to its logical conclusion, to one family? Why shouldn t the Jones family issue a decree that from now on, no member of the family can buy any goods or services produced outside the family house? Starvation would quickly wipe out this ludicrous drive for self-sufficiency.

And yet we must realize that this absurdity is inherent in the logic of protectionism. Standard protectionism is just as preposterous, but the rhetoric of nationalism and national boundaries has been able to obscure this vital fact.

The upshot is that protectionism is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense, destructive of all economic prosperity. We are not, if we were ever, a world of self-sufficient farmers. The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade—such as protectionism—cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity. Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of less efficient producers, at the expense of more competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.

The Negative Railroad

Protectionism is also peculiarly destructive because it acts as a coerced and artificial increase in the cost of transportation between regions. One of the great features of the Industrial Revolution, one of the ways in which it brought prosperity to the starving masses, was by reducing drastically the cost of transportation. The development of railroads in the early 19th century, for example, meant that for the first time in the history of the human race, goods could be transported cheaply over land. Before that, water—rivers and oceans—was the only economically viable means of transport. By making land transport accessible and cheap, railroads allowed interregional land transportation to break up expensive inefficient local monopolies. The result was an enormous improvement in living standards for all consumers. And what the protectionists want to do is lay an axe to this wondrous principle of progress.

It is no wonder that Frederic Bastiat, the great French laissez-faire economist of the mid-19th century, called a tariff a “negative railroad.” Protectionists are just as economically destructive as if they were physically chopping up railroads, or planes, or ships, and forcing us to revert to the costly transport of the past—mountain trails, rafts, or sailing ships.

“Fair” Trade

Let us now turn to some of the leading protectionist arguments. Take, for example, the standard complaint that while the protectionist “welcomes competition,” this competition must be “fair.” Whenever someone starts talking about “fair competition” or indeed, about “fairness” in general, it is time to keep a sharp eye on your wallet, for it is about to be picked. For the genuinely “fair” is simply the voluntary terms of exchange, mutually agreed upon by buyer and seller. As most of the medieval scholastics were able to figure out, there is no “just” (or “fair”) price outside of the market price.

So what could be “unfair” about the free-market price? One common protectionist charge is that it is “unfair” for an American firm to compete with, say, a Taiwanese firm which needs to pay only one-half the wages of the American competitor. The U.S. government is called upon to step in and “equalize” the wage rates by imposing an equivalent tariff upon the Taiwanese. But does this mean that consumers can never patronize low-cost firms because it is “unfair” for them to have lower costs than inefficient competitors? This is the same argument that would be used by a New York firm trying to cripple its North Carolina competitor.

What the protectionists don t bother to explain is why U.S. wage rates are so much higher than Taiwan. They are not imposed by Providence. Wage rates are high in the U.S. because American employers have bid these rates up. Like all other prices on the market, wage rates are determined by supply and demand, and the increased demand by U.S. employers has bid wages up. What determines this demand? The “marginal productivity” of labor.

The demand for any factor of production, including labor, is constituted by the productivity of that factor, the amount of revenue that the worker, or the pound of cement or acre of land, is expected to bring to the brim. The more productive the factory, the greater the demand by employers, and the higher its price or wage rate. American labor is more costly than Taiwanese because it is far more productive. What makes it productive? To some extent, the comparative qualities of labor, skill, and education. But most of the difference is not due to the personal qualities of the laborers themselves, but to the fact that the American laborer, on the whole, is equipped with more and better capital equipment than his Taiwanese counterparts. The more and better the capital investment per worker, the greater the worker s productivity, and therefore the higher the wage rate.

In short, if the American wage rate is twice that of the Taiwanese, it is because the American laborer is more heavily capitalized, is equipped with more and better tools, and is therefore, on the average, twice as productive. In a sense, I suppose, it is not “fair” for the American worker to make more than the Taiwanese, not because of his personal qualities, but because savers and investors have supplied him with more tools. But a wage rate is determined not just by personal quality but also by relative scarcity, and in the United States the worker is far scarcer compared to capital than he is in Taiwan.

Putting it another way, the fact that American wage rates are on the average twice that of the Taiwanese, does not make the cost of labor in the U.S. twice that of Taiwan. Since U.S. labor is twice as productive, this means that the double wage rate in the U.S. is offset by the double productivity, so that the cost of labor per unit product in the U.S. and Taiwan tends, on the average, to be the same. One of the major protectionist fallacies is to confuse the price of labor (wage rates) with its cost, which also depends on its relative productivity.

Thus, the problem faced by American employers is not really with the “cheap labor” in Taiwan, because “expensive labor” in the U.S. is precisely the result of the bidding for scarce labor by U.S. employers. The problem faced by less efficient U.S. textile or auto firms is not so much cheap labor in Taiwan or Japan, but the fact that other U.S. industries are efficient enough to afford it, because they bid wages that high in the first place.

So, by imposing protective tariffs and quotas to save, bail out, and keep in place less efficient U.S. textile or auto or microchip firms, the protectionists are not only injuring the American consumer. They are also harming efficient U.S. firms and industries, which are prevented from employing resources now locked into incompetent firms, and who could otherwise be able to expand and sell their efficient products at home and abroad.

“Dumping”

Another contradictory line of protectionist assault on the free market asserts that the problem is not so much the low costs enjoyed by foreign firms, as the “unfairness” of selling their products “below costs” to American consumers, and thereby engaging in the pernicious and sinful practice of “dumping.” By such dumping they are able to exert unfair advantage over American firms who presumably never engage in such practices and make sure that their prices are always high enough to cover costs. But if selling below costs is such a powerful weapon, why isn t it ever pursued by business firms within a country?

Our first response to this charge is, once again, to keep our eye on consumers in general and on American consumers in particular. Why should it be a matter of complaint when consumers so clearly benefit? Suppose, for example, that Sony is willing to injure American competitors by selling TV sets to Americans for a penny apiece. Shouldn t we rejoice at such an absurd policy of suffering severe losses by subsidizing us, the American consumers? And shouldn t our response be: “Come on, Sony, subsidize us some more!” As far as consumers are concerned, the more “dumping” that takes place, the better.

But what of the poor American TV firms, whose sales will suffer so long as Sony is willing to virtually give their sets away? Well, surely, the sensible policy for RCA, Zenith, etc. would be to hold back production and sales until Sony drives itself into bankruptcy. But suppose that the worst happens, and RCA, Zenith, etc. are themselves driven into bankruptcy by the Sony price war? Well, in that case, we the consumers will still be better off, since the plants of the bankrupt firms, which would still be in existence, would be picked up for a song at auction, and the American buyers at auction would be able to enter the TV business and outcompete Sony because they now enjoy far lower capital costs.

For decades, indeed, opponents of the free market have claimed that many businesses gained their powerful status on the market by what is called “predatory price-cutting,” that is, by driving their smaller competitors into bankruptcy by selling their goods below cost, and then reaping the reward of their unfair methods by raising their prices and thereby charging “monopoly prices” to the consumers. The claim is that while consumers may gain in the short run by price wars, “dumping,” and selling below costs, they lose in the long run from the alleged monopoly. But, as we have seen, economic theory shows that this would be a mug s game, losing money for the “dumping” firms, and never really achieving a monopoly price. And sure enough, historical investigation has not turned up a single case where predatory pricing, when tried, was successful, and there are actually very few cases where it has even been tried.

Another charge claims that Japanese or other foreign firms can afford to engage in dumping because their governments are willing to subsidize their losses. But again, we should still welcome such an absurd policy. If the Japanese government is really willing to waste scarce resources subsidizing American purchases of Sony s, so much the better! Their policy would be just as self-defeating as if the losses were private.

There is yet another problem with the charge of “dumping,” even when it is made by economists or other alleged “experts” sitting on impartial tariff commissions and government bureaus. There is no way whatever that outside observers, be they economists, businessmen, or other experts, can decide what some other firm s “costs” may be. “Costs” are not objective entities that can be gauged or measured. Costs are subjective to the businessman himself, and they vary continually, depending on the businessman s time horizon or the stage of production or selling process he happens to be dealing with at any given time.

Suppose, for example, a fruit dealer has purchased a case of pears for $20, amounting to $1 a pound. He hopes and expects to sell those pears for $1.50 a pound. But something has happened to the pear market, and he finds it impossible to sell most of the pears at anything near that price. In fact, he finds that he must sell the pears at whatever price he can get before they become overripe. Suppose he finds that he can only sell his stock of pears at 70 cents a pound. The outside observer might say that the fruit dealer has, perhaps “unfairly,” sold his pears “below costs,” figuring that the dealer s costs were $1 a pound.

“Infant” Industries

Another protectionist fallacy held that the government should provide a temporary protective tariff to aid, or to bring into being, an “infant industry.” Then, when the industry was well-established, the government would and should remove the tariff and toss the now “mature” industry into the competitive swim.

The theory is fallacious, and the policy has proved disastrous in practice. For there is no more need for government to protect a new, young, industry from foreign competition than there is to protect it from domestic competition.

In the last few decades, the “infant” plastics, television, and computer industries made out very well without such protection. Any government subsidizing of a new industry will funnel too many resources into that industry as compared to older firms, and will also inaugurate distortions that may persist and render the firm or industry permanently inefficient and vulnerable to competition. As a result, “infant-industry” tariffs have tended to become permanent, regardless of the “maturity” of the industry. The proponents were carried away by a misleading biological analogy to “infants” who need adult care. But a business firm is not a person, young or old.

Older Industries

Indeed, in recent years, older industries that are notoriously inefficient have been using what might be called a “senile-industry” argument for protectionism. Steel, auto, and other outcompeted industries have been complaining that they “need a breathing space” to retool and become competitive with foreign rivals, and that this breather could be provided by several years of tariffs or import quotas. This argument is just as full of holes as the hoary infant-industry approach, except that it will be even more difficult to figure out when the “senile” industry will have become magically rejuvenated. In fact, the steel industry has been inefficient ever since its inception, and its chronological age seems to make no difference. The first protectionist movement in the U.S. was launched in 1820, headed by the Pennsylvania iron (later iron and steel) industry, artificially force-fed by the War of 1812 and already in grave danger from far more efficient foreign competitors.

The Non-Problem of the Balance of Payments

A final set of arguments, or rather alarms, center on the mysteries of the balance of payments. Protectionists focus on the horrors of imports being greater than exports, implying that if market forces continued unchecked, Americans might wind up buying everything from abroad, while selling foreigners nothing, so that American consumers will have engorged themselves to the permanent ruin of American business firms. But if the exports really fell to somewhere near zero, where in the world would Americans still find the money to purchase foreign products? The balance of payments, as we said earlier, is a pseudo-problem created by the existence of customs statistics.

During the day of the gold standard, a deficit in the national balance of payments was a problem, but only because of the nature of the fractional-reserve banking system. If U.S. banks, spurred on by the Fed or previous forms of central banks, inflated money and credit, the American inflation would lead to higher prices in the U.S., and this would discourage exports and encourage imports. The resulting deficit had to be paid for in some way, and during the gold standard era this meant being paid for in gold, the international money. So as bank credit expanded, gold began to flow out of the country, which put the fractional-reserve banks in even shakier shape. To meet the threat to their solvency posed by the gold outflow, the banks eventually were forced to contract credit, precipitating a recession and reversing the balance of payment deficits, thus bringing gold back into the country.

But now, in the fiat-money era, balance of payments deficits are truly meaningless. For gold is no longer a “balancing item.” In effect, there is no deficit in the balance of payments. It is true that in the last few years, imports have been greater than exports by $150 billion or so per year. But no gold flowed out of the country. Neither did dollars “leak” out. The alleged “deficit” was paid for by foreigners investing the equivalent amount of money in American dollars: in real estate, capital goods, U.S. securities, and bank accounts.

In effect, in the last couple of years, foreigners have been investing enough of their own funds in dollars to keep the dollar high, enabling us to purchase cheap imports. Instead of worrying and complaining about this development, we should rejoice that foreign investors are willing to finance our cheap imports. The only problem is that this bonanza is already coming to an end, with the dollar becoming cheaper and exports more expensive.

We conclude that the sheaf of protectionist arguments, many plausible at first glance, are really a tissue of egregious fallacies. They betray a complete ignorance of the most basic economic analysis. Indeed, some of the arguments are almost embarrassing replicas of the most ridiculous claims of 17th-century mercantilism: for example, that it is somehow a calamitous problem that the U.S. has a balance of trade deficit, not overall, but merely with one specific country, e.g., Japan.

Must we even relearn the rebuttals of the more sophisticated mercantilists of the 18th century: namely, that balances with individual countries will cancel each other out, and therefore that we should only concern ourselves with the overall balance? (Let alone realize that the overall balance is no problem either.) But we need not reread the economic literature to realize that the impetus for protectionism comes not from preposterous theories, but from the quest for coerced special privilege and restraint of trade at the expense of efficient competitors and consumers. In the host of special interests using the political process to repress and loot the rest of us, the protectionists are among the most venerable. It is high time that we get them, once and for all, off our backs, and treat them with the righteous indignation they so richly deserve.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and vice president for academic affairs of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.