Economics in One Lesson

by Henry Hazlitt 

The first book on economics I ever read was Das Kapital, by Karl Marx, when I was in high school. I didn’t read it cover to cover. I was using it rather than reading it, using it to confirm the naïve ideas I had about economics back then.

I read Hazlitt 30 years later, after I’d had enough life experience to understand the fundamental flaws of Communism. Economics in One Lesson will be an eye opener for anyone that gets their economic theories from newspapers and magazines. It explains why so many of the most popular views about economic dysfunction are unsound and why social agendas will almost always fail. And it does so in the clearest and most reasonable way.

Economics in One Lesson is the classic of Austrian economics. But it’s more than that. It’s an example of the kind of thinking that is necessary to understand any complex aspect of humanity. When Hazlitt wrote it in 1946, he probably had no idea that it would become so important. As Gary North said recently in a review of it:

“Hazlitt was a great teacher. He became a mentor for me when I was getting started. I was not unique. He helped a lot of young economists.

“His book is great for high school students. I assign it in my course on economics for the Ron Paul Curriculum.

“This book is worth its weight in gold for anyone serious about understanding economics. But now, thanks to the Mises Institute, you can get a free copy here.”

 

This essay and others are available for syndication.
Contact Us  for more information. 

Continue Reading

Anything that is secret, clandestine, loaded with such a supercargo of speculation, misinformation, disinformation and, for that matter, accurate revelations, creates an appetite.” – Charles McCarry

 

A Reader Asks: Should I Invest in Bitcoin?

 

Mark – I have a confession. I’ve read about Bitcoin at least a dozen times in the past year or so. I know it’s supposed to be some sort of hot, new investment. It sounds exciting, but you always say not to invest in anything you don’t understand, and I don’t understand cryptocurrencies. I’m trying to figure out if it makes sense for someone like me – a middle-aged, middle-class person with retirement savings of about $500,000 – to invest in them. And if so, how much? Maybe you could write a short explanation “for dummies”… the pros and the cons? – PJ 

 

Thanks for your question, PJ. You’re not alone. Very few people understand what cryptocurrencies are and how they work. I have a basic understanding, but I’m hardly an expert on cryptocurrencies, let alone currencies generally.

 

My beat is wealth building, which is a larger and, to me, much more important subject. Building wealth is not about becoming an expert in one or a dozen particular areas of finance. It’s about understanding basic truths about economics and personal finance, and applying commonsense strategies that are respectful of those truths.

 

I’ve been thinking and writing about building wealth for more than 40 years. I made my share of foolish mistakes when I began to make and invest money, but I did learn from those mistakes and put that knowledge to play as the years passed.

 

My strategy worked for me. I believe it can work for anyone. But you can decide if it makes sense for you.

 

I’m going to tell you, very briefly, what I’ve learned about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. And then I’ll explain how I see them fitting into my overall wealth building strategy.

 

Some definitions… 

 

Let’s begin with a few quick definitions.

 

Currencies: I don’t think of cryptocurrencies as investments, per se. In my dictionary, investments are assets with intrinsic value – businesses, real estate, debt instruments, etc. When you buy an asset that has intrinsic value (and preferably income), you are investing.

 

Currencies are units of exchange. In medieval times, grains were currencies. But using them as units of exchange was impractical because they were perishable, occasionally unavailable, and of only modest value. They could not be used for large commercial transactions for those reasons and because they were too bulky.

 

Hard Currencies: For commercial transactions, the Romans used gold and silver pieces. They had a thousand times more intrinsic value than grains per cubic meter, and therefore solved the problem of size. They were transportable, which meant they could be used for foreign trade. And when the face of the Roman Emperor was stamped on them, their credibility as units of exchange became universally accepted.

 

Paper Currencies: When the US dollar was introduced as currency, its value was linked to the value of gold. This gave it the equivalency in value of gold, but with greater ease of use because of its relative weightlessness and its capacity to represent its value in printed denominations.

 

Fiat Currencies: When President Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971, the value of the US dollar became tied not to gold but to a promise backed by “the full faith and credit” of the US Treasury. This might have worked perfectly well had the supply of dollars been limited. But the plan was to create more dollars. To actually create more dollars out of thin air.

 

Like counterfeiters, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury teamed up to print more dollars with nothing to back them up but IOUs. And politicians were free to spend unlimited amounts of money on any sort of project they wanted. Paying for government programs was as simple as using a credit card with an unlimited credit line, a low interest rate, and an unlimited time horizon to pay back the debt.

 

This should have destabilized the dollar’s preeminence as a world currency. It didn’t, because energy trading, which has always been the fundamental factor in modern economies, was done in dollars.

 

For decades, Republicans and Democrats fought over the issue of this overspending. Fiscal conservatives argued for balanced budgets. But during crises (mostly wars), the spending took place anyway, with the repayments made through inflation and/or GDP expansion years later. Recently, the idea that federal debt was a bad thing has all but disappeared. And that meant, to anyone that understood monetary and fiscal economics, that eventually the US would face a major collapse of faith in the dollar and most probably a massive hyper-inflationary depression.

 

Cryptocurrencies: Enter Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented primarily to protect its holders from just such an economic collapse. It was done very simply by Bitcoin’s inventor by limiting the number of “minted” Bitcoins to a specific amount: 21 million. (We don’t know who that inventor was, but we have ideas.)

 

Because Bitcoins are limited to 21 million, they were (and are) exempt from the fatal flaw of fiat currencies like the US dollar – i.e., the devaluation of each unit of currency when the total number of units is artificially increased. As a holder of Bitcoin rather than dollars, you don’t have to worry about the value of your stocks, bonds, and cash wealth dropping to almost nothing overnight.

 

Digital Currencies: A second benefit of cryptocurrencies is that they are designed to be exchanged without trackability. In other words, you can buy and sell them in a digital marketplace that is basically invisible. You don’t have to know who sells you their Bitcoin. Nor do you have to know to whom you sell your Bitcoin. And nobody – not even the government – can see what you are doing.

 

This feature is obviously very attractive to tax dodgers, drug dealers, and money launderers. But it’s also favored by law-abiding folks that believe in financial privacy.

 

In summary, Bitcoin is a relatively new currency, like the US dollar. But it is digital. It can be held and traded in secret. And it is not subject to devaluation like the US dollar and other fiat currencies.

 

Bitcoin is the best-known cryptocurrency, but there are many others. Most of them share two traits: They trade on decentralized platforms and offer anonymity. (Thus, cryptocurrencies.) And they are produced in limited supply. (Thus, no risk of devaluation.)

 

There are digital currencies that are not cryptocurrencies. For example, the digital currency that Amazon wants to introduce will offer some of the benefits that Bitcoin offers, but probably not anonymity.

 

Those are the primary reasons you’ve been reading about cryptocurrencies these past 10 years or so.

 

Now, here, per your request, are the pros and cons of cryptos versus the US dollar.

 

The Pros of Cryptocurrencies 

 

* When you own a cryptocurrency with a fixed supply, like Bitcoin, you don’t have to worry about its value crashing due to inflation.

 

* In fact, as demand rises, the value of your stash goes up. (This is what investors in cryptocurrencies hope will happen.)

 

* Transactions are immediate, permanent, and very difficult to fake. This makes fraud and theft nearly (but not 100%) impossible.

 

* Transactions take place on a decentralized digital network. This makes it impossible for hackers (government or private) to invade or control the market.

 

* If Bitcoin ever becomes the dominant global currency, the value of any Bitcoin you own could skyrocket – by hundreds or even thousands of percentage points.

 

The Cons of Cryptocurrencies 

 

* Mining, holding, and trading Bitcoin is not free. There is a considerable energy cost involved in keeping it alive and kicking in the digital universe. There are other cryptocurrencies that are less expensive than Bitcoin. In theory, these could one day replace it.

 

* Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are safe, but not 100% safe. There have been instances of loss or theft. Such losses/thefts are unlikely, but possible.

 

* Because cryptocurrencies are exchanged on a digital ledger called a “blockchain,” every transaction is recorded. If you were forced to give your access code to someone (a thief or the IRS), they could get an exact blueprint of everything you have done on the blockchain since the beginning.

 

* If the US government declares Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies illegal, their value could collapse entirely.

 

As you can see, there are, indeed, pros and cons of cryptocurrencies as currencies. But the reason so many people are interested in them is not their value as a commercial unit of exchange, but as an investment or speculation.

 

The Future of Bitcoin as a Currency

 

Early buyers of Bitcoin imagined a world where billions of people would be trading it on the blockchain, freely and anonymously. Many Bitcoin holders still hope this will happen.

 

I think it’s possible. But very, very unlikely.

 

There are two reasons.

 

First, a nation of people doing business anonymously – not just buying and selling goods and services but earning income, too – would be a disaster for the IRS and state and local tax authorities. They could collect Bitcoin for taxes, but they would have no way of doing reliable audits.

 

The other reason is that if Americans started preferring cryptocurrencies over the dollar, the entire scheme of printing fake dollars to fund the government’s overspending would collapse. Without the ability to print more Bitcoins, they’d have to make do with the ever-diminishing taxes they’d be collecting. Governments would go broke.

 

They are not going to let this happen.

 

So, no. I don’t see Bitcoin replacing the US dollar. But if cryptocurrencies become more popular, I do fear the day when the dollar will be replaced by the US Digital Dollar. (See below.)

 

Bitcoin and Other Cryptos: the Bottom Line

 

Is Bitcoin – or are cryptocurrencies generally – a smart investment? Let’s try to answer that question now.

 

I own Bitcoin and several other cryptocurrencies. But as I said above, I don’t consider them investments.

 

They are not investments because they do not represent shares in growing and profitable businesses. Nor are they bank notes or debt obligations. They don’t produce income. They don’t create value. They aren’t tangible. And the value they have is based entirely on what Yuval Harari, in Sapiens, calls social myths: common beliefs that have no actual basis in reality.

 

Yes, the bottom line is that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have no – zero – intrinsic value.

 

But we could make the same argument against the US dollar, which, as I said, is a fiat currency, printed on paper with nothing behind it but the promise of a bankrupt government.

 

So Why Do I Own Cryptos? 

 

I own Bitcoin and four other cryptocurrencies. I bought them not because I believed they were destined to appreciate in value, but because I wanted to learn more about them. And I knew that if I bought a small stash, I’d take the time to do it.

 

I also thought that in the unlikely event that they could, one day, actually skyrocket in value, I’d be able to say, “Yeah, I bought Bitcoin back in the day,” and look smart.

 

I’ve read many of the arguments in favor of cryptocurrency’s ascendency. Most of them are based on the inherent advantages of either crypto-technology or limited supplies or both.

 

A recent essay talked about it as a technological innovation, and predicted a great future for it based on historical patterns for disruptive technology. One example: It took 10 years, from 1980 to 1990, for PCs to gain 10% of the US market. But between 1990 and 2000 – just another 10 years – it went from 10% to 90%.

 

That’s exciting stuff. But although cryptocurrencies are based on an amazing technology – the blockchain – they themselves are not the blockchain. They are digital currencies with some advantages over conventional currencies based on blockchain technology.

 

These advantages are real and they are valuable to those that use them. And the more people that use them, the more valuable they become.

 

All that is true. And that’s the reason so many people are still interested in cryptocurrencies. It’s theoretically possible that they could replace the dollar someday.

 

But, as I said, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the US government would allow it. The current system of fiat currency offers our politicians exactly what they need to maintain their power: a way to promise their constituents anything and everything they could possibly want, without a worry about who’s going to pay for it.

 

Just in the last year, the hustlers and moochers in Washington, DC, have spent more than 5 trillion in fake dollars on a basket of fundamentally unproductive programs. Their ostensible purpose was to stimulate a stable and prosperous economy. But their ulterior motive – on both sides of the aisle – was to garner voter support.

 

There once was a time on Capitol Hill when fiscal conservatives – politicians that believed in sound money (currency backed by gold) and balancing the federal budget – represented as much as 50% of the elected officials. That golden era ended when President Nixon ended the gold standard. Of the 100 senators and 435 representatives now in Congress, I count only one that qualifies.

 

US Monetary Policy If Cryptos Become Too Popular 

 

Now imagine what would happen if one day 70% – or even 30% – of the US population eschewed dollars for cryptocurrencies. This Holy Grail of fiat currency would collapse and our good people in Congress would have no more promises to make. Our economy would tank and there would be nothing they – or the president or the US Treasury or the Federal Reserve – could do about it.

 

Not to mention the fact that there would be no way for our elected officials to give themselves salary hikes and beef up their government pensions.

 

No, they won’t let that happen.

 

But what might happen is this:

 

The government will begin issuing its own digital currency. It would offer all the minor benefits of other digital currencies but without the anonymity or the limited supply. And since this new currency would be generated by the government and processed through a “government” blockchain, it would be even better than dollars for them. It would allow them to increase the supply quickly, easily, and anonymously, while also being able to track and trace every single monetary transaction of every single citizen (and non-citizen) in the country.

 

If such a digital dollar currency were proposed in Congress, I can’t see why it wouldn’t pass easily. The elevator pitch would be an end to white-collar crime and a simultaneous end to tax dodging. Who would have the courage to say no to that?

 

In summary, I don’t believe any cryptocurrency will ever be allowed to gain a significant hold in the US economy (or any other major economy). Period.

 

But that doesn’t mean that, in the meantime, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies won’t enjoy a big spike or two in demand.

 

And if they do, those that have speculated in them might find themselves considerably richer.

 

So, here’s my “advice”… 

 

Think of these currencies as speculations. Treat them as a way of gambling on the very reasonable chance that in the next several years there will be spikes that boost the value of some of these digital gambling chips by hundreds or possibly thousands of percentage points.

 

Put a small percentage of your net worth – an amount you’d be willing to lose – into a basket of cryptocurrencies. My basket is about half Bitcoin and half others that have been recommended by colleagues of mine that know much more about this subject than I do.

 

If and when they do spike, claim some or all of your winnings. Play it like you’d play roulette or bet on a horse race. Enjoy the ride. Play the short game. Don’t count on it for your retirement.

 

This essay and others are available for syndication.
Contact Us  for more information. 

Continue Reading

“Politics is not predictions and politics is not observations. Politics is what we do.” – Paul Wellstone

 

Thoughts on a Too-Close-to-Call Election 

I’ve never understood how, in a country the size of ours, presidential election results are so often decided by such a thin margin. It just doesn’t seem that the vote could end up being close to 50/50.

As I write this, we don’t know who our president will be. By the time you read this, we may have the answer. More likely, we won’t, and this will turn out to be another election, like 2000, decided by the courts.

I was going to write about the election results and their ramifications today. But since we’re still in limbo, I’ll tell you what I think will happen over the next four years regardless of – and depending on – the outcome.

 

What will happen regardless of the outcome… 

Nobody’s Leaving: Yesterday, I wrote, facetiously, about people that swore they’d be leaving the country if their man didn’t win. That won’t happen.

 

The Pandemic: Cases of COVID-19 will continue to mount steadily over the winter. The death count will rise behind it, but at a lower than expected level. Election results won’t matter in terms of fatality rates, but if Biden wins, media coverage of the pandemic will drop considerably.

 

Police Brutality and the BLM Movement: When African-Americans – armed or unarmed – are shot by police, protests and rioting will follow. Media coverage of the movement will wane if Biden is elected and increase if Trump is reelected. We may see some improvements in local police protocols and policies. But real progress in reducing unnecessary force and other forms of bad police behavior will come from an ever-increasing use of cellphone recordings and postings on social media.

 

Racism and Antiracism: Regardless of who wins the presidency, the interest in and support of the concepts of white privilege, white fragility, and antiracism will ebb, and efforts to pass a reparations bill will be roundly defeated. Meanwhile, conservatism among Black and Latino voters will rise.

 

Social Justice and Identity Politics: Universities will ramp up their campaigns for identity politics and Socialism. But university enrollments will go down.

 

Foreign Entanglements: The Military Industrial Complex will continue to push for more third-world proxy wars, but without success. Instead, a new cold war with either China or Russia (depending on who wins) will begin, with a corresponding arms race that will cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.

 

* China: Even if Trump wins, China’s economy will continue to grow faster than ours, and will become the world’s largest by the end of the next administration.

 

* Trade Wars: Current support for tariffs and trade wars will diminish greatly as the negative consequences for the US become clear.

 

* Prison Reform: There will be continued efforts to reduce the number of non-violent criminals behind bars, but interest in this will diminish considerably before the end of the year.

 

* Immigration: Regardless of who wins, US immigration policies will remain largely the same.

 

* Government Spending: The dam is broken. Democrats and Republicans will continue to agree on spending trillions of dollars we don’t have to pay for boondoggles we don’t need.

 

* Health Care: Even if Trump wins, we will gradually move towards health care for all, but at a level that the system can support, which will be very basic.

 

* The Environment: Even if Biden wins, the Green New Deal is not happening. We’ll make progress towards a cleaner environment, but at a pace that allows US GDP to inch back to healthy levels. There will be no significant changes in the next four years.

 

* Infrastructure: Both sides of the aisle will continue talking about the importance of rebuilding US infrastructure, but nothing significant will be done.

 

* The Supreme Court: If Biden wins, the Democrats will try to pack the court, but they will fail because of the Senate.

 

What will change, depending on the outcome… 

 

* Personal Liberty: If Biden wins, there will be less of it.

 

* Taxes: If Trump wins, some taxes will go down, but not substantially. If Biden wins, taxes will go up.

 

* Regulations: If Trump wins, there will be more deregulation. If Biden wins, there will be more regulation.

 

* The Stock Market and the Economy: If Trump wins, the market will rebound, and it may stay up for a while because of continued government spending. But eventually, the bills from the shutdown will come due, and the US will go into a prolonged recession. The poor will stay poor. The rich will get richer. And the working and commercial classes will gradually pay off the bills.

 

This essay and others are available for syndication.
Contact Us for more information. 

Continue Reading

“We don’t create a fantasy world to escape reality. We create it to be able to stay.” – Lynda Barry

 

Book Your Departure Now!

10 of the Best Places to Escape to Outside of the USA 

K says she’s leaving the country if Trump wins. JM says he’s leaving if he loses.

If their sentiments are common, airfare and other costs of living abroad will be going up. Depending on what happens tomorrow, you may want to plan ahead.

Here is our list of the best places to escape to outside of the USA – the posh places and the charming places (for those on a budget). We compiled it mostly from our colleagues at International Living.

 

Abruzzo, Italy

La bella Italia: known for its historic cities, beautiful beaches, delicious cuisine, exquisite fashion, and influential art. Pick the right area of the country to call your home and you can spend your weekends driving to its diverse cities and small towns, and you can even take a ferry to the unforgettable islands of Sardinia and Sicily. If you make your home in the region of Abruzzo, in particular, you will enjoy an affordable cost of living that is ideal for those who are no longer working full-time. You will have access to Pescara, which sits along the Adriatic coast, and you will also be close to Rome, vineyards, castles, and villages. Plus, when you don’t want to be on a beach or in the water, you can go skiing instead, as this region is close to it all. With a warm climate throughout the year, you can relax in the sunshine while sipping wine and chatting with friends.

Annecy, France

The big attraction in Annecy, the pearl of the French Alps, is the ski slopes in winter. But this lakeside city is an appealing place to be year-round. Unlike other top ski destinations in France, fairy-tale Annecy is not a tourist town, but a living community that is more cosmopolitan than a typical haunt of snow bunnies. Annecy is a city of art and history that can seem like an open-air museum. Every July, its streets are given over to Noctibules, an annual art festival, and the much-anticipated Fete du Lac in August features the biggest fireworks show in Europe.

Kotor, Montenegro

This tiny seaside country of a half-million people dispersed over an area smaller than the state of Connecticut is nestled between Croatia and Albania in Southern Europe. Bayside Kotor, surrounded by towering mountains on one side and the dazzling Adriatic on the other, is a UNESCO World Heritage site and perhaps the best-preserved medieval town in the Mediterranean. The Old Town square is anchored by the 11th century Saint Tryphon’s Cathedral, but its cafés and shops are lively and bustling with a youthful energy. This is a little-known but friendly, safe, and welcoming corner of Europe, comparable to the historic stone villages in Italy, but more affordable.

Carcassonne, France

Walt Disney is said to have been inspired by its towers, turrets, and ramparts, and you can understand why when the sun rises over the medieval city of Carcassonne in southeast France. At the heart of Cathar country, this was, for centuries, an important fortification. Today, the city of Carcassonne has much to offer tourists and residents, including a medieval castle, St. Nazarius Basilica, boutiques, artists’ workshops, and Michelin-starred restaurants. Life in the Bastide is centered on the Place Carnot, with its pretty fountain, street-side cafés, produce market, and restaurants. Within an hour are the sandy beaches of the Mediterranean, and 90 minutes away is skiing in the Pyrenees.

Città Sant’Angelo, Italy

Perched on a hilltop with views of Gran Sasso Mountain, the Adriatic, vineyards, and olive groves sits 9th-century Città Sant’Angelo. In the heart of Italy’s Abruzzo region, this is one of the greenest parts of Europe, with more than a dozen ski resorts in one direction and 80 miles of coastline in the other. Città Sant’Angelo has earned the title “Borgo,” recognizing it as one of Italy’s most beautiful cities. Sant’Angelo has also been designated a “Città Slow,” a town committed to preserving traditional ways of life and resisting development. Not much has changed in Città Sant’Angelo over the centuries, and that’s the way residents like it.

Ambergris Caye, Belize

The sole Central American country with English as its official language, Belize offers retirees a warm, outdoor-oriented environment, including fishing and barrier reef diving. Cost of living is quite reasonable. Crime is not a problem outside of Belize City. Quality healthcare can be an issue; retirees often return to the US – a two-hour plane ride to Houston – for major medical needs. This politically stable country lures retirees with a Qualified Retired Persons program that offers permanent residency upon showing just $24,000 in annual income. Popular venues for retirees include Ambergris Caye, an island 35 miles northeast of Belize City, and Corozal, a mainland city on the Atlantic Ocean near Mexico.

Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic has swaying palm trees, warm turquoise water, and year-round sunshine in abundance. This small nation boasts about 800 miles of coastline, all of it sandy and inviting. While the southeastern coast can be very touristy, the north coast is less trafficked and naturally stunning, with forested mountains rising behind the white-sand beaches. The city of Puerto Plata provides resort beach living without typical resort beach costs. A couple’s basic monthly budget is about $1100, including rent. If you invest in a place of your own, your monthly living costs could be much less, as property prices in this country are a bargain. You could buy an apartment for as little as $100,000.

Chiang Mai, Thailand

Chiang Mai lures travelers, expats and retirees from around the world with its exceptionally low cost of living, high-quality health care and modern infrastructure. For $330 a month, you could rent a two-bedroom bungalow with a garden, and for $830 monthly, you could settle into a three-bedroom villa with a private swimming pool. Rents normally include utilities and basic cable. You can get around using tuk-tuks, baht buses, and the occasional taxi for just a few dollars a day. Many expats claim it’s cheaper to eat out than to buy groceries, and with all the food options in this city, it’s not hard to eat out for every meal.

Mazatlán, Mexico

Mazatlán boasts more than 10 miles of sandy beaches and a new five-mile boardwalk. You could slide easily into expat life and speak mostly English, or choose to live in a Mexican setting, speaking Spanish and immersing yourself in Mexican culture. One of the biggest benefits of living in Mazatlán is the low cost of living. Basic items for a couple will cost you about $1070 a month if you own your own apartment, and $1380 if you rent a house near the beach. Food prices vary depending on how many American and Canadian imported items you buy. Dinner for two in the city’s best fine-dining establishments costs about $61, including wine and tip. Dinner in a more casual restaurant on the water runs about $31 with drinks.

Da Lat, Vietnam

Da Lat’s cool weather, misty peaks, and pine forest have a historic and otherworldly charm that can be enjoyed at an impressively low cost. Monthly expenses for a couple work out to about $900. Rent can be as little as $194 a month for a studio apartment on the edge of town and $345 to $430 for a more central apartment. Air conditioning isn’t needed in Da Lat, so electricity bills are always low, and utilities are usually included in the cost of a rental. Known as the garden of Vietnam, flowers including roses, marigolds, hydrangeas, and golden everlastings are grown here. Da Lat has its own wine industry, and enjoys a reputation for having some of the best food in the country. A full, delicious meal can be had for as little as $1 a plate.

This essay and others are available for syndication. 
Contact Us for more information.

Continue Reading

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” Thomas Jefferson

 

Are You Qualified to Vote?

“Voting is the most important responsibility we have as citizens.” Or so I’ve been told.
“If you don’t vote, you don’t have a right to complain.”

I understand the logic. But the argument is wrong. There are dozens of things we can do that are more likely to result in a better world – all of which require discipline and commitment. It’s easier to cast a vote for someone that seems to share your values and count on him or her to do the work you could be doing yourself.

It’s a moral cop-out. But that’s not the main problem I have with voting. What bothers me the most is that, with few exceptions, most people don’t have any idea about how to solve our common problems. And neither do our politicians.

In any given election, candidates may align themselves with one or another view. They might argue – as Trump has done in explaining his tariffs on Chinese goods – that they are aiming to achieve some common good. But if and when the policy is implemented, it doesn’t always achieve its advertised purpose. The result is often very different.

Take Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty,” which he announced in his 1964 State of the Union Address. “Our aim,” he said, “is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, prevent it.” What followed was the implementation of initiatives that to date have cost the country $23 trillion and produced only a marginal drop in the poverty rate.

And what about prohibition? Despite the good intentions of its supporters, the 18th amendment (the only one that’s been repealed in its entirety) led to the rise of alcohol smuggling and the violent criminal underworld known as the mafia.

Or more recently, the war on drugs – an abject failure that has cost the US about $1 trillion over the past 40 years. With an overall disregard for the underlying issues of substance abuse, policies were established that created an increase in corruption, violence, and tension between minorities and the police.

The fact is, human society is immensely diverse and infinitely complex. The US is an imaginary construct applied to 330 million individual people with different ideas, habits, and preferences – interacting with one another countless billions of times every day.

We understand, at best, only a small fraction of how our country works. And yet, when it comes to politics, we act as if we can fix our social, legal, and economic problems by voting for politicians that generally have no more knowledge of or experience in solving complex problems than we have.

Not to mention the problem of presidential political power dynamics: Because of the division of power between the president, the House, and the Senate, the most significant accomplishments of presidents often contradict what we would have expected when we voted for them.

For example…

Who was it that liberalized US relations with Communist China?

Answer: It was Richard Nixon, a staunch anti-communist.

And…

Who was it that passed the toughest law on crime, the law that turned the US into the country with the highest percentage of its citizens in prison?

Answer: It was Bill Clinton, an outspoken advocate for liberal policies.

And…

Who was it that ordered 542 drone strikes that killed 3797 people, 324 of which were civilians?

Answer: It was Barack Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

It’s for these reasons that I’ve felt that voting was a citizen’s #1 civic duty. I see the process today as a once great idea (including the electoral college) that has degenerated into a great, sad sham.

But the issues are real. And the problems need to be fixed. As we move towards our next election, we are being asked to choose candidates on the basis of our belief in their ability to make good decisions on such issues as:

* Black lives matter vs. all lives matter

* Gun rights vs. gun restrictions

* Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome

* Individual liberty vs. social justice

In a recent blog about why he rarely votes, James Altucher touched on the above with a sarcastic suggestion:

“Most people shouldn’t vote. Most people vote for the candidate their friends or colleagues are voting for. And many people are swayed by cognitive biases triggered by campaign materials and media. People follow the personalities of the candidates. I hear things like, ‘I just don’t like XYZ as a person,’ etc. So? Does anyone follow issues?”

He then gave his readers a six-question quiz on some of the issues that are being talked about in the current presidential election. We liked that idea, and came up with 20 questions of our own.

Take the following quiz and see how you do.

 

Are You Qualified to Vote?

20 Questions to Help You Decide 

 

  1. What is a tariff?

___ The amount by which the cost of a country’s imports exceeds the cost of its exports

___ The amount by which the value of a country’s exports exceeds the cost of its imports

___ A ban on trade or other commercial activity with a country

___ A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports

 

  1. Which statement is true of the US balance of trade with China?

___ It is positive.

___ It is negative.

___ It is about equal.

 

  1. How do free-market economists generally view tariffs?

___They are necessary to protect against unfair trade practices by foreign countries.

___They result in higher overall consumer and material costs and are bad for the economy.

___ They are political in nature and have a net neutral economic effect.

 

  1. Factoring in all other variables, including experience, hours worked, and using precise job descriptions, what is the gender wage gap in the US?

___ 17%

___ 7%

___ 2 %

 

  1. US senators are elected to serve a term of office that lasts how long?

___ 6 years

___ 4 years

___ 2 years

___ indefinitely

 

  1. Trump often claims that the employment rate for African-Americans rose to a historical high before COVID-19 and the shutdown. True or false?

___ True

___ False

 

  1. Trump’s handling of the COVID pandemic has been criticized harshly by the Democrats and the media. He denies this and proffers, in his defense, his early decision to ban most travel from China. Putting that aside, how did he respond to the WHO and CDC guidelines and to Fauci’s directives in the first three months of the pandemic?

___ He ignored them completely.

___ He was resistant and slow.

___ He followed them as they were announced.

 

  1. Which one of the following is NOT a member of Trump’s cabinet?

___ Benjamin Carson

___ Elaine L. Chao

___ Kayleigh McEnany

___ Alex Azar

 

  1. During the Democratic primary debates, Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden for his past opposition to school busing. How does she explain running as his vice president?

___ She changed her mind after he sent her a note apologizing for his former opinion.

___ She said that her comments were taken out of context.

___ She said she didn’t really mean it. She attributed the accusations to debate tactics.

 

  1. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden received their law degrees from _________ and _________, respectively.

___ Howard University, University of Delaware

___ Syracuse University, University of Delaware

___ University of California, Syracuse University

___ Howard University, Syracuse University

 

  1. What is the name of the governor of New York?

___ Andrew Cuomo

___ Chris Cuomo

___ Bill de Blasio

___ Rudy Giuliani

 

  1. Which of the following acts did Trump NOT sign into law?

___ Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act

___ Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act

___ Tested Ability to Leverage Exceptional National Talent Act

___ Save Our Seas Act

 

  1. Trump issued 137 executive orders in the first three years of his presidency. Some in the media have criticized him for that, suggesting that he is using his authority to override Congress. Which of the following statements is true?

___ 137 is more than twice the number of executive orders that Obama issued during his first three years.

___ 137 is roughly equal to the number of executive orders that Obama issued during his first three years.

___ 137 is 29 more than the number of executive orders that Obama issued during his first three years.

 

  1. What do NYC, Baltimore, Portland, and LA have in common?

___ As a group, they reported 90% of the country’s COVID-19 cases.

___ They were devastated by damages following looting and rioting.

___ They cut funding to their police departments.

___ None of them imposed mask regulations.

 

  1. As a state attorney in California, what was Kamala Harris known for?

___ Going easy on marijuana offenders

___ Being tough on marijuana offenders

___ Going easy on cocaine users

___ Being tough on cocaine users

 

  1. Which of the following is NOT a policy position held by Kamala Harris?

___ Supports the right of transgender females to compete in women’s athletic competitions

___ Supports raising teacher salaries and expanding early childhood education programs

___ Supports ending Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the EU

___ Opposes pro-choice legislation, supporting a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy

 

  1. Which of the following is true about the US Electoral College?

___ It was created by Republicans to favor Republican candidates.

___ It was created by Democrats to favor Democrat candidates.

___ It was created to reduce voter fraud.

___ It was created to give states with smaller populations more of a say in Congress.

 

  1. Presidents Barack Obama, Theodore Roosevelt, and Jimmy Carter were all nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Which of the following statements is true for Trump?

___ He has never been nominated.

___ He was nominated once.

___ He was nominated three times.

 

  1. When asked, in an interview, about the humanitarian crisis at the border, who said, “Our message absolutely is: Don’t send your children… on trains or through a bunch of smugglers”?

___ Donald Trump

___ Joe Biden

___ Mike Pence

___ Barack Obama

 

  1. What was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s position on “packing” the court?

___ She was in favor of it.

___ She was opposed to it.

 

Answers 

  1. A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports

 

  1. It is negative. The trade deficit increased by 5.9% ($67.1 billion) when measured in August – the highest deficit since August 2006, when it was $68.2 billion.

 

  1. They result in higher overall consumer and material costs and are bad for the economy. Free-market economists obviously prefer a free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange that limits or excludes interventions such as quotas, tariffs, quality controls, etc. Check out my essay on this very topic HERE.

 

  1. 2% – According to a PayScale analysis, when adjusted for men and women with the same job and qualifications, women earn approximately 98¢ for every $1 earned by men. Review the info HERE. And HERE is a pretty informative video on the subject. Plus, HERE is a podcast interview (with transcript) between journalist Steven Dubner and Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, about the wage gap.

 

  1. 6 years

 

  1. True – The data showed that black unemployment was at a record low 5.8% in February before the virus hit. It rose to 16.8% in May, according to the Labor Department.

 

  1. He followed them as they were announced. Fauci himself stated that Trump followed his recommendations. Additionally, in a January 30 press release, CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield wrote, “We understand that this may be concerning, but based on what we know now, we still believe the immediate risk to the American public is low.” And before Redfield’s statement went out, Trump had announced the formation of his coronavirus task force with Alex Azar, Fauci, and Redfield, among others.

 

  1. Kayleigh McEnany – Kayleigh is the White House Press Secretary, a non-cabinet position.

 

  1. She said she didn’t mean it. She attributed the accusations to debate tactics. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Harris laughingly said, “It was a debate!… Literally, it was a debate!” Watch the video HERE.

 

  1. University of California, Syracuse University – Harris received her JD from the UC Hastings College of the Law in 1989. Biden received his law degree from SU’s College of Law in 1968.

 

  1. Andrew Cuomo – Chris Cuomo, Andrew’s brother, is a CNN television journalist. Bill De Blasio is the mayor of New York. Rudy Giuliani is the former mayor of New York (1994 – 2001).

 

  1. Tested Ability to Leverage Exceptional National Talent (TALENT) Act – This was the last bill passed by Barack Obama. The other 3 are acts all signed into law by Trump.

 

  1. 137 is 29 more than the number of executive orders that Obama issued during his first three years. According to the National Archives’ Federal Register, in their first three years as president, Obama and Trump signed 108 and 137 executive orders, respectively.

 

  1. They cut funding to their police departments. NYC (with 477,000 cases), Baltimore (with 18,000), Portland (34,000), and LA (281,000) account for only about 10.5% of the total cases in the US. Note: All of these cities have imposed mask mandates.

 

  1. Being tough on marijuana offenders – Harris is on record for having jailed nearly 2000 people for marijuana offenses.

 

  1. Opposes pro-choice legislation, supporting a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Harris is generally considered extremely pro-choice. She actually fought against the bill that would ban 20-week pregnancies, which caused some backlash.

 

  1. It was created to give states with smaller populations more of a say in Congress.

 

  1. He was nominated three times – by (1) Christian Tybring-Gjedde of the Norwegian Parliament for “trying to create peace between nations”; (2) Magnus Jacobsson of the Swedish Parliament for leadership in the accord between Kosovo, Serbia, and Israel; and (3)

David Flint and other law professors in Australia on the basis of Trump’s “Doctrine Against Endless Wars.”

 

  1. Barack Obama – He said this in an interview with ABC in 2014.

 

  1. She was opposed to it. Watch the video HERE.

 

Primary Sources

Difference Between Joe Biden and Donald Trump

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276

https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-are-tariffs-and-how-do-they-affect-you/

https://hbr.org/2019/01/research-gender-pay-gaps-shrink-when-companies-are-required-to-disclose-them

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Coronavirus-Obliterated-Best-African-American-Job-Market-on-Record–30746362/

https://people.com/politics/dr-fauci-says-trump-listened-his-recommendations-not-being-forced-to-say/

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0130-coronavirus-spread.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/08/17/kamala_harris_dismisses_past_biden_criticism_it_was_a_debate.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/28/fact-check-false-claim-biden-harris-during-race-dem-nod/3506180001/

https://2020election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/the-cabinet/

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/barack-obama/2011

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr39/summary

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/opinion/fact-check-trump.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-least-13-cities-are-defunding-their-police-departments/#6c01eebf29e3

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-kamala-harris-bio-age-family-key-positions-2019-3

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/09/28/trump-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-for-third-time-n2577092

 

 

This essay and others are available for syndication.
Contact Us  for more information. 

Continue Reading