Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

How the Blockchain Protects Your Privacy

/in /by

We live in a world where our personal data is collected by both governments and private companies alike. Since most of our lives are now conducted online, every time we shop for something, communicate with someone or search Google, we are making ourselves vulnerable to data mining. And with data collection, comes the fear over the security of that information.

And while this data gathering has benefited the consumer by offering individualized suggestions for future purchases, it still puts them at risk. All this information has to be stored somewhere, and this means physical hard drives and servers, each susceptible to hackers. And though this personal data collection is of huge concern, it isn’t nearly as concerning as the government’s store of personal data.

In the post-9/11 world, our bank records, travel records, and phone records are all being collected by the government under the guise of national security. Of course, none of this is news in 2018, but it wasn’t so long ago when this concept of mass data collection seemed positively Orwellian. But in 2013, the magnitude of massive state surveillance and data collection became known to the American people through the Edward Snowden leaks.

Not only was the government spying and collecting our own personal data, it was also storing this personal information. This also means that every single person whose information was stored, which is virtually everyone, is vulnerable to having their information accessed and stolen by hackers. The government having access to it is bad enough.

But blockchain technology has presented new avenues for data security that could protect data from all prying eyes, whether government or otherwise.

Enter Blockchain

To call the blockchain anything less than revolutionary would be an understatement. Not only is this technology striking a blow to traditional financial and banking institutions with various cryptocurrencies, it is also allowing individuals to make private transactions, free from government intrusion. And that is where data collection comes in.

By utilizing the blockchain as a means of storing personal data, you keep it safe. But there is more to it than that. Just as cryptocurrencies can be sent and received on the blockchain, so can data. And since this is both anonymous and secure, you do not run the risk of having this information intercepted, and then stored, by either private companies or governments.

Explaining how this works, Forbes writes:

“Imagine you and a million friends are able to make copies of all your files, encrypt them with special software, and save them in each other’s digital bank vaults (computers) all across the internet. That way even if a hacker breaks into, steals, or destroys your computer, they can’t interpret your data, and your network of friends still have 999,999 backups of your files.”

No one can read your data unless you give them access to it. Even if there is a breach, the personal information is safe behind its layers of encryption. And this can be used to store and transfer all kinds of information. For example, many in the medical field are intrigued by the prospect of potentially storing medical records on the blockchain.

The health care industry is so diverse and vast, it becomes difficult to keep track of patients who move or switch health care providers. But by utilizing the blockchain, records can be kept track of and stored on the blockchain. This also means that transferring these records is more secure than it is today. Currently, obtaining or sending medical records usually means having to track down a fax machine and then send extremely personal information, not entirely sure who will be waiting on the other end of the transaction.

Blockchain is bringing us into a new era, where personal data is more protected than ever before.

“Greedy” Capitalists Are Often the First to Lend a Helping Hand

/in /by

Private corporations have become the punching bags of many, who are under the belief that socialism is needed to create a charitable society. In their minds, without government, human beings are not likely to give back. But by casting capitalists as the villain in every story, these critics neglect, or purposefully ignore, the many instances when private companies have given back to their communities. In fact, when national disasters strike, for example, it is often private organizations that arrive first on the scene.

Wild Fires

Of all the “greedy” capitalist entities, there is perhaps no one judged more harshly than oil companies.  Yet, when a large forest fire consumed more than one million acres of land in the province of Alberta, Canada, the oil companies, along with other private entities, pulled together to lend a hand.

As it continued to burn for the better part of a month, the fire caused more than 60,000 residents to flee their homes. Many homes were destroyed and the city of Fort McMurray was left in ruins.

Commenting on the fire, Tristin Hopper of the National Post highlights specific relief efforts sponsored by local oil companies in Alberta. Hopper mentions how local oil companies provided free food and shelter to over 25,000 community members affected by the fires. Likewise, as the fires continued to spread and began cutting off easy access to the roads, Brion Energy arranged to have perishable foods delivered each day via truck shipments.

But the acts of charity were not limited to these oil companies alone. Shell Albian Aerodrome actually helped many residents escape the scene by providing buses for their evacuation. Suncor’s Firebag Aerodrome, also helped with the evacuation efforts by using its own company-chartered commercial jets to help over 7,000 residents escape the fire. But this is far from the only instance of private entities giving back.

Walmart Gives Back

Touching on the charitable acts of private entities in the Wall Street Journal, economics professor Steve Horwitz writes:

“That shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows what Walmart did after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. The company shipped thousands of trucks of water and other supplies into the area, well ahead of the lethargic Federal Emergency Management Agency. It even beat the Red Cross in many areas.”

In addition to the Walmart’s charitable acts, McDonald’s also handed out free food to first responders and Marriott offered up free rooms for those who had been displaced.

Though these private corporations are so often thought to be cold, unsympathetic, and disconnected from the experience of the typical American, they are, in fact, still members of their respective communities who rely on the patronage of the locals.

In return, these private entities are there to meet the needs of the consumer, which, under these circumstances, has meant giving the community what it needed most, acts of charity. In addition to serving their communities when it is most needed, the private sector offers something that the government has never been able to master; efficiency.

Driving this point home, Horwitz writes:

“These firms have experience that makes them distinctly effective during and after disasters. Walmart constantly responds to changing market conditions, moving people and resources where they are needed. FEMA and other agencies don’t regularly engage in this sort of behavior.”

Before casting stones at private corporations based solely on their desire to make a profit, it would be wise to first look at what these companies have done for their surrounding communities. Additionally, before praising the government for simply creating agencies meant to aid those in need, it would be wise to take a close look at how these agencies are run and ask ourselves if what is being done by government cannot be performed more adequately by the free market.

This Ridiculous Occupational Licensing Law Is Hurting Local Entrepreneurs

/in /by

The state’s love of control is most succinctly demonstrated by its desire to oversee and control professional development through occupational licensing. This strict licensing structure prevents would-be entrepreneurs by placing barriers in their path. Individuals who would like to take a particular skill and go into business for themselves must first seek government permission. But this isn’t as simple as it may sound. Not only does the state require mountains of paperwork and sometimes thousands of dollars, they also often require training or schooling that is not directly related to the business in question at all. 

One such example of this comes from Tennessee, where local licensing boards threatened two entrepreneurial women for massaging performance horses, without first obtaining a veterinary license legally allowing them to do so. 

A Voluntary Labor of Love

Laurie Wheeler is a professional jazz musician with a strong love of horses. It should come as no surprise, then, that she decided to name her own horse, Jazz.

Wheeler holds a certification in equine myofascial release, a type of healing massage that is extremely helpful for performance horses. It should also be noted that Wheeler does, in fact, hold a license in massage therapy, however, it is specifically for humans and not the equestrian species.

Wheeler has been assisting horses for years, never asking for compensation along the way. For her, helping out a horse in need is a labor of love and not a skill she uses to provide for her livelihood.

However, she was shocked when she received a letter informing her that she was breaking state law and threatening to take further actions should she continue to treat horses without first fulfilling the veterinary degree requirements made by Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners—a board within Tennessee’s Department of Health.

What was most appalling—and confusing—to Wheeler, was the fact that she had never even received compensation for massaging horses. Even so, the official letter from the state of Tennessee promised to fine and arrest her if she continued treat horses, regardless of whether or not she received payment for her services.

As Wheeler does not rely on massaging horses in order to pay her bills, she agreed to stop doing so after receiving the letter. However, a few months after the state contacted her, Wheeler witnessed a horse suffering terribly from an impaction formed in his intestines.

As this is one of the many ailments that can be treated through equine myofascial release, Wheeler could not in good conscience sit idly by while an animal suffered unnecessarily. Disregarding the state’s threats, she stepped into action. “I didn’t care. I put my hands on [the horse’s] belly for a while, maybe three to four hours, and he passed his impaction that night,” she continued, “If I’m needed, I go. Period.”

Taking Bread out of Their Mouths

Unlike Wheeler, Martha Stowe relies on equine massages to pay her bills. Also certified in this specific method of massage, Stowe funded True Equine, where she provides services to a large clientele.

“For performance horses, this is important,” Stowe told the National Review, “you want them to have complete range of motion.”

Two years after starting her business, Stowe’s husband was deployed to Iraq. Luckily, Stowe’s skills allowed her to provide for their family of four while her husband was away.

As is relatively common among those returning from war, Stowe’s husband has not yet reentered the workforce since returning to the states. “I became the sole breadwinner,” Stowe says. But in April 2016, the state sent Stowe a letter similar to the one Wheeler received. The letter threatened to fine Stowe $500 or to give her six months of jail time.

While logic would lead many to at least hope that Tennessee would take Stowe’s family circumstances into consideration, that didn’t seem to play any sort of role in the state’s decision to go after True Equine.

Explaining her situation, Stowe said:

“I was terrified, I didn’t do any myofascial from the day I received the letter until about June, but then I realized there was no way we could pay our bills if I didn’t do it.”

The state is putting Stowe and her family in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between feeding themselves or complying with the odd state statute.

Government Hates Competition

One would hope that Tennessee’s unwavering dedication to the enforcement of this law would be backed by sound reason, but unfortunately, that is not the case. Like most, if not all, occupational licensing laws, Tennessee’s law exists to protect the veterinarians from unwanted competition, and not the health and safety of the animals involved.

In order for both Stowe and Wheeler to continue doing what they do best, the state is demanding they complete veterinary school. According to a site dedicated to answering questions from those wanting to pursue a career as a veterinarian, the average cost of a four-year program within the United States is between $147,000 and $250,000.

Adding to the state’s hypocrisy, it should be noted that veterinarian schools do not actually teach or even require a discussion on the practice of equine myofascial release. Paying such a steep price for a veterinary degree that does nothing to further either of their specialty skills does nothing but line the pockets of those atop the veterinarian hierarchy.

The only real benefit to be gained from forcing these women to get veterinary degrees is the state’s reaffirmation that it has sole control and power over the livelihoods of its citizens. This point is especially exemplified when looking at other veterinary-related activities that do not require a license in the state of Tennessee.

According to Braden Boucek, the director of litigation for the Beacon Center who is helping these two women fight the state’s ridiculous laws, “The list of things you can do legally to animals without a veterinary degree includes castration, dehorning, artificial insemination, and transplanting a frozen embryo.”

By making this point, Boucek is seeking to prove that Tennessee is depriving both Stowe and Wheeler of their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Additionally, Boucek is arguing that this statute further violates Constitutional rights by violating the 14th Amendment, which requires states to comply with Constitutional protections, such as owning private property and using that property to earn a living.

Boucek gave the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners until the end of February to begin taking the initial steps towards reforming the law that lumps animal massage therapy together with veterinary medicine.

Not to give the government any more bad ideas, but following the state’s logic, chiropractors and acupuncturists working with humans would also have to hold medical degrees before working on clients, which would not only be absurd, it would also bar many people from earning a living.

Trump Is Wrong about Amazon Being Too Powerful

/in /by

President Trump continued his war on Amazon last week, tweeting the following:

“I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!”

Trump’s concerns almost entirely stem from the fact that he is a real estate mogul and as such, see’s Amazon as a threat to brick and mortar establishments. And to be sure, Amazon is a threat to these outdated establishments. But that has everything to do with Amazon’s innovative business practices and nothing to do with the company having an unfair advantage in the marketplace. The internet age has made physical retail spaces less desirable. But with the passing of the old comes robust opportunities for the new. This is precisely what is meant by creative destruction. And Amazon is creative destruction at its finest. 

But this hatred for Amazon has united Trump with an unlikely ally: Bernie Sanders. While the two do not usually agree on much, the U.S. Senator from Vermont also declared that Amazon was getting too powerful, saying:

“And I think this is, look, this is an issue that has got to be looked at. What we are seeing all over this country is the decline in retail. We’re seeing this incredibly large company getting involved in almost every area of commerce. And I think it is important to take a look at the power and influence that Amazon has.”

Bernie Sanders has been a voice for modern-day socialists who really do not understand much about the nature of power, or socialism for that matter. It should come as no surprise, then, that like Trump, Sanders does not understand how the market actually works. This is probably why he has claimed that Amazon has grown too large and is now a harm to consumers. 

Sure, Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos may be one of the richest men in the world, but wealth does not make you an enemy of the American consumer. On the contrary, it is precisely because Amazon has made life so convenient for the American consumer, that Bezos has been able to acquire so much wealth.

Amazon Makes Life More Convenient

I had less than 24 hours left before my flight was scheduled to leave and as luck would have it, I had just broken another pair of headphones. This seems like a simple enough problem to solve, but as I was without a vehicle and pressed for time, I was not sure what I was going to do.

Sure, I could buy headphones in the airport, but I would end up paying a great deal for that convenience of doing so, as everything tends to be more expensive in an airport. Then I remembered that certain products are available within hours through Amazon prime. Logging into my account at 11:30 PM at night, I ordered a pair of Beats Studio Headphones and paid a few dollars for overnight delivery.

When I awoke the next morning, I received a notification from my apartment’s management office that I had received a package. I looked at my clock, it was still before 10 AM. Needless to say, I was shocked. In less than twelve hours, Amazon had prepared my order and delivered it to me, saving me from having to endure a 12-hour flight without being able to listen to music or an audiobook.

This is just one story of how Amazon has made my own life more convenient. In fact, just in my own life, I could provide multiple examples of Amazon coming through for me, just as I am sure many of you could do the same.

This is what Amazon has done for so many of us and it is why Amazon is so widely used. Amazon is good at what it does. Sure, that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own fair share of errors. But when Amazon fails, it has to deal with the consumer. When the government fails, on the other hand, it is the taxpayer who must pay.

And because Amazon has such a great reputation among American consumers it has been able to expand into areas that other companies have not. For example, because Amazon has never let me down on a package delivery, I felt more comfortable trying their grocery service, Amazon Fresh. I am now a devote user and even pay an additionally monthly fee for unlimited deliveries. And because Amazon Fresh has been so convenient for me, I also felt more comfortable trying out Amazon’s meal delivery service.

It is precisely because consumers trust its services so much that they feel comfortable supporting Amazon as it expands into new territories. Amazon is not becoming too powerful, it is responding to consumer demand. And consumers love Amazon.

Government Monopolies 

While Trump and Sanders would claim that Amazon is growing into some kind of monopoly, the only true monopoly is government. Whereas Amazon and others must respond to consumer demand in order to stay afloat in the business world, the government relies solely on force. And through this force, the government is able to seize the funds it needs to continue all of its federal programs, regardless of whether or not consumers are satisfied with what is being offered.

One prime example of this is the postal service, which Trump has listed as one of Amazon’s victims.

There is almost no reason for the post office to exist anymore. And yet, in the digital age where paper is being used less and less, taxpayers are still on the hook. But unlike other services, where consumers can choose which company to patronize based on their own market preferences, when sending mail you have one choice: The United State Postal Service.

And because of this forced patronage, consumers must endure long lines and inefficient government employees every time they need to send off an important parcel. And while private parcel services exist, like UPS and FedEX, there are certain laws that bar these establishments from transporting specific parcels that are a responsibility of the USPS.

If you want to talk about an establishment that is too powerful, I would say the USPS fits that description far more than the Amazon does. And yet, Trump’s war on the company continues. But no matter how angry his tweets are it won’t stop consumers from utilizing Amazon’s services. At the end of the day, Amazon performs all of its tasks better than its competitors and at a decent price. Its delivery apparatus has made our lives infinitely more convenient than at any other time in history. It is for these reasons that unless it is a result of federal force, it is not likely that Amazon is going anywhere anytime soon. Sorry Trump.

How a Childhood Book Series Taught Me About the Entrepreneurial Spirit

/in /by

I have always been a fan of a good hustle. My parents firmly believed that allowance made kids entitled. As members of the family, we were expected to pitch in around the house without the expectation of payment. And while I do not know that I will subscribe to this philosophy with my own future children, it did help me develop an instinct for making my own money at a young age.

As a kid growing up in the 90s, I was surrounded by fictional characters who valued making money. Every time Saved by the Bell came on and Zack Morris cooked up a new scheme to make money off his Bayside High classmates, I was inspired. Although Zack’s methods were sometimes less than pure (he has on more than one occasion earned a dishonest dollar), it was his entrepreneurial spirit that encouraged me to start my own hustle.

Problems and Solutions

In the fourth grade, I noticed many of my classmate’s mechanical pencils were becoming jammed with lead. Unable to use them, my friends would get frustrated and throw the pencil away in anger. But mechanical pencils were prized possessions for nine-year-olds. Throwing one away meant you may not be able to convince your parents to replace it for several weeks. That meant having to use regular pencils. The horror!

This same predicament happened to me often as well, but I had learned how to fix the lead- jammed pencil myself. And it was this skill that led me to set forth a solution to this grammar school conundrum. I would start my own “mechanical pencil de-clogging” business.

For one dollar, I would take my collection of tools, including a bobby pin and several straightened paper clips, and poke and prod at the problem until the lead jam was no more. As it turns out, this was a fairly lucrative operation for a nine-year-old. I began taking on at least a few “clients” each week.

When my parents asked me now I had earned the money, I simply told them I had started my own business fixing mechanical pencils. As long as I was not stealing the money, they had no qualms with my entrepreneurial spirit.

Other parents did not hold the same view. A friend of mine caught onto my business idea and began competing with me. Unfortunately, her parents believed it was “not right” for a fourth grader to be making money off of other fourth graders, and she was quickly shut down. Once again, I was the only game in town, which did not bother me one bit.

This side-hustle only lasted one school year, but as I got a little older I would discover a more lucrative way to make money thanks to the “Baby-Sitters Club” book series.

Kristy’s Great Idea

I had received one of the books for Christmas. The cover featured a picture of the young teens conducting a laid back business meeting and the words, “Kristy’s Great Idea.” This was a perfect title since it does, after all, always begin with a great idea.

The book tells the story of Kristy Thomas, who does a lot of babysitting in the small town of Stoneybrook. One day, her single mother is overwhelmed when all her older children are too busy and cannot watch their six-year-old brother. She begins frantically calling sitter after sitter, but to no avail. Each is already booked. But just as I saw an opening in the market when my classmates kept jamming their mechanical pencils, so did Kristy see her mother’s predicament as an opportunity to solve a problem, while earning money.

A passage from Ann M. Martin’s classic, told in Kristy’s perspective, reads:

“I chewed away at a gloppy mouthful of cheese and pepperoni and thought it was too bad that Mom’s pizza had to get cold while she made all those phone calls. I thought it was too bad that David Michael had to sit there and feel like he was causing a lot of trouble just because he was only six years old and couldn’t take care of himself yet.”

Then comes the brilliant watershed moment when the idea for the Baby-Sitters Club first occurs to Kristy:

“Then the idea for the Baby-sitters Club came to me and I almost choked. I could barely wait until nine o’clock so I could signal the great idea to Mary Anne.”

Kristy realized that if her own mother was having to call several sitters before securing one who was available, other parents were surely experiencing the same. Since all her friends were already working as babysitters after school and on the weekdays, she knew exactly who she could call on to help her with her business.

“My idea was that Mary Anne and Claudia and I would form a club to do baby-sitting. We would tell people (our clients) that at certain times during the week we could all be reached at one number. We would hold our meetings during those times. That way, when someone needed a sitter, he or she could make one phone call and reach three different people. One of us would be available for sure. Of course, people could call us individually at other times, but the beauty of the meetings would be the opportunity to reach several baby-sitters at once. Our clients wouldn’t have to go through what Mom had just gone through at dinner.”

By streamlining the services they were already each providing separately, they were able to save clients the time of having to call several potential sitters. And from this idea, Kristy and her friends were able to create their own babysitting empire in their small town. And it was this great idea that provided the setting for 133 books in the series. Each installment was filled with overarching themes of entrepreneurship that surely inspired many of its readers, including me.  

My Own Babysitting Empire

The babysitting business idea was of particular interest to me. Growing up in a Mormon community meant that childcare was an oft sought-after commodity since large families were the norm. My own family, for example, has ten children. This means lots of kids in need of a sitter.

If Kristy could turn babysitting into a lucrative hustle, certainly I could too. So I set to work, using the old computer program “Print Shop” to make business cards to hand out during church. Sundays would be my most important marketing days.

In order to demonstrate how good I was with children, I made sure I was always around to help busy parents who seemed overwhelmed listening to the Sunday speakers while also trying to keep their children in line. This made a huge impact.

My parents also helped me through word of mouth, advertising, and attesting to my topnotch childcare skills. Eventually, the word spread and I was making a pretty penny. For five dollars an hour, I would entertain your children while keeping them safe. This was a steal for most of the members of my community.

From the ages of 12-15, I spent a fair portion of my weekends and after school hours babysitting and making money. Throughout my junior high years, I do not remember ever having to ask my parents for money to go out with my friends. In fact, nothing made me prouder than being able to use the money I had earned to buy the things I wanted. This must be what independence felt like, I often thought to myself.

Of course, my successful business didn’t negate my curfew, so it wasn’t true independence, but it was a nice glimpse of what free market success felt like. And while I didn’t have much of a chance to use my childhood entrepreneurial skills during my college years, they have found use again throughout my professional career.

As a writer, I am a lot like a prospective babysitter, trying to earn a positive reputation that makes people feel comfortable trading money for the value I create. And by returning to my entrepreneurial roots as a freelance writer, I have able to build a prosperous future for myself. But this time around, I have nicer business cards.

The Year Local Entrepreneurs Funded The Olympics

/in /by

When it came time for cities around the globe to begin bidding to host the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, nobody wanted to volunteer. At the time, hosting the Olympic Games was seen for what it truly is: financially risky.

In the wake of the 1976 Summer Olympic Games, host city Montréal found itself $1.5 billion in debt; an amount the Canadian city was finally able to pay off in just 2006.

Put off by the financial setbacks experienced by Montréal and still grappling with the turmoil and political unrest left by the Cold War, the 1984 Summer Games were not particularly popular when it came to attracting potential host cities. In fact, only two cities even officially bid to host the 1984 Olympic Games: New York City and Los Angeles.

Los Angeles won the bid in the end, but its residents were not enthusiastic about this decision nor were they willing to foot the bill. The people of Los Angeles were so adamant about protecting their tax dollars from wasteful spending that they proceeded to pass a city charter prohibiting the use of public funds to be used for Olympic facilities. The city now had the honor of hosting the Olympic Games, but no way to pay for it.

Fortunately, a local businessman with a reputation for being budget-conscious stepped up and spearheaded the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee (LA84). Comprised of other successful entrepreneurs and business-savvy individuals, the Committee’s goal was simple: find private funding for the Olympic Games, a feat that had never been done before.

Critics were not initially sold on the idea of leaving the fate of the ’84 Olympic Games to a committee of corporate businessmen. However wary they may have been towards the idea of privatization, the 1984 Olympics would go on to be remembered as one of the most successful Olympic Games in history. Not only did the Committee find itself under budget, it also managed to make a profit – something that had only happened once before.

Through private fundraising, corporate sponsorships, and fiscal discipline, the Committee pulled off the unthinkable. Instead of throwing away millions, if not billions, on building new infrastructure, LA84 made use of existing arenas and college sports facilities.

Unheard of at the time, the Committee made history by selling the exclusive broadcasting rights to just one network. The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) paid a modest $225 million to be America’s only source for viewing the Olympic Games.

When it came to housing the Olympians, LA84 chose to make use of college dormitories and other housing facilities spread throughout the city, rather than building a costly “Olympic Village,” which has become customary for host cities.

When all was said and done, the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games cost a total of $546 million dollars. When compared to the $50 billion spent on the 2013 Sochi Winter Games, the amount spent by LA84 seems almost minuscule.

Privatization was not only possible, it was also the most efficient way to get the job done.

A Reminder Of The Fantastic Prosperity That Markets Bring Us.

/in /by

Most Americans today are richer than John D. Rockefeller was a century ago.

Kyle Smith provides a needed reminder of the prosperity the market brings.

Some truths are so obvious that no one believes them. Here’s one: Things are getting better. Much better. In the United States and around the world. Not everything is cause for optimism, but most things are. And yet those who make this easily made case tend to look like contrarians, or even eccentrics. Congratulations, then, to Time, which has devoted its new issue, “The Optimists,” to a celebration of progress, with Bill Gates stepping in as its guest editor. Considering the phenomenal statistics Gates cites, 2017 must have been the greatest year in human history, as Nicholas Kristof predicted a year ago in the New York Times, and 2018 will likely be even better.

Beyond The Media’s Obsession With The Trivial.

We in the news media are frequently and properly castigated for our obsession with the trivial; a corollary is that is that we take little notice of the monumental. Childhood deaths, Gates points out, are down from 12 million a year circa 1990 to 5 million today. That’s 122 million children’s lives saved in less than 30 years? Yawn. Let’s talk about Ivanka Trump’s I.Q. instead. Workplace accidents reduced by a factor of 50 over 50 years? Boring. Let’s focus our attention on Steve Bannon’s delusion that he’s going to be president someday. Gates notes that homosexuality has been legalized in more than 100 countries, more than 90 percent of the world’s children now attend primary school, and the proportion of people living in extreme poverty (less than $1.90 a day) on this planet has declined from a third to a tenth since 1990. As Kristof writes, 250,000 people a day are graduating out of the worst class of penury. This matters. To rephrase Joseph Stalin, a single saved life is a nice story, but 122 million is merely a statistic.

Things Are Pretty Good Here At Home.

How are things looking closer to home? Pretty good, if you’re among the half of workers who hold a 401(k) or similar retirement plan. The Dow is at 25,000. If you had placed $10,000 in a Vanguard mutual fund that tracks the S&P 500 on the day of its inception, which was September 7, 2010, you’d have tripled your money in a little over seven years. Warren Buffett points out in Time that assuming GDP growth of 2 percent as against projected population growth of 0.8 percent means 1.2 percent annual growth in per capita GDP. That sounds like a lot less than it is: Over a 25 year period, it means a rise in GDP per capita from $59,000 to $79,000. Two percent annual GDP growth isn’t a particularly optimistic scenario; economists foresee nearly 3 percent GDP growth in the U.S. this year.

As for the stresses associated with the changing nature of employment, that’s nothing new. At one point, 80 percent of all American jobs were on the farm. Think of all the job losses that have accompanied the economic restructuring that has reduced that figure to under 2 percent. “In our 241 years, the progress that I’ve described has disrupted and displaced almost all of our country’s labor force,” Buffett writes. “If that level of upheaval had been foreseen — which it clearly wasn’t — strong worker opposition would surely have formed and possibly doomed innovation.”

We All Live Better Than Last Century’s Billionaires.

An excellent resource for those who have doubts about the durability of what the wags in the arts pages at the Times keep calling “late capitalism” is the economist Don Boudreaux’s superb, lucid site Cafe Hayek, where he enjoys colorfully measuring today’s standard of living against that of our predecessors. How’s this for an eye-opening claim: Most Americans today are richer than John D. Rockefeller was a century ago. Rather turns on its head the idea that the one-percenters are vacuuming up all of the wealth, doesn’t it? Desperately we wander the media landscape, but instead of fresh tasty brains, we hunger for reasons to be afraid, ill portents, bad news. Had there been a billionaire who lived in the early 20th century, Boudreaux points out, he would have enjoyed only a few desirable things that a middle-class person can’t have today, notably lots of real estate in posh locations. But you, average American, have air-conditioning, access to fine medicine such as antibiotics (a sitting president’s son died in 1924 because a blister he developed while playing tennis at the White House became infected), a limitless bounty of entertainment and dining options, a much longer expected lifespan, safe and fast travel, etc.

Larger Homes, Longer Life, Less Crime.

New U.S. homes are more than 1,000 square feet larger than their counterparts in 1973, and living space per person has almost doubled. As of 2016, the median size of a new house reached 2,422 square feet. U.S. life expectancies have increased by about five years just since 1980. Teen pregnancy rates reached an all-time low in 2016. Crime rates ticked up in 2015 and 2016 but are roughly back to 2008 levels, far off the peak, with early indications that 2017 will resume the downward trend.

Let’s Be Optimistic.

“Optimism and pessimism,” writes Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, “have always competed in the American character. Think of it as Horatio Alger versus the Zombie Apocalypse.” It seems pretty clear which mentality is ruling our collective psyche at the moment: Desperately we wander the media landscape, but instead of fresh tasty brains, we hunger for reasons to be afraid, ill portents, bad news. Then we retreat to our 2,422-square-foot homes and wait for the AmazonFresh guy to deliver our veggie quinoa bowl.

Kyle Smith is National Review’s critic-at-large.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455167/standard-living-better-today-america-world

Communicate, Engage And Serve Others: How Individuals Build Communities Like Forests

/in , /by

It is sometimes a struggle to communicate that individualism is not atomistic, isolated and disconnected.

When individuals are not bossed around by authorities, they naturally form small collaborative communities, where collaboration can generate good solutions for multiple people with shared interests. The family is the first of these. The neighborhood might be the next one. The neighborhood might come together to form its own school district to educate their kids they way they all see fit, if they weren’t told by centralized government that they had to send their kids to designated schools in designated districts.

Villages and suburbs might form the next layer of community, then businesses that bring together people with shared commercial interests. And so on, starting small and local, at the family, and radiating out from there. Each individual chooses other individuals with whom to associate and collaborate, and those collaborative groups serve others in overlapping, nested networks.

How to illustrate these simple principles has always been a challenge in a world that is dominated by collectivist thinking. Where “society” is viewed as a real and singular entity to whose interests individuals must sacrifice their own. Where authority is viewed as the right for someone you didn’t choose to tell you what to do.

Here’s a novel idea to consider as a metaphor: individual trees in the forest. Maria Popova, at brainpickings.org, always brings delightful perspectives on considered literary topics, and she recently wrote beautifully about a book called The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate. Trees are individuals. They reach for light and air with their branches, and for nutrients with their roots. They seek to be big and strong and robust.

They also participate in community. “Neighboring trees, scientists found, help each other through their root systems — either directly, by intertwining their roots, or indirectly, by growing fungal networks around the roots that serve as a sort of extended nervous system connecting separate trees.”

Every tree is valuable to the community, and is protected and nourished by other trees. “Every tree is a member of this community, but there are different levels of membership. For example, most stumps rot away into humus and disappear within a couple of hundred years (which is not very long for a tree). Only a few individuals are kept alive over the centuries… What’s the difference? It is …. the degree of connection — or maybe even affection — that decides how helpful a tree’s colleagues will be.” Trees, like individuals, choose the others they associate with.

“….a pair of true friends is careful right from the outset not to grow overly thick branches in each other’s direction. The trees don’t want to take anything away from each other, and so they develop sturdy branches only at the outer edges of their crowns, that is to say, only in the direction of “non-friends.” Such partners are often so tightly connected at the roots that sometimes they even die together.”

Individual trees also exhibit a communication capability to warn the rest of the forest of predatory dangers. For example, trees in the African savannah can emit a warning gas (ethylene) when a herd of giraffe start munching. The gas signals to other trees in the community to defend themselves by loading up their leaves with toxins the giraffe herd will avoid. The giraffe move on and the community is saved.

On a broader scale, trees serve to enhance their entire ecosystem (their “society”) even though they don’t sacrifice their individual interests in doing so. When wolves left Yellowstone, “Elk herds in the park increased their numbers and began to make quite a meal of the aspens, willows, and cottonwoods that lined the streams. Vegetation declined and animals that depended on the trees left. The wolves were absent for seventy years. When they returned, the elks’ languorous browsing days were over. As the wolf packs kept the herds on the move, browsing diminished, and the trees sprang back. The roots of cottonwoods and willows once again stabilized stream banks and slowed the flow of water. This, in turn, created space for animals such as beavers to return. These industrious builders could now find the materials they needed to construct their lodges and raise their families. The animals that depended on the riparian meadows came back, as well. The wolves turned out to be better stewards of the land than people, creating conditions that allowed the trees to grow and exert their influence on the landscape.” Central planning of the forest is not required, and not helpful.

This interconnectedness of individual trees and animals, which nurtures the entire ecosystem, precisely reflects the nature of Individualism. Individualism is a system. Each individual extends branches and roots to become as strong as possible, and connects and communicates with others to make the forest strong, which is good for the forest and good for every tree.

The Fight Continues: Keynes and Hayek on Planned Economies

/in /by

As touched upon briefly in the first part of this series, 20th-century economists F.A. Hayek and John Maynard Keynes did not agree on much. And while a lot has happened since these two men were alive and actively writing and speaking about economic philosophy, the two men’s influence on the national economy can still be seen and felt today.

It cannot be denied that both men have been influential in the field of economics–whether for better or for worse depending on which philosophy you are more inclined to accept. But their disagreements with each other offer a fascinating comparison specifically between those who believe in government intervention in the economy, and those who do not.

Keynes and Intervention

In order for an economy to be planned, it must have some sort of central authority at its helm directing it in a given direction. And, as is always the case, this governing authority is placed in the hands of the state.

For John Maynard Keynes, the government’s involvement in the national economy was integral. Keynes is primarily responsible for the rise of macroeconomics, which treats the entire economy as one whole entity, rather than several individual moving parts. And of course, in order to control a creature as vast as the U.S. economy, you would have to control almost every aspect of it in order to reach your goals.

This type of central economic planning usually comes in the form of policies that restrict almost all aspects of a given sector. From setting prices and wages to controlling which companies are allocated scarce resources and even barring entrance into employment sectors, the Keynesian model seeks full and complete regulation from the state.

And while it may be difficult for many to understand why so many Americans eagerly subscribed to Keynesian economics even though totalitarianism had just destroyed Europe, it is important to understand one of Keynes’ main focuses: full employment.

For military members returning home from war, transitioning back into the workforce was of the utmost importance. And while “full employment” was easy to obtain while many of your countrymen are drafted and forced into war, finding places for all these men in the post-war economy was not so simple. It is for this reason that so many fell victim to the belief that the government should be in control of the economy and especially the workforce.

But viewing the economy as something that can be tamed and mastered does not take into account all the individual factors that make the marketplace so great in the first place.

Hayek and Planned Economies

Hayek believed that planned economies are the greatest enemy of free market competition. After all, when the government is responsible for controlling what the market can and cannot do, the market ceases to be “free” at all. And since free markets were comprised of individual efforts, inhibiting market innovation is a direct threat to the individual. And above all, Hayek’s economic philosophies are centered around the importance of individualism.

One of the biggest problems with Keynesian macroeconomics is its utter and complete lack of recognition of the importance of the individual. In fact, since the individual usually serves as an obstacle for governments seeking complete control over the economy, the individual is the only real threat to planned economies.

For Keynes to achieve his economic goals, including full employment, the government would have to commandeer the entire economy, trampling on individuals along the way. While some may not see this as being as terrifying as it truly is, Hayek reminds us in The Road to Serfdom that without economic freedom there can be no freedom at all. And in Keynes’s ideal world, the government would be running the entire show, leaving very little room for individual dissent.

As Hayek so passionately expresses throughout his classic Road to Serfdom, this failure to understand the individual’s role in the economy is one of the major shortcomings of Keynesian economics. As soon as economists stop viewing the economy in terms of individual entities and instead view it only as a collective unit, innovation is stifled and the individual suffers.

When the government controls wages, for example, the individual loses out on the opportunity to negotiate the terms of payment based on his or her own set of skills. Instead, these types of policies treat all members of the workforce the same.

Additionally, when the government determines which companies are worthy of certain resources, it demeans the innovation process by not allowing individuals to experiment with burgeoning ideas that may come with a risk.

Overall these differences between the two men come down to the individual versus the collective, and for Hayek, the individual should always be protected and placed above the desire for a planned economy riddled with government oversight.

Read Your Way to Individualism this Holiday Season

/in /by

It is gift giving season again! So whether you are looking for gifts to give to your loved ones or just looking for new books to add to your own wishlists, here are some titles you won’t want to forget.

Economic Theory

There is no gift quite as valuable as an economic education. Help your friends build the fundamental principles of free market economics with these essentials:

Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, by Ludwig von Mises

Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises

Choice, by Robert P. Murphy-

The Progressive Era, Murray Rothbard

Self-Improvement for Entrepreneurs

Trial and error is a major part of the entrepreneurial process. Without occasional failures, some of the greatest inventions would have never come to pass. It is for this very reason that it is important to stay uplifted and encouraged when taking risks in the marketplace. Luckily, we have compiled a list of books that will be helpful not only to entrepreneurs but anyone looking for a little extra encouragement:

The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, by Nathaniel Branden

Tribe of Mentors, by Tim Ferriss

7 Habits of Highly Effective People, by Stephen Covey

Think and Grow Rich, by Napoleon Hill

Becoming Steve Jobs, by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli

For the Little Ones

In addition to our current list of books suited for younger readers, there is a new book that was just released that strives to teach children of the origins of natural law, civil disobedience, and the wonders of the free market. Connor Boyack’s Lessons from a Lemonade Stand is a must-have for your children!

Write for CFI