When advocates of gun confiscation complain about “guns” and say “no one needs a gun for x” all they are really saying — whether they understand it or not — is “I want only cops and soldiers to have guns.”
— Read on mises.org/power-market/cop-amber-guyger-one-reason-we-need-private-gun-ownership
COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; As a Canuck, I enjoyed your piece on the window and step tax for I fear Trudeau may start reading your blog for ideas. You have to come up with a program that blocks politicians. I love how they call Trump a racist down there showing they are real idiots for they do not know the definition of race. Trump is no keener and that’s why they hate him. I thought I would share with you that here in Canada, during 1885, we did impose a racist tax. Canada created the Chinese Head Tax, which taxed the entry of Chinese immigrants. What would they call that today? SF ANSWER: True, Trump is no keener (ass-kisser) but at least you know what he thinks whereas the career boys just smile and lie to your face so you never know. Yes, politicians do seem to get ideas from each other. The US had this civil asset forfeiture and now everyone is confiscating money because that’s what the Americans do. Today, civil asset forfeiture is an outright crime against the people for it is not even a tax – just an illegal taking of innocent people’s money. When it comes to money, there have been some really crazy taxes and hypocrisy behind it. I would have been discriminated against by Peter I, the Great in Russia. Back in 1705, he imposed a tax on men who did not shave. If you paid the tax, you did not have to shave. The police were authorized to shave any man on the spot. If you paid the tax, you were given a supply of tokens to give to the police so they did not shave you on the spot. I suspect there was no shaving cream applied, but the brute force with a knife. Here is one of those tokens that were issued to men who paid a tax to be allowed to wear facial hair. I suppose race did not matter, so it was just tyranny. Peter the Great was supposedly trying to modernize Russia demanding that men should be clean-shaven. Nevertheless, Peter the Great was painted wearing a mustache. Yet Peter the Great may not have actually stolen the idea of a beard tax from King Henry VIII of England. In that case, Henry VIII was notoriously in financial trouble and he debased his coinage because he was broke. During 1535, Henry levied a tax on all men who had beards thereby inventing the beard tax. What was interesting, Henry VIII discovered that imposing a tax on beards turned them into a status symbol. Beards became reserved for the affluent and revered by the impoverished who could not pay the tax. Henry VIII’s greed made beards the symbol of resistance. Henry VIII, himself, wore a beard during his reign. What politicians always do is the constantly create more and more schemes to invent new taxes rather than raising taxes, which is too obvious. Roosevelt imposed all sorts of taxes including the Marihuana Tax in 1937. He put a tax on silver and even potatoes. You will find all sorts of taxes imposed on some really crazy things throughout history. So get ready. When the Democrats come back, it will be with a vengeance like nothing before. There have even been people who suggested that there should be a tax on emails because it is competing with the Post Office.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/really-crazy-taxes-that-altered-society-creating-resistance-status-symbols/
The Best in uncensored news, information, and analysis
— Read on www.blacklistednews.com/
Diversity is our strength.
— Read on takimag.com/article/global-refugee-roundup-end-of-summer-edition/
According to CNBC, Bob Woodward reported that Trump told Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs/director of the National Economic Council to just print more money to reduce the national debt. Woodward reports this discussion: Trump: “Just run the presses—print money.” Cohn: “You don’t get to do it that way. We have huge deficits and they matter. The government doesn’t keep a balance sheet like that.” Here is a chart of the US CPI not seasonally adjusted. It has begun its sharp advance since the Floating Rate System was adopted in 1971 with the fall of Bretton Woods. In spite of borrowing, inflation over time has actually advanced more aggressively than if we had just printed instead of borrowed. Cohn has said that Woodward’s book “does not accurately portray” his experience of the White House. This calls into question was Woodward also deliberately writing this book to overthrow Trump? This claimed quote of a discussion between Trump and Cohn demonstrates that someone is seriously out of touch with economics. Actually, Trump is correct. Now we have Quartz joining the media calling Trump an idiot confirming they too are clueless about debt and printing. In fact, if you did just print the money and retired the debt, it would be DEFLATIONARY and not INFLATIONARY from the budget perspective because these people are clueless themselves about how the national debt works. Before 1971, the debt could not be used as collateral for loans such as Savings Bonds. If you needed the money, you were forced to cash them in. Under this system, it was logically less inflationary to borrow than to print because you were not increasing the money supply under tradition economic theory. However, post-1971, you buy T-Bills and post them as collateral to trade futures. The distinction between borrowing and printing has been turned upside down. A national debt is now worse than printing economically because it is money that now pays interest forever. Once debt became collateral, then it lost its distinction as separate from the money supply. Since there is no intention of ever paying off the national debt, we have a money supply that is outstanding which pays interest and blows the government budget into deeper and deeper deficits every year. The truth is had we printed since 1971 instead of borrowing, there would be far less of an economic crisis compared to what we face today. If we simply printed to pay off the national debt, Social Security would suddenly become a Wealth Fund that actually made money instead of a Slush Fund for politicians. Now, Social Security can only invest 100% in US government debt and then the Fed lowers the interest rate to “stimulate” the economy and Social Security goes broke forcing higher taxes. Up to 70% of the national debt at times has been purely accumulated interest which never benefited anyone. It competes with the private sector in what we call the “flight to quality” and it forms the bank reserves. What is never discussed is the fact that US debt is also the reserve currency of nations – not paper dollars. That means that the interest we pay is exported and it stimulates foreign economies – not domestic. So who is crazy here? Trump or Woodward? To keep borrowing year after year is insane. To monetize the debt will be DEFLATIONARY from the perspective of government expenditure. In 2019, interest expenditures even at this low level of interest rates will EXCEED military expenditure. The cost to keep rolling the national debt will crowd out all social programs, result in a continued aggressive approach of government to confiscate the assets of innocent people, and it will raise taxes exponentially to retain its position of power. Sorry, Woodward – you are DEAD wrong here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Woodward is by no means qualified to criticize Trump on such an issue he clearly does not even understand. He is contributing to the brainwashing of society which will prevent us from even noticing we have a major crisis on hand. Trump should really address the nation and explain this problem very simply. I will be glad to supply the charts.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/who-is-the-fool-trump-or-woodward/
Economics 101
After decades of warfare, the federal drug war has become a predictable cycle. Drug dealer, drug gang, or drug user busted. DEA agents celebrate the bust. Newspaper reporters laud the DEA. Defendants prosecuted, convicted, and sent to jail. And then?
— Read on mises.org/wire/what-would-it-take-win-drug-war
YouTube
— Read on m.youtube.com/watch
Clinton missed big opportunity to stop 9/11 – aminewswire aminewswire
— Read on aminewswire.org/stories/report-clinton-stopped-911/
Among issues in American politics, public education remains a sacred cow for many voters. Political elites incessantly remind us that public education is a fundamental pillar of civilization. Without public education, we would continue to be uneducated savages.
— Read on mises.org/wire/education-not-right
For months, it seemed nearly every media figure was in hysterics over the impending repeal of net neutrality. Then, net neutrality was repealed… and nothing much changed. So what exactly is net neutrality, and why do so many people have such strong opinions about something they don’t understand? Jon Gabriel, editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com cuts through the hysteria to bring you the facts. Click here to take a brief survey about this video.
— Read on www.prageru.com/videos/what-net-neutrality
John Barleycorn 
You must be logged in to post a comment.