Robert Reich’s “Inequality for All” Includes No Analysis of the Fed’s Role in the Economy

Written by: C Dallas Menger

Seems impossible, but it’s true. Reich talks about middle-class workers not having an increase in inflation adjusted wages since the ’70s, but completely leaves out the cause of the inflation. He talks about CEO pay, and explains that stock options are part of the pay. He also talks about how the stock market increased significantly over the last 30+ years, but does explain how the 0% interest rate from the Fed chased savings from community banks to Wall Street. Lastly, one of the charts shows that income inequality starts to really separate in the early ’80s. He ignores that that’s because the US went full fiat currency in 1972 after Nixon took eliminated the dollar’s link to gold. I can hear the objections, but Chris if the US went off the gold standard in 1972, how come income inequality didn’t really start for another 10 years? Well, don’t forget that Volcker was the Fed chair and wanted to stamp out inflation through a tight monetary policy consisting of 20% interest rates. Once inflation was “under control” the FED has mostly lowered interest rates and allowed the money supply increase for decades after.


Obama Not the Anti-Bush

Written by, C Dallas Menger

As the Obama Presidency winds down and the Bush Presidency is properly denounced as a failure; it is important to note the many similarities between their records. I tried to get the articles from left leaning web sites to avoid partisan swear pieces. Enjoy.

Gitmo – Started under Bush, and continued under Obama who broke his promise to close the prison.

Bush Tax cuts – Obama could have let these expire under a lame duck Democratically controlled congress, but pressured them to re-pass them.

Patriot Act – Started under Bush continued under Obama until Rand Paul Filibuster.

NSA Spying – Stared under Bush continued under Obama singed Freedom Act which continues bulk collect

Afghanistan War – Started under Bush, expanded under Obama.

Iraq – Endless war, started under Bush continues under Obama due to ISIS threat.

Neo-Con Plan for remaking Middle East – Obama Over threw Libyan government and wanted to bomb Syria to over throw Assad. Obama funded Syrian rebel groups which became ISIS.

Like Bush Obama violates War Powers Act.

Fed Fund Rate – Bush 1-3% Obama 0%. Artificially low interests rates and expansion of credit lead to bubbles which are extremely harmful to the economy.

Signing statements – Bush and Obama Both did them.

Indefinite Detention – Bush and Obama both claim they could deny due process.

Spending – Bush doubled the national debt about $5 trillion. Obama adds $8 trillion more to the debt. – Washington to Clinton – about $5T – Around double under Bush to about $10T – $18T now. $3T more than Bush.

Attacking Enemies’ – Bush, Obama twin IRS scandals.

Punishing Whistle blowers – Bush and Obama both ignored laws protecting whistle blowers.

Defense spending – The “take over the world” style military spending is the same under Obama as it was under Bush.;_ylt=A0LEVzRIG8BVcjsABNxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–?p=Military+Spending+By+Country+2008&fr=chr-greentree_ff#id=0&

Federal takeover of Education: Bush – No child left behind, Obama – Common Core

Everybody knows about Bush’s Wall Street connections, but what about Obama’s Wall Street connections:

Christians / Social Conservatives – Stop Worshiping the Federal Government. Plus, Thoughts on Gay Marriage.

Written by: C. Dallas Menger

We are never going to get the Federal Government out of our lives if we can’t get them out of our heads. OK, so nine people in robes decided the marriage issue for over 318 million people. The decentralist in me finds that outrageous. But so what?

If traditional marriage was created by God and an earthly governmental body strays from that definition, then who’s correct? God is the ultimate power, right? The Federal Government doesn’t have the moral authority to define anything let alone marriage. This is the same Federal government that brought us Vietnam and Iraq; the same Federal government that’ll throw you in jail having the wrong plant on your person; the same federal government that claims it can kill American citizens without a trial and spy on you via the NSA.

“But what if the courts make it OK to marry your sister?” OK good luck to anyone that tries that… their kids will have IQs around 50 and have 7 fingers. “But what if the courts make polygamy legal?” It’s hard enough having one wife busting your chops. (I’m married to a wonderful woman BTW who never busts my chops). Those marriages are rare not because they are illegal but because most people don’t want to “share” their spouse. “But what if left wing activists try to sue churches for discrimination if they don’t perform gay weddings?” In this case just do what Rush Limbaugh said; don’t mention your religious objections just say you’re “afraid of violent reactions from extreme Muslims”. Who can argue with that? Jokes aside, left leaning authoritarians will use this ruling to for their own ends. Until that tyranny manifests itself we won’t know how to fight it.

It’s important not to forget how we got to this point. Frederic Bastiat said (paraphrasing) ‘when a government gets big and powerful, interest groups will fight each other for control over it.’ The idea of government marriage licensing is less than 100 years old. It was done to keep interracial couples from getting married. Christians should have fought to get government out of marriage right then. Also, in the 1990s right leaning politicians wanted to “encourage marriage”. So rather than reducing government, they tried to do social engineering though governmental privileges. According to one report there are currently 1,123 federal government benefits not available to un-married couples. It was easy for the left to make the case that it was unfair that these benefits weren’t available to non-traditional couples; hence the push for Gay Marriage.

The purpose of marriage however, is not to obtain government benefits. It’s to provide the best structure to raise a family. Study after study show the best environment is a traditional, intact, two-parent, one father, one mother family. This is indisputable.

No one knows how this is going to turn out. Maybe 95% of gay and lesbian marriages will end in divorce and it’ll nullify itself. Maybe there will be millions of GLBT people in mutually beneficial unions that last. Would that be so bad? Who cares what the politicians call these unions? The real work is not fixing the federal government but fixing traditional marriages (decreasing the divorce rate). Raising good kids, improving the Christian culture, and doing what Christian have always done which is being charitable and forgiving.

Uber in France: A Classic Case of Government versus Market – Loser, the Public

Written by: C. Dallas Menger


The true nature of the free market is voluntary transactions between two parities. If you choose Target over Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart must improve its marketing or offer better deals to get you to come to its stores.

The true nature of government is force, typically violent force. Don’t believe me, stop paying your taxes. Eventually, men with guns will come take your stuff and possibly put you in a cage. What the government does with your money is entire up to them.

That’s why it was no surprise this week that violence broke out in France against Uber drivers. You see non –Uber cab drivers, while they don’t work directly for the government, have an indirect relationship with the government. The government uses extremely expensive licensing to limit the number of cab drivers, thus creating a monopoly of sorts. The bottle neck in supply of cabs artificially drives up the cost and lowers the availability of cabs for the public. The government and the cab drivers make out at the expense of the public.

Finally, Uber comes along and the public has an option; the government-protected-monopoly cabs or the Uber drivers. The public was choosing the Uber drivers so often and cab driver profits were being cut so deeply that something “had to be done”. The French government banned Uber. One problem, the nature of Uber makes that law almost impossible to enforce. There is no discernible difference between an Uber customer and someone getting a ride from a friend until the car drives up to the airport sidewalk. (Uber decorates the driver’s car for marketing and identification purposes).

Keep in mind, no violence was needed in order for the public to choose Uber. There were no complaints from Uber’s customers. These were voluntary transaction that benefited the driver, the passenger, and the company. If Uber sucked or the cab drivers offered a better product the customers were free to jump in the cabs. The unenforceable law was passed anyway.

Frustrated by the lack of enforcement, the cab drivers did what thugs and bullies always do. They resorted to violence. They put the public at risk. Now, the government of France promises to crack down on the…violent cabbies… Nope it’s the Uber drivers.

So, what did we learn today? One of the reasons, we are told; that we need our government overlords is to protect us from violence, to keep us safe. In this case, what’s more important to the French government, protecting the public from violence or protecting its licensing revenue? You decide…