California To Impose Internet Tax – Amazon Shuts Down California Retailers

June 29, 2011 · Posted in Business · Comment

Today I received the following email from the Amazon Associates Team:

Hello,

For well over a decade, the Amazon Associates Program has worked with thousands of California residents. Unfortunately, a potential new law that may be signed by Governor Brown compels us to terminate this program for California-based participants. It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers – including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you – even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.

We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue. We deeply regret that we must take this action.

As a result, we will terminate contracts with all California residents that are participants in the Amazon Associates Program as of the date (if any) that the California law becomes effective. We will send a follow-up notice to you confirming the termination date if the California law is enacted. In the event that the California law does not become effective before September 30, 2011, we withdraw this notice. As of the termination date, California residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com [ http://www.amazon.com/ ], Endless.com [ http://www.endless.com/ ], MYHABIT.COM [ http://www.myhabit.com/ ] or SmallParts.com [ http://www.smallparts.com/ ]. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned on or before the termination date will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule.

You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are a resident of California. If you are not currently a resident of California, or if you are relocating to another state in the near future, you can manage the details of your Associates account here [ https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/network/your-account/payee-info.html ]. And if you relocate to another state in the near future please contact us [ https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/contact?subject=&ie=UTF8 ] for reinstatement into the Amazon Associates Program.

To avoid confusion, we would like to clarify that this development will only impact our ability to offer the Associates Program to California residents and will not affect their ability to purchase from Amazon.com [ http://www.amazon.com/ ], Endless.com [ http://www.endless.com/ ], MYHABIT.COM [ http://www.myhabit.com/ ] or SmallParts.com [ http://www.smallparts.com/ ].

We have enjoyed working with you and other California-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program and, if this situation is rectified, would very much welcome the opportunity to re-open our Associates Program to California residents. We are also working on alternative ways to help California residents monetize their websites and we will be sure to contact you when these become available.

Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

The government is a group of people that aggressively extorts money from a defenseless and largely disarmed majority. They use it to protect and cement the privileged position of established and campaign-financing organizations who fear competition from those annoying, small, and dynamic entrepreneurs who push down prices.

In the process it always cripples commerce to one degree or another. So long as the tax livestock remains productive and obedient, such occurrences can be shrugged off as regrettable but “necessary” collateral damage.

I submit the letter above as yet another piece of evidence in the long list of items that corroborate this thesis.

Tags: california, california internet tax, california tax, internet tax

False Dichotomies of Borrowing More vs Fewer Goodies; The Cost of Federal Regulations and Who Shoulders It

June 23, 2011 · Posted in Government · Comment

Tags: federal regulations

Riots in Greece

June 15, 2011 · Posted in Global Economics · Comment

With a formidable yield of over 16 percent on their government bonds, way ahead of such shining beacons of economic stability as Pakistan and Colombia, Greece sure is a good example for how you can act like a third world country and get paid like an industrialized nation for a while if only you are lucky enough to find a pool of greater fools who would conceive of a deranged and imperialistic project such as the European Union.

Tags: european union, greece

Bitcoin! – The Freedomain Radio Interview

June 14, 2011 · Posted in Monetary Economics · Comment

Tags: bitcoin

Public Health Care in the US; Comparison of Countries by Public Health Expenditures

June 13, 2011 · Posted in Government · Comment

It is important to pay attention to the premises that people base their assertions on. If an entire math paper is predicated upon the theory that 1 + 1 = 3, and that theory is applied throughout the paper, then there is really no need to read on or to take the writer serious as a mathematician.

A good example in the realm of economics that I just came across is this guy who writes an article that is in large parts predicated upon the following assertion:

The United States has the most privatized health care system in the advanced world; it also has, by far, the most expensive care, without gaining any clear advantage in quality for all that spending.

So he makes the assumption that spending on health care in the US more privatized in the US than in any other industrialized nation. And from that he concludes that there is no clear advantage in quality for “all this spending”.

Now, if “all this spending” was indeed more privatized than anywhere else in the world then he may have indeed supplied a valid argument for more government involvement in the realm of health care.

If, however, this assumption were to be proven incorrect, then he would have unwittingly supplied an argument for less government involvement.

Let’s look at the facts on Health care in the United States:

Public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.

Government health spending in the US in 2005 was at 7.2 percent of US GDP. In a comparison of 188 countries worldwide the US ranks at position 18. If we exclude third world countries, the US ranks at position 9, ahead of such supposed big government health care paradises as Canada or even Cuba!

	Country	Public health spending % of GDP
1	Marshall Islands	15
2	Micronesia, Fed States	12.4
3	Timor-Leste	11.9
4	Kiribati	11.7
5	Maldives	10.6
6	France	8.9
7	Malawi	8.7
8	Palau	8.7
9	Lesotho	8.5
10	Sao Tome & Principe	8.3
11	Germany	8.2
12	Iceland	7.8
13	Austria	7.7
14	Denmark	7.7
15	Norway	7.5
16	Sweden	7.5
17	Portugal	7.4
18	United States	7.2
19	United Kingdom	7.1
20	Luxembourg	7
21	Belgium	6.9
22	Cuba	6.9
23	New Zealand	6.9
24	Canada	6.8
25	Italy	6.8
26	Switzerland	6.8
27	Japan	6.7
28	Ireland	6.5
29	Malta	6.5
30	Czech Rep	6.3
31	San Marino	6.3
32	Colombia	6.2
33	Montenegro	6.2
34	Slovenia	6.2
35	Croatia	6
36	Netherlands	6
37	Australia	5.9
38	Spain	5.9
39	Finland	5.8
40	Serbia	5.8
41	Hungary	5.5
42	Macedonia, FYR	5.5
43	Costa Rica	5.4
44	Turkey	5.4
45	Bosnia and Herzegovina	5.2
46	Slovakia	5.2
47	Belarus	5
48	Panama	5
49	Seychelles	4.9
50	Israel	4.8
51	Jordan	4.8
52	Bulgaria	4.7
53	Grenada	4.7
54	Cape Verde	4.6
55	Argentina	4.5
56	Botswana	4.5
57	Djibouti	4.5
58	Guyana	4.5
59	Iran, Islamic Rep	4.4
60	Liberia	4.4
61	Andorra	4.3
62	Barbados	4.3
63	Bolivia	4.3
64	Greece	4.3
65	Poland	4.3
66	Dominica	4.2
67	Moldova, Rep	4.2
68	Nicaragua	4.1
69	Rwanda	4.1
70	Burkina Faso	4
71	Lithuania	4
72	Samoa	4
73	Solomon Islands	4
74	Swaziland	4
75	Latvia	3.9
76	Romania	3.9
77	El Salvador	3.8
78	Estonia	3.8
79	Honduras	3.8
80	Lebanon	3.8
81	St. Vincent & Grenadines	3.8
82	Tonga	3.8
83	Ukraine	3.7
84	Papua New Guinea	3.6
85	South Africa	3.6
86	Zimbabwe	3.6
87	Brazil	3.5
88	Namibia	3.5
89	Saint Kitts and Nevis	3.5
90	Bahamas	3.4
91	Gambia	3.4
92	Monaco	3.4
93	Uruguay	3.4
94	Mongolia	3.3
95	St. Lucia	3.3
96	Antigua and Barbuda	3.2
97	Haiti	3.2
98	Qatar	3.2
99	Russian Federation	3.2
100	Turkmenistan	3.2
101	Iraq	3.1
102	Korea, Rep	3.1
103	Benin	3
104	Ethiopia	3
105	Gabon	3
106	Korea, Dem People’s Rep	3
107	Fiji	2.9
108	Mali	2.9
109	Mexico	2.9
110	Tanzania	2.9
111	Belize	2.8
112	Bhutan	2.8
113	Chile	2.8
114	Vanuatu	2.8
115	Mozambique	2.7
116	Paraguay	2.7
117	Zambia	2.7
118	Albania	2.6
119	Algeria	2.6
120	Saudi Arabia	2.6
121	Bahrain	2.5
122	Cyprus	2.5
123	Kazakhstan	2.5
124	Kyrgyzstan	2.5
125	Suriname	2.5
126	Trinidad and Tobago	2.4
127	Tunisia	2.4
128	Uzbekistan	2.4
129	Egypt	2.3
130	Jamaica	2.3
131	Libyan Arab Jamahiriya	2.2
132	Mauritius	2.2
133	Thailand	2.2
134	Ecuador	2.1
135	Ghana	2.1
136	Kenya	2.1
137	Oman	2.1
138	Peru	2.1
139	Syrian Arab Rep	2.1
140	Venezuela	2.1
141	Yemen	2.1
142	Guatemala	2
143	Madagascar	2
144	Uganda	2
145	Malaysia	1.9
146	Morocco	1.9
147	Niger	1.9
148	Sierra Leone	1.9
149	Sri Lanka	1.9
150	United Arab Emirates	1.9
151	Armenia	1.8
152	China	1.8
153	Dominican Rep	1.7
154	Eritrea	1.7
155	Georgia	1.7
156	Guinea-Bissau	1.7
157	Kuwait	1.7
158	Mauritania	1.7
159	Senegal	1.7
160	Brunei Darussalam	1.6
161	Comoros	1.6
162	Nepal	1.6
163	Angola	1.5
164	Cambodia	1.5
165	Cameroon	1.5
166	Central African Rep	1.5
167	Chad	1.5
168	Congo, Dem Rep	1.5
169	Viet Nam	1.5
170	Sudan	1.4
171	Togo	1.4
172	Equatorial Guinea	1.3
173	Nigeria	1.2
174	Philippines	1.2
175	Singapore	1.1
176	Tajikistan	1.1
177	Afghanistan	1
178	Azerbaijan	1
179	Burundi	1
180	India	1
181	Indonesia	1
182	Congo	0.9
183	Bangladesh	0.8
184	Ivory Coast	0.8
185	Guinea	0.7
186	Lao People’s Dem Rep	0.7
187	Pakistan	0.4
188	Myanmar	0.3

So if, furthermore, said guy were to ignore or deny the fact that what he put out there is a blatant falsehood and cling on to his preconceived theories no matter what … well then we have ourselves a good old fashioned, bigoted, boring, predictable, laughable, and paid-off pseudo economist, potentially of the Keynesian specimen, who will cowardly defend the notion that his masters need more power, more money, more credit, more taxes for all eternity, no matter how much they have already been given.

People like this guy never talk about hugely important things like the state enforced special privileges and monopolies granted to the AMA that allow its members to keep prices for health care services high and supply of doctors low.

He also seems to avoid the topic of the state imposed restrictions on importing drugs from abroad unless I’m missing something, but even if he had talked about it somewhere for sure he avoids it where it matters, which would be right in this article.

He also didn’t point out that “Medicare Part D” prohibits Medicare to negotiate with drug companies, as any other entity on the free market can do.

He also passes in silence the fact that there is this institution called FDA that makes it almost impossible for innovative entrepreneurs to bring new potentially lifesaving drugs to market at a cheap price. I heard that 80% of the cost of a drug in the US covers expenses for compliance with FDA regulations.

He also avoids the fact that health insurance providers are not allowed to compete across state lines in most if not all US states.

If you ignore the root causes of why prices are so high, namely state intervention from start to finish, then there is little sense in complaining about the high cost of insurance or the supposedly insufficient level of tax extortion & enslavement of the young generation on whose backs all those outrageous expenses will fall in the end.

If on top of all that, after having been supplied all this information, you ask for EVEN MORE state intervention than we ALREADY have, then you are nothing but yet another abhorrent enabler of a system that year after year claims more and more sick people’s happiness and energy and you do indeed deserve nothing but the deepest scorn and contempt from all those who truly care to make this world a healthier and happier place to live for everyone, and not just for a privileged few who can afford the high cost of medicine and insurance in this country!

Tags: health care

Bitcoin – A Formidable Challenge to the Powers That Be?

June 13, 2011 · Posted in Monetary Economics · Comment

I have bean reading and coding a lot for the past day about stuff related to Bitcoin.

I am absolutely fascinated by the concept and I think that in the long run it’ll be a successful currency.

Economically, in my opinion, it fulfills all the requirements that exist for a quality medium of exchange (limited in supply, predictable in growth, divisible, homogeneous, fungible, and sustainable)

Here is a short clip about it:

Bonds Don’t Lie; Thoughts on Sovereign Debt Investments; And Who’s To Blame for the Financial Crisis

June 10, 2011 · Posted in General Economics · Comment

A refreshingly interesting and open conversation on CNBC.

I happen to agree that bond markets are the best predictor of where markets in general are headed. As I noted before, treasuries have been rallying pretty much since February of this year, portending a slowdown that may be the second leg down for the double dip recession that is to come. It’s likely that gold, the Dollar, and Treasurys will to continue to do well …

Tags: bond market, debt, public debt, slowdown, sovereign debt, treasury rally

Bitcoin Triples Again; Thoughts on Money and Freedom

June 9, 2011 · Posted in Monetary Economics · Comment

Much is being written and talked about when it comes to Bitcoin these days. Smartmoney writes The Bitcoin Triples Again:

The world’s fastest-gaining currency has tripled in price again. Last week, SmartMoney.com reported that the Bitcoin had exploded from an exchange rate near zero to more than $10 in about a year, making it one of the top-returning assets of any kind. On Wednesday the currency topped $30.

I myself don’t know much about Bitcoin yet, but what I do know that most people who write about it have little to no clue about the concept and the history of money.

A money is a medium of exchange. Under free competition in the realm of media of exchange, those goods that are most desired by consumers to fulfill this role will outstrip others in this process, just as they do in any other field where demands are to be fulfilled.

It is only through government fiat and intervention that the money market has been turned into a centrally controlled and directed monopoly. As I’ve explained before:

Fiat currency is demanded by individuals in exchange transactions because its acceptance in payments of debts is enforced by the state, because it is required in tax payments, and because reproducing the same currency without state approval is prevented via the threat or use of aggression. This ensures that there will always be some kind of demand for it.

The internet, arguably the freest economy in the world today ( ironically originally created by government bureaucrats :) ) has changed and is changing the world in ways that many still cannot fathom and are slow to catch up with.

While free competition on the internet has already decentralized the market for media and communication, and has allowed to bring to bear the benefits of the free market upon an enormously large segment of today’s population, in particular the younger generation, bitcoin appears to be the internet’s first serious attempt to challenge the government’s currently global oligopoly on the production of money, and so far it seems to be a medium that is gaining in popularity. Who knows where exactly it will go?

The other day I read a criticism from a guy as to why bitcoin won’t work and why its decentralized mechanism of producing currency is flawed etc. etc. But all those who criticize the concept of a decentralized, non government controlled, currency are either paid off or missing the point:

Us libertarians do not proclaim to know which single commodity out there in the world will be the best medium to facilitate exchange for all time to come! We are not in love with gold, silver, or bytes streaming through cyberspace. All we say is this: “The initiation of the use of force is immoral.” And as I explained above, unfortunately every single pillar that fiat currency rests upon is rooted in just that. We say: Let free and peaceful people decide for themselves what they prefer as currencies, and let them produce currencies where they think they can fill the need for a stable medium of exchange better than others.

(It is precisely this that the governments of the world fear: to have to actually be subject to the mundane and annoying checks and balances called consumer demands, complaints, and competition from superior service providers. Thus, just as in the case of Net Neutrality and the FCC, you can be sure that they will use every trick in the book to curb bitcoin’s emergence as much as possible. They will say that it’s used by crazy people who sell drugs and prostitution and who eat puppies and babies etc. etc., just to get moral sanction from the public to crack down. Of course they will have to pass in silence the fact that cash fiat money, purely and 100% created by the state, is still organized crime’s prime medium of exchange.

But in the case of bitcoin a crackdown will have to be well planned and orchestrated because if its decentralized nature does indeed prove to be safe from government meddling, then its popularity will only rise exponentially!)

So, to go back to my prior point, even if bitcoin turned out to be a gigantic failure, it absolutely doesn’t matter! This is precisely the point of having free competition in the realm of money: To allow the better producers to stay in business and let the irresponsible ones fail. So long as irregularities and problems are addressed on a smaller level, the repercussions for the affected customers are far less of a drain upon society than continuous and ongoing nationwide or even global boom and bust cycles, financial crises, and fiat money and credit financed wars.

We are not wed to conclusions. We do not say that gold or platinum or bits are the one best currency forever and ever. We are only wed to a process: that of logic and evidence. Market competition and the respect for individual’s body and property leaves little room for arbitrariness and whim and forces suppliers to test their hypotheses about what is and what is not demanded by the majority. Where their decisions were wrong they will be negatively affected and try and improve, where they were right, they will be rewarded.

So to the critics of bitcoin who intend use it as an example of how decentralized currencies won’t work, impatiently awaiting its apparently oh so predictable collapse, I would say this: Why don’t you calm down and let the chips (or coins) fall where they may? :)

Tags: bitcoin, currency, money