Ron Paul Visits UCLA: the Recap

It was great.  We had the largest crowd yet for a Ron Paul rally.  The applause and the loudness made Ron Paul’s wife and granddaughter, who were sitting just off to the side of Ron Paul, giggle a lot.  Los Angeles is wild!

He kept it short and simple.  He talked about the decline of the dollar, the need for reform in the area of currency, and the threat to our economic freedom that the Federal Reserve poses.

He stuck it to both parties when it came to civil liberties, and excoriated the PATRIOT Act and NDAA.  He bashed on the TSA and explained to the crowd of mostly college students the dire necessity of legalizing drugs.  He explained that pharmaceutical drugs are much more dangerous than marijuana, and that they get subsidies from the federal government and are behind prohibition.

He denounced the military-industrial complex.  He talked about the need to bring our troops home from around the world.  From Japan.  From South Korea.  From Germany.  From Uganda.  And from the Middle East.  He talked about engaging the world through free trade and the need to treat other nations as we would like to be treated.  Unlike South Carolina, Los Angeles went wild with applause for his calm argument in favor of a rational and humble foreign policy.

He talked about the freedom to choose, the importance of tolerance, and about the need to abolish – outright – the 16th Amendment.

While waiting around for Ron Paul to speak, the crowd did the wave for a while, and chanted on and off again ‘President Paul’, ‘Ron Paul’, and of course ‘End the Fed’.  While I am loosely associated with the libertarian groups on campus (I have to work if I am not studying; I am paying my own way through college), it was great to see their hard work pay off.  These guys spent months working to get enough signatures from around LA County to bring Ron Paul to UCLA.

It was a night to remember, that’s for sure.  I can’t believe the Republican Party had repudiated this man (I can totally believe that an intellectually bankrupt Left could do such a thing, though).  The times are a’changin’ though, and change is in the air.  The younger generation of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and this is the libertarian fountain of progress.

Best of all, hearing Ron Paul speak replenished my thirst for individual liberty and justice for all.

Ron Paul to Visit UCLA

To all you Angelinos, Ron Paul will be in Westwood tonight at 8:30 pm.

Here is the link to free registration.  Hope to see you all there!

The Escalators (Part Eight of Eight so Far on Protectionism)

Ninth and probably last installment soon: Do people lose their jobs because of free trade?

In the story in seven episodes some of you had the patience to read, I kept pushing aside the question of what happens to the work done by those who move upward. If you will recall, I abandoned half of my dish-washing work, Luis stopped blowing leaves and carting away garden leavings, and Hans quit his sandwich-making job. Of course, those are bottom jobs garnering the lowest pay. So, the easiest and most general answer is that people and organizations move upward is they are allowed to do so. Both individuals and organizations become more productive. Under even moderately competitive conditions, this means that they earn more money.

The question arises toward the bottom of the pyramid of productivity, as in my story. I mentioned briefly that the answer has to do with escalators. There are four answers to this question that are not mutually exclusive. I mean by this that you can witness all four solutions being implemented in the same national society at the same time. I take them up in turn.

1 Some of the lowly jobs remain undone. This is so rare that it’s difficult to come up with examples that are not so exotic as to be distracting.

2 Within almost all national societies, a combination of unemployment and of under-employment is the rule. In poor societies, many people don’t work much because there is no work for them. (That’s one of the main sources of underdevelopment: people don’t work much.) In rich societies, there is a reliable rate of unemployment in the potential labor force. some of which is voluntary. In such societies, there is also massive under-employment of young people, of older people and of women. When dishwashers are leaf-blowers are hard to come by, wages rise and some of the unemployed and some of the under-unemployed become motivated to do them. That’s true in both rich and poor societies.

3 If the shortage of dishwashers and of leaf-blowers becomes severe enough, history tells us, the miracle of mechanization revs up. Within a short time of a labor shortage of olive pickers in the northern Mediterranean countries, someone invented and effective olive-tree shaking machine. It is driven by a single person and replaces the work of about half a dozen hand pickers. Here is another telling anecdote. Everyone knows that the French love dogs better than they love children, with the kind of results for the sidewalks you might expect. I have seen with my own eyes, within a few years, small armies of low-skill African immigrants armed with twig brooms disappear from the streets of Paris. They were replaced by extraordinary, powerful motorcycles with booms extending ten feet on each side. The booms support both powerful jets and rotary brushes. The uniformed city employees who drive them on the sidewalks have the serious mien and they show the pride of sea-captains. Incidentally, workers who control machinery usually earn more money that those who rely on primitive hand-tools.

4 There are huge reserves of able-bodied men and women in the less developed countries ready to jump at the opportunity to wash dishes in my stead and to take over Luis’ leaf blowing. (That’s how Luis came to California in the first place.) Of course, immigration is often controversial, for a variety of reasons, but in pure economic terms, the case for the free movement of labor is bullet-proof. And, yes, ideally, the reserve of third world labor is ultimately finite but I am not going to worry about this for the next hundred years.

All in all, the answer to the question of who will do the work of those who move upward, is that there are several escalators that take care of almost all of this problem.

[Editor’s note: Part 7 can be found herePart 9 can be found here]

Links From Around the Web

Co-editor Fred Foldvary on the destruction of the Libertarian Party.

Newest member of the consortium, Warren Gibson, writes in the Freeman about GDP.

Ninos Malek on associating in peace.

Jacques Delacroix questions Ron Paul’s credibility.

And writing over in the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf celebrates the failed boycott attempts of Rush Limbaugh’s show.

I just started school today, so if you don’t hear from me for a while, you now know why.  Have a great spring!

Economies of Scale and Economies of Scope, Bane of Protectionism. (Part Seven of Seven so Far. More Coming.)

Because I have decided to go one little step at a time, there are six previous installments of this series. All comprise the word “protectionism” somewhere in their titles.

Because, we are all richer, Luis, I , the Quebec farmer and Pierre are in a better position to buy German manufactured goods than we were before. In Pierre’s case, that could be a Mercedes (although what he really wants is a specific Japanese car). In the Canadian farmer’s case, it could also be a Mercedes, or a BMW motorcycle. In Luis’s case and in mine, it would be a small piece of either a Mercedes or a BMW motorcycle. All the same, it’s a start.

I, and Luis, and Hans, and Pierre are all more likely to buy a basket or two of organic raspberries than we were before.

If Pierre follows through with his intention to send his son to a pricey MBA program in the US, it could be in my area. The son will go to restaurants once in a while, on his newly rich father’s dime, of course. More dishes for Luis to wash.

It’s not obvious that my main occupation, selling at the flea market will improve at all, except through Luis, of course. Remember he earns more money. He might spend some of it buying a ten-dollar used bike from me at the flea market. Pierre’s son, studying for an American MBA, might buy a used desk from me at the flea market, making me richer.

Now, we need to make a small, very modest technical switch. Here is a generalization that is more often valid than not: The more you make or sell of something the lower the cost of making it or of selling it. A lower cost of something is equivalent to a pay raise for the consumer, or for the producer, or for both. The technical terms here are “economy of scale “ (production) and “economy of scope” (marketing defined broadly). Continue reading