Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Posts

Trump’s Escalating Trade War Is Striking a Blow to “Craftrepreneurs”

/in /by

As Trump continues to wage a trade war against China, American-run businesses continue to suffer the consequences. But now, thanks to a new set of proposed tariffs, entrepreneurs, consumers, and charitable organizations could be in real trouble.

Already, the administration has levied tariffs on over $50 billion worth of Chinese imports. And the effects are being felt. Recently, American motorcycle company Harley Davidson announced that it will be moving some of its manufacturing abroad in order to recuperate from the increased prices on Chinese goods. Since many of the raw materials used to construct the bikes come from China, the new tariffs caused a major increase in manufacturing costs. And like many American companies, Harley Davidson was faced with having to either push that cost increase to the consumer by raising prices or bear the brunt of these tariffs and risk possible financial ruin.

But as if this wasn’t bad enough on its own, the Trump administration just proposed another round of tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. This comes in addition to the second round that went into effect at the end of August. But unlike the other tariffs, which focused mostly on raw materials used to make cars or, in the case of Harley Davidson, motorcycles, the new tariffs are expected to deal a blow to an entirely new consumer market. 

Tariffs and “Craftrepreneurs”

Of the 6,031 items on the new list of Chinese items to be taxed, over 500 of them are craft supplies sold in stores throughout the United States. Popsicle sticks and yarn might not seem like important items, but the craft industry is more lucrative and more important to the American economy than one might think. In fact, some might be shocked to learn that the craft supply industry accounted for over $44 billion of economic activity in 2016 alone. But there is something even more fascinating about this industry: its consumer base.

According to a testimony given last week by JOANN Fabric and Craft Stores CEO, Jill Soltau, 90 percent of the items purchased by consumers in its store are turned into other finished projects. This seems obvious enough given that it is a craft supply store. But what JOANN customers are doing with these finished products is where the story gets interesting.

For some of JOANN’s customers, these items are turned into finished craft projects that are then sold at farmers markets, local boutiques, or on sites like Etsy. If Trump’s new tariffs are put into place, many of these “craftrepreneurs” will be unable to afford the materials needed to construct their finished merchandise. And for those who depend on selling these crafts for their livelihood, this could mean major trouble.

Trump has repeatedly said that these tariffs have been imposed to teach China a lesson, but American businesses are the ones who are dealing with the negative consequences. And in addition to the entrepreneurs who sell crafts, these new tariffs also spell trouble for small craft supply stores as well.

While JOANN’s is a household name, most American craft supply retailers are independently run mom-and-pop stores. Many of which are in the heart of the Midwest and run by female business owners who cannot afford to pay more for their product. In order to make up for the increased costs of getting supplies from China, many of these business owners will be forced to lay off employees or increase the consumer prices. Additionally, this could ultimately lead to smaller businesses having to close their doors forever. Either way you look at it, these Tariffs are harming entrepreneurs, the very backbone of America.

Trade Wars Negatively Impact American Charities 

But entrepreneurs aren’t the only ones caught in the crossfires of this escalating trade war. During her testimony, Soltau also explained the impact these tariffs will have on American charities.

She said:

“Approximately one out of three items made by JOANN’s customers is given away to military veterans, the hospitalized, the poor and the underprivileged.  We know that 7 million fleece blankets and 10 million quilts are donated by our customers each year to Project Linus, church groups, veteran support groups and other charitable organizations.”

But once Trump’s new tariffs are enacted, the costs of the supplies needed to make quilts and blanket will be increased by around 25 percent, according to JOANN’s estimates. This means that many volunteers will be unable to afford to make as many blankets and quilts as they could before. One of the charities mentioned above, Project Linus, is a group who specialized in giving comforting, security blankets to sick, hospitalized children. But if the costs to make these items increase, this means fewer children receiving blankets that bring them a great deal of cheer.

Trade wars are nasty games where nobody wins and everybody loses. Trump should put a stop to this before more entrepreneurs, consumers, and charities suffer needlessly.

Does Amazon Really Destroy Jobs?

/in , /by

Amazon has become the target of just about everyone who is envious of its success or wants to find a way to take a piece of Bezos’ digital empire. Recently, the city of Seattle passed a new law, levying a new employment tax on the company. The city is essentially blaming its rising rates of homelessness on Amazon’s generous employee salaries. City officials claim that since Amazon employees can afford to pay for more expensive homes, housing costs are rising, thus resulting in many Seattle residents taking to the streets in desperations.

And, of course, many outdated brick and mortar establishments, like Toys R Us for example, have also blamed Amazon for their demise. Even President Trump has joined in on this war on Amazon, accusing the company of dodging taxes, once even tweeting:

“Amazon is doing great damage to tax paying retailers. Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt – many jobs being lost!”

This anti-Amazon rhetoric is, of course, nothing new for the president. During his campaign, he made his opinions of the company well known. Going as far as to threaten the company before even being elected to office, the then-presidential candidate said, “believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”

And after a year and a half in office, the President still hasn’t seemed to have a change of heart for Bezos and Amazon. But is there any truth to Trump’s claims that the Amazon is both destroying jobs and “stealing” money from the taxpayer?

The Ultimate Job Destroyer?

The American people are not united on much these days, or so it would seem. However, if you wanted to give Americans a reason to unite against their leader, threatening their Amazon Prime accounts would be a surefire way.

Earlier this year, a report produced by the Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) found that over 80 million people in the United States hold Amazon Prime memberships. A number worthy of recognition especially considering that it has doubled in less than two years.

Amazon has revolutionized the American retail experience. Not only do Prime members get free two-day shipping on essentially any item they wish to purchase from food to electronics, but members also have access to Amazon’s library of streamable films, shows, and music at their fingertips. Need an item in less than two days? No problem! Amazon Now offers delivery services in under an hour for participating products. Even more amazing, Amazon Prime now also dabbles in the restaurant delivery service business competing with the likes of Uber Eats and GrubHub.

And yet, in spite of all these subcategories, each requiring its own set of employees, Donald Trump has accused Amazon of inhibiting job growth in the United States. As of January of this year, Amazon had 306,800 employees and a promise to hire an additional 100,000 full-time employees by mid-2018.

On their own these numbers are impressive, but they do not account for the additional employees who will find future part-time employment via Amazon’s participation in the sharing economy.

Amazon Enters the Sharing Economy

Receiving an Amazon Prime package as an adult is akin to opening up a Christmas present from Santa Claus as a child. You don’t know how the package arrived, but it doesn’t matter. You asked for it and 48 hours later it appeared on your porch as if by magic. Unfortunately, there is no mythical Amazon being responsible for delivering these packages. There is, however, an army of Amazon delivery personnel who operate on the sharing economy model.

Like the “Uber of packages,” Amazon couriers work when they want. As with the rest of the sharing economy, this allows millennials interested in side hustles or others looking to get ahead financially the opportunity to work around their own schedules.

In the few years since the sharing economy has grown in the United States we are already seeing the benefits it brings both in job creation and consumer satisfaction. Amazon’s restaurant delivery service works the same way.

As Americans are generally discontent to live mediocre lives with mediocre salaries, these side hustles have become essential to living a full and prosperous life. Amazon’s contributions to the sharing economy as well as the overall job creation in the country is something worthy of praise. Yet instead, the company’s reputation is being eviscerated by the President in very public social media posts.

Why All the Condemnation?

Trump has made the claim that Amazon hasn’t paid its fair share of taxes and is thus, stealing money from the American people. This is entirely untrue, but what Trump is implying by this comment hits at the core of his real problem with the company: he’s a brick and mortar enthusiast.

After Trump’s tweet, Politifact dissected the president’s post to decipher which, if any, of his claims were true. According to the site:

”While Amazon takes advantage of tax breaks and loopholes, it pays federal corporate tax, and charges sales taxes in 46 U.S. jurisdictions. Last year, Amazon paid $412 million in federal, state, local and foreign taxes.”

So if it’s not about destroying jobs or stealing tax dollars, what is Trump so mad about?

Trump is a traditional businessman who made much of his money through the real estate business. By nature, the virtual business realm is almost completely foreign to him. Trump has made his living buying and selling physical space. Subscribers to the belief that Amazon is the boogieman of the brick and mortar world will appreciate this, as they see Amazon and other online retailers as a threat to their existence.

As Jeffrey Tucker says:

“It’s not just about ideology; it’s a battle of economic interests. Trump is joining an emerging war between old-style economic institutions, rooted in brick-and-mortar and nation-state loyalism, vs. new-style digital institutions that span the globe and empower producers and consumers directly

But it is not and never has been the president’s job to decide which companies succeed and which ones fail. That power rests with consumers who utilize the power of their own purses at their own discretion. Unfortunately for Trump and other brick and mortar protectionists, Amazon is constantly proving that consumers prefer to use its retail platform above all other options. For a president to openly condemn a company for outperforming the competition is antithetical to the free market that Trump pretends to support.

At the end of the day, Trump is worried about his own interests, not the interests of consumers.

Hitting the nail on the head perfectly, Tucker explains the situation:

“Consider that Trump is the consummate physical-world capitalist. He builds towers, casinos, hotels, country clubs, all rooted in real estate, and all with a gawdy 1980s-style aesthetic. With that comes “the art of the deal.” The deals are done on golf courses, in “old boys” clubs, through personal networks. It’s about meeting in board rooms with mayors and city planners and trading favors. He hires contractors to dig and build and rent. He puts his name on large structures and they reach to the skies to proclaim his personal glories.”

But there is another layer to Trump’s disdain for Amazon. And like many of Trump’s stances, this one is also rooted in personal drama.

Facts have never meant much to our president, but any criticism cast in his direction has quickly garnered his attention. Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, recently purchased the Washington Post, a publication that hasn’t shied away from attacking Donald Trump.

Addressing this issue head-on, Trump has even made statements questioning Bezos’ motives:

“I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought The Washington Post to have political influence, and I gotta tell you, we have a different country than we used to have.”

He later continues this line of thinking saying:

“He owns Amazon. He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right.”

Unfortunately for Trump, he has chosen to attack a mighty monument of consumerism. Amazon’s services are just too good and too plentiful to fall victim to Trump’s attacks. In fact, Amazon Prime’s 80 million subscribers outnumber the 57.6 million people who voted in the 2016 election. Sorry President Trump, consumers have already voted with their dollars and they choose Amazon.

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.

Peter Thiel Has Had Enough with Silicon Valley’s Love of Regulation

/in /by

Peter Thiel is a brilliant businessman. Ranked number four on Forbes “Midas List,” and number 315 on Forbes “400,” Thiel has a net worth of $2.6 billion. Without his entrepreneurial genius, the world would not know the ease of sending payments to vendors via Paypal, which he founded in 1999. But PayPal is just one of the many brainchildren of Thiel.

Thiel has been one of the most prominent players in the tech industry in Silicon Valley. But this chapter of his life about to come to an end. Fed up with the love of regulation so prominent in the San Francisco area, Thiel has decided to scale back his involvement in the mecca of the tech world.

Silicon Valley’s Love of Regulations 

On paper, Thiel’s successes may not set him apart from other tech giants in Silicon Valley. But Thiel is very different than most of his colleagues. Thiel has always been very open about his dedication to free market principles and libertarian-leaning politics. In fact, his political activism has also led him to dabble in revolutionary ideas of decentralization, including his support of floating islands called “seasteading.”

But it is precisely this love of liberty and unbridled innovation that is alienating him from others in San Francisco. During a debate at Stanford University, Thiel referred to Silicon Valley as, “a one-party state. That’s when you get in trouble politically in our society, when you’re all in one side.”

Silicon Valley has a long history of leaning more to the left side of the political spectrum.  Thiel rightfully believes that this political ideology is dangerous to innovators in the tech world, as it advocates for further regulation. Regulation that will, of course, inhibit the ability to bring many brilliant ideas to fruition.

This was one of his main reasons for supporting the now President Trump in the 2016 election cycle. Thiel caught a lot of criticism for this move, but it ultimately comes down to the more relaxed regulatory stance of the current administration.

Dedication to Principles 

Love him or hate him, Trump has done a great deal to lessen the regulatory blow felt by many innovators and entrepreneurs like Thiel. In fact, Trump has already slashed more regulations than Ronald Reagan who, prior to Trump, held the record for deregulation.

And even though Silicon Valley, as well as the rest of the economy, would benefit greatly from the slashing of regulatory policies, the hatred for Trump is blinding many. This has caused many to turn their backs on Thiel as well. In fact, the CEO of Netflix and Facebook board member, Reed Hastings, wrote in an email that Thiel’s support of Trump demonstrated, “catastrophically bad judgment.”

Between Silicon Valley’s love of increased regulation and their condemnation of Thiel’s political leanings, he is finally calling it a day and relocating to Los Angeles. In fact, Thiel, who also happens to serve as the director of the Facebook board, is considering abandoning this post as well, a position he has held since 2005.

Not only does his decision to leave highlight Thiel’s own dedication to his work and his free market principles, it also highlights the absurdity of Silicon Valley.

Our country is overburdened with regulation. And it is precisely this red tape that prevents would-be entrepreneurs from sharing their genius with the rest of the world. But perhaps, this is why the big shots in Silicon Valley are so opposed to fewer barriers to entry.

Many of the Silicon Valley’s biggest players benefit from increased regulations, as it keeps their competitors from gaining entry into the market. Established businesses can afford to comply with regulations, whereas the newer, smaller startups cannot. An increase in regulation shields these companies from actually having to compete in the market.  

But by slashing unnecessary regulation, which accounts for most, if not all of the regulations on the books today, more innovators are able to enter the market and compete with major players in the tech world. And when there are more players in the market, the consumers win.

Trump’s Tariffs: A Practical Attempt To Alleviate A Pestilence Of Politics.

/in /by

There is a lot of ideological purity being bandied about recently in favor of “free trade”. It is spouted in righteous indignation on the subject of the Trump Administration’s recently announced intent to impose import tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. All of a sudden, the left-wing professoriate has discovered the virtues of free market economics. Or at least, they find an opportunity in virtue-signaling their opposition to Trump.

A Fine Theory.

Free trade is a theory. Historically, it was advanced by classical economists like David Ricardo and Adam Smith, who pointed out that schemes of tariffs and taxation and statutory import and export limitation were always aimed at furthering government aims and not at the betterment of the people who wanted to trade with their counterparts in foreign countries. In the never-ending battle between the entrepreneurs aiming to improve the quality of life of all economic citizens, and the government aiming to control the population and make sure no-one succeeded more than the government was prepared to allow, free trade became a loser.

Non-existent In Practice.

Today, there is no free trade. Zero. There is not a single trade that is not governed by legislation, bureaucratic rule making, taxes, tariffs or subsidies or political adjustments of some kind. No boat can sale, no plane can fly, no truck can deliver without political permission. Giant global bureaucracies like WTO, and regional ones like TPP and Nafta and the EU make sure that not a single transaction can be made without a specific permission within their rule making.

All of this political bureaucracy imposes costs of money and time delays. Entrepreneurs who want to import and export must research tariff and tax tables, employ their own compliance staff, file forms, undergo inspections, and submit reports about their activities, in addition to incorporating the actual taxes and tariffs into their costs, often acting as collectors for the government.

A Bureaucratic Tangle.

Why so much bureaucracy and cost? Not because of economics. From Ricardo and Smith, we know the economic benefits of free trade. The systemic strangulation of free exchange between countries is entirely driven by politicians. Politicians desire only two things: control over the free, imaginative and entrepreneurial activities of people, and a revenue stream that they can confiscate from the productive activities of others.

The result is a distorted and sclerotic tangle of unfree economic exchange, an unfathomable explosion of rules and regulations, a hampered global economy of constrained buyers and over-regulated sellers. The bureaucrats are happy because there are manifold opportunities for their enemies, the productive economic actors, to make mistakes, yielding unending opportunities for fines, penalties, “clarifications” (a bureaucratic favorite) and more rules.

A Small Bomb.

Along comes Trump and rolls a bomb into this building. A bomb is a vehicle for disruption. This particular bomb is a small one with limited explosive capacity. It could blow open a door, with the opportunity for some evil to exit or some good to enter. If a wall collapses, it opens up the chance of new and perhaps more open construction. If a beam falls, there might be the opportunity to eliminate entire stories of the twisted edifice.

Thinking Ahead.

Moreover, it is likely that Trump is better at systems thinking than the politicians and bureaucrats, for whom short termism is the dominant style. After he rolls in this bomb, will the EU or Canada or China retaliate? If so, that further exposes the façade of international co-operation and clearly underlines the bias of the system towards antagonism and confrontation. Such retaliation will open new pathways for Trump to renegotiate, expanding his options. What if the result is to start a meaningful discussion about how China illegally confiscates American companies’ intellectual property? Or about how Germany illegally favors BMW automobiles and Miele household appliances in its system of state-supported industries?

Tear Down This Trade Agreement.

Free trade is a perfectly viable theory, and it is nice to read about it in historical economics texts. We can all benefit from understanding the concept, because it helps us see how the politicians have permanently destroyed one of the purest mechanisms for collaborative human betterment. But don’t let’s tolerate screeching hypocritical distress over the use of a small explosive device to collapse the edifice of managed trade. It deserves to collapse.

Who Trump Forgot to Include in His Support of Right to Try Laws

/in /by

Trump was praised for his supportive mention of right to try laws in his State of the Union Address. To be sure, this is surprising, especially coming from a “conservative” president. However, we should look closer at his entire speech and its impact on all those who deserve the right to try.

The Right to Try Belongs to Everyone

Addressing right to try laws, Trump said:

We also believe that patients with terminal conditions, terminal illness, should have access to experimental treatment immediately that could potentially save their lives. People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure. I want to give them a chance right here at home. It’s time for Congress to give these wonderful, incredible Americans the right to try.”

And the president is absolutely correct. Terminally ill patients should have the right to try experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives. But this right does not belong to them alone.

Mental illness inflicts tremendous suffering on its victims. However, it is not medically classified as being terminal. Yet, it is often deadly. Yet, these patients are not given the right to try, even under Trump’s proposed policies. For those suffering from severe depression or PTSD, suicide is often just one dark thought away. But these souls are told they must suffer lest they be thrown in jail for using something as “evil” as marijuana or psychedelics, both illegal in the eyes of the state.

Since several FDA-approved medications for anxiety and depression are available, mental ailments are seen as “treatable.” But as anyone who has ever seen a commercial for such medications has witnessed, “increased suicidal thoughts” are often a side effect of these types of drugs. And this doesn’t account for the other side effects that vastly decrease one’s quality of life such as increased weight gain, decreased sex drive, and often even a changing of taste for certain foods. Sure, these are not life-threatening ailments, but quality of life is important especially when experiencing an increase in suicidal thoughts.

But these considerations are made far worse when looking at some of the other comments made by Trump during the State of the Union.

The Emotional Costs of War

Trump spoke of building an even mightier military, saying:

In confronting these horrible dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict and unmatched power is the surest means to our true and great defense. For this reason, I am asking Congress to end the dangerous defense sequester and fully fund our great military.

This policy will not make us any safer. The “fully-funded” wars being waged around the world are only breeding blowback that makes the world a more dangerous place. And the Pentagon is already filled with bloated and wasteful spending. There is absolutely no need to further feed the beast.

And in addition to the financial cost of war, Trump fails to acknowledge the emotional cost of promoting a military agenda that would mean sending more individuals off to fight in distant lands, causing even more cases of PTSD.

Since 2009, more veterans have committed suicide than soldiers have died in combat. A primary culprit of this is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD has been called many things over, such as “shell shock,” “battle fatigue,” and even “war neurosis.”And because it has taken many forms as more information has been discovered, no one really knows how many veterans are suffering from it. It has, however, been estimated that between 11–20 out of every 100 veterans are suffering.

But these troubled souls are unable to get access to treatment that could potentially save their lives. Instead, those most in need of help are ushered through the disastrous Veterans Administration, where the only solution is to prescribe a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs. In the beginning, it may start with just an antidepressant, but when the side-effects of that drug manifest themselves, another drug is given to correct the side-effects. And when the new drug brings on its own set of side-effects, an additional drug is added on. And so on and so forth. Iraq War veteran Nigel McCourry is one such veteran who was subjected to this regiment of prescription drugs and in the book “Changing Our Minds” stated: “It was like they were trying to give me a chemical lobotomy, it was not an acceptable alternative to just dealing with the PTSD.”

But dealing with PTSD is not as easy as it sounds. Anyone who has ever dealt with or knows someone who has dealt with PTSD knows it is not as simple as getting your feelings out. Sometimes just talking about experiences endured in war can trigger a patient and bring them to a state of such discomfort they can become a danger to themselves or others, sometimes even ending in suicide. And yet, PTSD — remember — is not technically a terminal illness.

But fortunately for McCourry, he was able to participate in a clinical study that allowed him the legal right to try psychedelic treatment, which completely changed his life for the better.

Psychedelics and Psychotherapy: One Veteran’s Story

After years of being demonized thanks to the War on Drugs, psychedelics are making a comeback. And unfortunately, the reason for this comeback is perpetual war.

After two Iraq wars and the Afghanistan War, America saw tremendous surges in PTSD cases. Between the years of 1999 and 2010, veteran suicides averaged 22 a day, or one every 65 minutes. That number has since decreased to about 20 suicides a day, which is hardly a level worth celebrating.

But these grim statistics forced the government to recognize the moral injuries inflicted by sending young men and women off to both commit, witness, and be on the receiving end of heinous acts of violence. As psychologist Jordan B. Peterson has written:

“Soldiers who develop post-traumatic stress disorder frequently develop it not because of something they saw, but because of something they did.”

In the last several years, the government has grown more open to letting psychedelic researchers, such as the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), begin clinical trials on testing psychedelic drugs as a means to treat PTSD. The substance Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has been the most commonly tested member of the psychedelic family lately, as its use has helped many PTSD sufferers talk and work through their trauma without the bombardment of triggers.

Known to most as molly or ecstasy, this currently banned substance brought McCourry peace after nearly a decade of struggling with PTSD.

To be sure, McCourry did not encounter this drug at a rave or Burning Man. He was given MDMA in a controlled environment under the supervision of psychologists who also served as “guides,” leading him through the process of self-discovery. The MDMA used in this study were not bought off a dealer in some sketchy, dark alley either. MAPS was given state permission to have a chemist concoct the medication that was to be administered to McCourry. And it had life-changing consequences.

PTSD is, in itself, a survival mechanism. When you live in a state of constant instability, whether in war or growing up in a tumultuous home environment, PTSD keeps you on your guard. It is your body functioning in survival mode all of the time. But when you come home from war or are removed from the situation causing you distress, your psyche does not understand that it is safe from impending doom. The sufferer is unable to live in the present because they are consumed with living in their past trauma.

But MDMA allows the user to experience the here and now in ways they have not previously been able to. This allows them to break down their mental barriers and talk about past trauma without feeling as though they are facing impending doom or judgment for past acts. This is precisely what allowed McCourry to work through his trauma and truly heal.

Through his few sessions taking MDMA, McCourry was able to talk about things he had never discussed outside of combat. MDMA allowed him to dig into his experiences without plunging him into a seemingly perpetual darkness.

Speaking of his experience, McCourry said, “I don’t feel cured of PTSD. But now I can manage my symptoms in a whole lot better way.” And unlike antidepressants and antipsychotics, he does not have to take MDMA every day. He only needed a handful of sessions to make breakthrough discoveries.  

While the FDA has “fast-tracked” MDMA for prescription use, it is still at least five years away from hitting the market. For many PTSD sufferers, five years is a death sentence. But again, this plight is not considered “terminal” by the administration, or any administration in the past for that matter.

Under Trump’s right to try policies, this type of peace of mind that McCourry gained would not be granted to veterans, who went off to fight the wars he and other foreign leaders have started and perpetuated.

While sending human beings off to war is often a death sentence on its own, once they return — if they are so lucky — we sentence them to the confines of their minds where they must live in agony as they attempt to deal with the things they have seen and the things they have done. The terminally ill absolutely deserve the right to try, but so do those suffering from mental ailments where suicide is an outcome that is not unfathomable, or even unexpected.

If Trump wants to amp up America’s military might, he’d better think twice about the mental toll it will take on the those being asked to carry out his agenda.

To be sure, the right of terminally ill patients to try experimental drugs is absolutely wonderful and should be celebrated to the utmost degree. But unfortunately under Trump’s vision, tyrannical foreign policy will continue, the drug war will continue, and those plagued by trauma run the risk of taking their own lives before the state allows them access to potentially lifesaving treatments.

Tax Cuts, Tariffs, And Trump’s Presidential Legacy

/in /by

Every time President Trump does something worthy of praise, he counteracts his seemingly good deeds by doing something terrible. The last few weeks have been no exception to this phenomenon. While the recent tax cuts have been met by criticism from many on the left, who have decried this act as a benefit only to the rich, there is absolutely no denying the net positive these cuts have had for the American people.

Several companies have recently decided to give their employees bonuses as a result of lower taxes. Disney is reported to have handed out $175 million in bonuses to its employees in the wake of the cuts. And they are not the only ones.

At the end of January, FedEx had announced that the tax cuts had made such a dramatic impact on the company, it was raising wages and giving out employee bonuses. On its website the shipping giant stated:

“FedEx believes the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will likely increase [gross domestic product] and investment in the United States,”

In addition to these two companies, Starbucks also announced it would be giving out raises to its employees thanks to the cuts. Home Depot also stated that they would be giving $1,000 bonuses to every employee who had been with the company for 20 years or longer.

And almost every American has noticed an increase in the wages they take home each paycheck since the cuts went into effect. And yet, in spite of all the evidence pointing suggesting that these cuts are good for almost everyone, many Democrats are refusing to acknowledge the impact they are having.

Nancy Pelosi, who coincidentally happens to be one of the 15th richest members of Congress scoffed at the GOP tax plan, dubbing the subsequent bonuses and wage increasing as mere, “crumbs.”

But before I begin to sound too much like an unabashed Trump supporter, it is important to understand that with this Administration, the good comes with a fair amount of bad.

Trump’s Tariffs

In an attempt to push back against what the Administration views as “unfair” trading policies with countries like South Korea and China, Trump introduced new tariffs on foreign manufacturers. While this fits in perfectly with the “America first” rhetoric so prevalent with the Trump Administration, these new tariffs are anything but.

Policies that put a damper on our ability to freely trade with other countries do not put America first. In fact, they stifle innovation and inhibit job creation. The same week Trump announced these new tariffs several American companies expressed their concerns with how this will negatively impact their businesses.

SunPower, a United States-based solar power company had planned on spending $20 million dollars on expanding its company and creating hundreds of new jobs for American workers. However, in light of the 30 percent tariff hike, the company has announced it will now have to halt these plans.

What Trump failed to recognize, or perhaps just doesn’t understand, is that many US-based companies rely on foreign imports. In fact, the majority of the company’s parts come from Mexico and the Philippines. And this is not a bad thing, it is merely the division of labor in action. If it is cheaper to purchase certain solar technologies from foreign manufacturers than it is to have them made in the United States than this opportunity for trade should be embraced, not taxed.

Of course, the Administration believes these types of protectionist policies will secure American jobs, but this is not so. In the case of SunPower, which imports around 80 percent of its parts abroad, the new tariffs will result in increased costs. This, in turn, will result in fewer jobs created in the long-run. This hurts American workers, not helps them.

Trump’s Legacy 

While the new tariffs do not go into effect until February 7th, they are already impacting American businesses. Tom Werner, the chief executive of SunPower said, “We have to stop the $20 million investment because the tariffs start before we know if we’re excluded. It’s not hypothetical. These were positions that we were recruiting for that we are going to stop.”

Meanwhile, Trump continues to be praised for his regulatory cuts, and justifiably so. In fact, Trump has already surpassed Ronald Reagan’s legacy of slashing regulations and he has only been in office for a year.

But consistency is important, and without it, praise cannot be justly given. If Trump wants to leave behind a legacy that promotes free market principles, he needs to adopt a consistent message across the board. And while he should definitely continue with the tax cuts, our economy can do without the rampant protectionism.

Trump Is Deregulating All the Things and No One Isn’t Talking about It

/in /by

Most people alive in America today have probably never had the experience of sending a telegram. There are a host of reasons for this, the main one being that the telegram stopped being fashionable decades ago as burgeoning technology replaced its use in the modern world. The very last Western Union telegram was sent 11 years ago.

Over a decade too late, the FCC has finally decided to end burdensome regulations that stifled telegraph technology. As Reuters reported:

AT&T Inc, originally known as the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, in 2013 lamented the FCC’s failure to formally stop enforcing some telegraph rules.

‘Regulations have a tendency to persist long after they outlived any usefulness and it takes real focus and effort to ultimately remove them from the books even when everyone agrees that it is the common sense thing to do,’ the company said.”

Regulations are far easier to create than they are to dismantle. As Milton Friedman said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Yet lately, there has been an undeniable trend of repealing these types of regulations, the likes of which America hasn’t seen since the Reagan Administration. And in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, this current regulatory rollback is due largely to President Donald Trump.

Setting a New Record

Ronald Reagan left many legacies during his duration in the White House. And while many were less than praiseworthy—the War on Drugs springs to mind—he did accomplish some deregulation.

In fact, during the Reagan presidency, both the Federal Register and federal regulations decreased by more than one-third. And as impressive as this record surely was, it’s already been broken by Donald Trump.

Upon taking office, Donald Trump signed an executive order telling federal agencies that they must cut two existing regulations for each new regulation proposed. Contained within this executive order was the demand that each federal agency create a task force with the explicit purpose of finding regulations worth slashing. This act was intended to help the newly sworn-in president reach his promise of cutting 70 percent of all federal regulations.

While the talk of regulatory cuts is typical red meat rhetoric, the left was obviously less than pleased with this executive order. A coalition of left-leaning organizations even joined together in February and sued Trump on the grounds that his executive order would potentially “block or force the repeal of regulations needed to protect health, safety, and the environment, across a broad range of topics – from automobile safety, to occupational health, to air pollution, to endangered species.” But the lawsuit did not scare Trump away from his objective.

When Obama had been in office as long as Trump currently has, regulations were 28 percent higher. But since taking office, Trump has repealed hundreds of these regulations.

And when it comes to regulations in general, the score speaks for itself. During the same point of time of their respective presidencies, Obama’s regulatory tally was at 1,737 while Trump’s is 1,241. And while Reagan’s own regulatory cuts were admirable, they still don’t compare with Trump’s if you judge them by the same timeframe.

Earlier this October, Trump announced his plans to further cut taxes along with red tape that negatively impacts both businesses and consumers. According to CEI, the current level of federal regulatory burdens have amounted to nearly $2 trillion. And while business owners may pay the initial costs, it will inevitably trickle down to the consumer. When overhead costs are raised on entrepreneurs, that cost must be made up for somewhere. And as CEI also estimates, these hidden costs can account for about $15,000 per household in any given year.

As the 2017 fiscal year came to a close this month, the White House also released its initiative to cut more red tape to jumpstart the economy. Obviously, the “do nothing” method is a far cry from Obama’s overbearing regulatory intervention.

However, while this rhetoric is pleasing to much of the American public, which is fed up after almost a decade of a stagnating economy, Congress has yet to act on any substantial reform in either the House or the Senate.

Still, the White House has continued its efforts to encourage regulatory relief by pushing for three specific reform efforts, listed by CEI’s Clyde Wayne Crews as follows:

  1. Trump’s January executive order requiring agencies to eliminate at least two rules for every new regulation adopted, and that they ensure net new regulatory costs of zero;
  2. A sweeping  Reorganization Executive Order that requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit a plan aimed at streamlining and reducing the size of the administrative state generally. This plan will set the tone for Trump’s budget proposal next year.
  3. A memorandum from the new Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Neomi Rao directing agencies, for the first time as far as I can tell, to propose an overall incremental regulatory cost allowance for the agency in the new edition of their “Unified Agenda” on regulations. This report will appear in the fall. Prior editions, since the 1980s, would label rules as “economically significant,” but never has there been such a “regulatory budget.” Rao says, “OMB expects that each agency will propose a net reduction in total incremental regulatory costs for FY 2018.”

But what is, perhaps most interesting is how silent the media has been. Usually, the media doesn’t miss an opportunity to criticize the president, making it all the more strange that these massive regulation rollbacks have managed to slip under the radar.

The Importance of Economic Liberty

Just as it is important to give credit where credit is due, it is also important to acknowledge that excelling in one area does not negate one’s terrible behavior in another. The appointment of Jeff Sessions by itself is enough of a reason to be wary of Trump. Especially given Sessions’ obsession with reigniting the drug war in a time when public opinion is overwhelmingly trending in the opposite direction. Though in many capacities this makes one of Trump’s weak points similar to Reagan’s.

And the Sessions issue is just one of many. Diplomacy also appears to be one of Trump’s weak points. Taunting a world leader who is threatening to use nuclear arms against your country may not be the wisest idea, but that hasn’t stopped Trump from referring to Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man” at the height of tensions. And in general, President Trump’s hawkish foreign policy has made a mockery of candidate Trump’s non-interventionist rhetoric.

But increasing economic freedom is no small feat. If there is any doubt of this, just look how long it took to deregulate the telegraph industry. Without economic liberty there can be no general freedom, which is precisely why Trump’s pushback against the regulatory state is so important.

Our modern economy has no doubt been burdened by regulations that have held back the market and prevented others from even entering the workforce. So as hard as Trump is to stomach most of the time, these regulatory scale-backs are cause for celebration.

Write for CFI