While some economists say that these are temporary price increases, others remain concerned about America’s current fiscal policies. As an average consumer, you may be seeking a way to protect your assets from inflation and diversify your portfolio.

While you can invest in mutual funds or real-estate, there are those who look to other investment opportunities. On one side of the risk-reward spectrum are cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, while on the other there is traditional gold bullion—both with their own advantages and disadvantages. So, which of these is better for you? 

Bitcoin to the Moon

The story of this cryptocurrency is a fascinating one, being started in 2009 by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto. The main appeal of the currency itself stems from the fact that it is decentralized from any specific government. It is decentralized by being stored on a collection of computers worldwide, which are called “nodes”. Bitcoin is stored in blockchains, which is basically a complicated ledger of all past transactions. Since they are all available publicly and all of them are updated in real-time, it is impossible to manipulate the currency unless one person has control of the majority of the nodes. Even then, the number of nodes is growing, further reducing the risk of such hijackings.

Another appeal of the virtual currency is the anonymity provided. While Bitcoin wallet addresses obscure the sender and recipient in each transaction, they are not private. As mentioned, all transactions are public so all that is needed to catch a criminal is to link the address to the people involved. This usually happens if a criminal tries to convert a large amount of the cryptocurrency into dollars, which would raise red flags and result in the person being discovered. 

There are only 21 million available Bitcoins in existence, and while the reasoning for such a specific number remains in dispute by economists and mathematicians, what is clear is the fact that by participating in a process called ‘mining’ by having their computers solve difficult puzzles, users are able to add more bitcoins to the blockchain. However, every 210,000 blocks, the number of bitcoins received is halved. This process has generally occurred every four years or so, and the large amount of electricity required to power such computers, as well as the transaction fees, will make mining less profitable as a result.

But what about trading Bitcoin, instead of mining it—is it worth it? This is a major point of contention. By itself, Bitcoin has no inherent value, unlike stocks tied to a company’s potential earnings or a fiat currency to a country’s government. It has value because people believe it has value. While there are more than 15,000 merchants worldwide who accept the cryptocurrency, so far there is still not enough usage for it to replace traditional currencies.

The other major issue is the fact that it is too volatile for the time being. For many risk-averse people, this is not a promising venture, while more risk-taking individuals might find the thrill of watching the price of Bitcoin going up and down quite attractive.

Overall, the cryptocurrency seems to have some potential, even though its concept and volatility are difficult for many to swallow. Mining might make some economic sense, but not for long due to the diminishing returns of the whole process over time. 

A Golden Opportunity

Throughout the history of mankind and across continents and millennia, people have had a shared obsession with gold. This was no doubt due to its chemical properties, natural beauty, inability to tarnish or oxidize, while being extremely malleable, making it an excellent material to be used for jewelry. The first known time it was used as a form of currency was in Egypt in 1500 BCE, and many other nations started doing so in the centuries that followed. Over time, the so-called ‘gold standard’ emerged, where an amount of paper money could be exchanged for a fixed quantity of gold. This meant that nations could not overspend the amount of money they had and had an incentive to maintain a balanced budget.

In 1792 under the Coinage Act, the United States established a silver-gold standard, which was switched to a pure gold standard in 1879. It is important to note that the disastrous switch to paper money was somewhat attempted during the Civil War, when so-called “greenbacks” were printed. Bankers opposed this idea, as the introduction of paper money would lead to the government’s involvement in markets and its bankruptcy if the war was lost. The greenbacks were not able to be exchanged for gold and silver, despite the fact that they were backed by them. Not surprisingly, inflation set in during the war, rising to 25% in 1863-1864.

World War I was the first major blow to the gold standard, not just for the United States but for the world as a whole, as countries had to be able to pay for their military expenditures. In 1933, the United States would start to significantly move away from the gold standard when Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered Americans to turn in their gold to the Federal Reserve, while forbidding its export overseas. This was done to increase the money supply as per Keynesian economics and the price was set to $35 an ounce. Yet, in the decades that followed, America would stop maintaining gold’s value relative to foreign exchange and stopped attempting changing dollars to gold for official transactions. As a result, in 1976, the U.S. government severed all ties with the precious metal.

So, is gold worth investing in anymore? Well, that’s a tricky question. It is considered to be more efficient to invest in various gold stocks, than bullion itself due to the higher ROI. Since those stocks are directly correlated with the price of gold, such high financial gains are indeed possible, with higher paying dividends adding more appeal to this investment opportunity. It is also important to note that gold has historically been an excellent hedge against the dollar.

However, the problem is that gold mining company stocks specifically are fairly volatile, so they are not the safest bet for a risk-averse demographic, even though some large companies may have their stocks go up even when the price of gold is down. So how does gold compare to the S&P 500? Over the five-year period from 2011-2016, gold went up in value by 42.5%, while the latter went up 100%. On the other side, over the ten-year period from 2002-2012, gold went up 441.5%, with the S&P 500 increasing by a measly 58%. This shows that gold, like any other investment, makes sense if it is priced low and is expected to go up in value. 

Should you buy physical gold bars? Generally, it is safer to invest in gold-related stocks than in physical bullion, due to risk of theft and the physical burden of having it taking up space. However, it is still possible, although there will be additional costs for storage, transportation, as well as insurance and processing fees. The general rule is that the metal needs to be 99.5% pure for it to have the most value and should have mints from the manufacturer, with the weight, and purity stamped on it. Gold should also be bought in workable sizes, so that it is easier to sell in larger quantities at once. Due to these constraints, pursuing this method is generally ill-advised. Overall, gold related stocks and bullion itself can be a decent way of preserving one’s wealth, with its own advantages and disadvantages, and is a good way to diversify one’s portfolio.

So, Which One is Better?

With the current economy facing a slower than expected recovery and Biden willing to pump the economy with even more money, staying away from the dollar is a smart move. Cryptocurrencies are more popular with younger investors. Their appeal may be due to being new, exciting and easier to understand. Bitcoin is risky and volatile, so one has to use caution when investing in it, but the upside is higher possible returns and it is easier to follow.

Gold in general is more complex, and whether one invests in gold mining company stocks or bullion, there will be different risks and rewards with each. As a result, a more experienced investor might do better with this form of investment. It is good practice to make high-risk investments earlier in life, due to higher earning potential, and safer ones later in life.

It is difficult to choose whether Bitcoin or gold is a better option, as both perform differently in rising or falling economies and each person has a different risk assessment. Overall, both would likely be good for a diverse portfolio.

This information is the author’s opinion only and should not be taken as investment advice.

The post Is the Future Gold or Virtual Gold? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

What happened? It turns out, contrary to what minimum wage activists think, money does not grow on trees and wealth is not created out of nothing. The demand for higher wages did not just start within the past few decades. Its roots go back to 19th century Europe and then to the Great Depression when the minimum wage was introduced in the United States. Once people realized they could petition the government to force employers to give more “free” money, the troubles began.

The Beginning of a New Era

The first noticeable pushes for higher wages occurred in Europe and then spread around the world. In 1831, silk workers in the city of Lyon, France went on a strike and petitioned for a living wage. They were not able to achieve their desired goal, but this would be the catalyst for future events.

The first nation to actually pass such a law was New Zealand in 1894, which also banned worker strikes and lockouts by employers as part of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Employers were forced to negotiate with unions, and if an agreement could not be reached, then a local and then a national conciliation board would act as a judge and help resolve these disputes. The policy had mixed effects. In the short-term, it seemed to work, resulting in allowing hundreds of smaller unions to form and wages for workers did improve. The negative effects included a bogging down of the Arbitration Court due to the number of hearings, as well as backlash from larger unions due to them losing the right to strike.

Dissatisfaction soon settled in and led to the first strike in 12 years in 1906. The uptick in worker strikes showed that the arbitration system was inefficient and older tactics were much more effective. In 1898, Samuel Gompers, the founder and president of the American Federation of Labor published a key article which advocated not only for higher wages, but that they should be livable, which is a vague term to say the least, and still remains a buzzword in various liberal circles today.

Minimum Wage Comes to American Shores

The first actual American policy that forced businesses to pay a minimum wage was enacted in Massachusetts in 1912, which was soon followed by many more states in the next decade. In 1923, there was a key Supreme Court case which seemed to stall the enacted laws called Atkins v. Children’s Hospital of D.C. In 1918, Congress passed a minimum wage law in the District of Columbia for women and children, and the hospital in question chose not to enforce the law due to its large staff of female employees. What resulted was a ruling in which the law was ruled unconstitutional, as it violated the freedom of contract that employers have when negotiating with their employees. All minimum wage laws across the country were ruled as unconstitutional, and they became more like guidelines for a recommended wage rather than a legally enforceable law.

Turning Up the Heat

During the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed Congress to enact the National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA), which suspended various antitrust restrictions, as well as allowed industries to enforce their own codes, resulting in higher wages. The final Supreme Court case that would serve as blowback against the minimum wage laws was Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States in which it was ruled that it was unconstitutional for Congress to give the President the legislative authority to regulate certain industries without any guiding standards.

The court case that would bring the end of the Supreme Court voting against regulation of business in the so-called Lochner era was West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, in which a female employee of the company sued for unpaid wages, as they were below the $14.50 per week as established by the state of Washington. It was narrowly decided after Justice Owen Roberts’ decision in favor of Parrish. As Justice Charles Hughes explained it, the re-election of Roosevelt and the impacts of the New Deal were the cause of Roberts switching sides. In a dissenting opinion by Justice George Sutherland, he wrote that personal opinion should not have an impact on the interpretation of the Constitution.

In 1938, Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which would create the first federal minimum wage. Originally, it called for a 40 cent per hour wage, but was lowered to 25 cents so that the bill could pass. Over the next few decades there would be a variety of laws passed to expand the scope of the law, as well as raising the salary amount on many occasions. For instance, in 1963, John Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act so that women were able to get the same pay as men, while in 1974, Congress declared that the minimum wage covers non-supervisory government workers.

What Is Happening Today and What Does the Future Hold?

The situation remains unchanged, today. In 2015, California and New York raised their own minimum wages to $15 an hr. Just four years later, a total of 29 different states would adopt laws which would raise the payment threshold above the current $7.25 per hr. The most recent push for the “Fight for $15” was part of Joe Biden’s COVID-19 relief bill, which was ultimately removed from the bill, as its provisions did not meet the definition of budget reconciliation.

With inflation hitting a 13-year high, there will no doubt be more supporters for a higher wage, with that number, no doubt, being pushed even further through the roof. We can only hope that pushback in Congress or by some other means can help stop these laws so that you are not stuck in a Wendy’s drive-thru paying more for poor customer service and a meager burger. 

The post Minimum Wage: A Historic Work Opportunity Cage appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

However, for decades, a war has been waged in our own backyards that has only received public attention in recent years. The War on Drugs has accomplished little other than being a drain on the government’s budget, while incarcerating people mostly for non-violent offenses. One of the more important contributing factors to the War on Drugs was the ban on marijuana. 

Historical Significance of Marijuana

Marijuana is not just known for getting people high; it is a plant with a variety of other uses. The term itself only relates to parts of the plant that contain large amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is responsible for affecting a person’s mental state. It is “cannabis” that refers to all products derived from the Cannabis sativa plant. “Hemp” refers to variations that have less than 0.3% of THC, while “marijuana” refers to plants that have a higher percentage of the chemical.

This differentiation is important when it comes to the context of the War on Drugs. Throughout human history, the plant itself has been used for a variety of purposes. In the American colonies, for instance, it was used to make products such as rope and textiles. At the end of the era of major cotton cultivation in the United States, cannabis became the dominant cash crop in the South. During this time period, the positive health effects it had were discovered. It was used to treat various ailments and was sold in pharmacies in the United States and Europe. Only in the early 20th century, however, was the plant used for recreational purposes.

In the 1930s, everything changed due to explicitly racist policies by J. Anslinger, who was the head of the Bureau of Narcotics. He claimed that the plant needed to be banned, as its usage had negative effects on minorities, or “degenerate races” as he called them. This was also done to reduce immigration from Mexico into the United States, using cannabis as a scapegoat. The various restrictions and subsequent bans did not occur during the War on Drugs, as many might believe, but during the Great Depression. In 1931, the plant was outlawed in 29 states spurred by the “reefer madness” propaganda promoted by the government with great public support, while in 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed which taxed the sale, possession or transfer of the hemp plant. This applied not only to strains which contained THC, but to all plants derived from Cannabis sativa, which hurt cultivation even for the creation of various products.

Marijuana’s Health Benefits and Common Misconceptions

When did the War on Drugs begin? In 1970, under the Nixon administration, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, in which marijuana was listed as a Schedule I drug, along with other substances such as heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. This category classifies that specific drug as having no medical use with a high potential for abuse.

This is not true for many reasons. First, marijuana is often used as a pain reliever for chronic pain. Its main appeal is that it is not as strong or addictive as various opiates and is impossible to overdose on. It helps ease the pain of multiple sclerosis, while not causing the drowsiness that other drugs may that are used to treat the illness. Another important use is preventing nausea and helping facilitate weight loss, as well as reportedly helping to reduce tremors from Parkinson’s disease.

Beyond the health benefits, there seems to be no physical addiction from marijuana use, although there are signs that it can be psychologically addictive. While this may be true for some people, nearly anything can be psychologically addictive. America has an obesity problem, and although that is caused by a variety of reasons, one of them is that people may get addicted to sugary drinks. Why is marijuana treated differently? Even the non-THC strains are still illegal in many states and for what purpose? The government does not regulate how much food one should consume on a given day. Obviously, it would be logistically impossible , and is a violation of people’s liberty to do with their body as they please. If someone smokes marijuana, they should be responsible for their own actions, even if they were under the influence and hurt someone else. Yet, this drug became a major substance that many people were and are convicted of illegally possessing in the War on Drugs. 

Impact of the War on Drugs

There are a few major things that happened as a result of the policy itself. During the 1990s, an average of three 500-bed prison facilities were opening up every week in the U.S.. They were filled with drug offenders. In 1979, 6% of all inmates were jailed on drug offenses. That figure rose to 21% in 1988. This disproportionately affected minorities and low-income citizens.

Under the Reagan and Bush administrations, mandatory sentencing laws were passed regardless of the circumstances, which in turn led to more arrests. There was an increase in border security to prevent traffickers from bringing over marijuana, yet Colombia became a major exporter of it during this time period. Ironically enough, the usage of the plant among teenagers continued at similar rates throughout the mid to late 1990s, and the enforcement of various laws did not help the government at all in reducing drug usage. 

Today, the picture is not much different. One in five people are incarcerated for a drug offense. In 2019 alone, there were over 1.5 million arrests—87% of those were just for possession. Marijuana led as the most common drug to be found in the possession of those arrested. This means most of those people were arrested for a victimless crime and had their lives ruined as a result. If a college student, goes to jail on a possession charge, he would have great difficulty getting a job with that record, and would likely either end up in and out of jail and on welfare. In terms of finances, over $1 trillion dollars has been blown on these useless cat and mouse games with the government and its citizens. This is another drain on taxpayer dollars that could have been used elsewhere.

Solutions to the Problems Caused by the War on Drugs

How can the War on Drugs be brought to a close and the damage done repaired? There have been a few steps taken. Over the years, more and more states have decriminalized, and even legalized marijuana to certain capacities. As of June 2019, 29 states have legalized medicinal marijuana and a total of 11 permit recreational use. Yet, many other drugs remain illegal in the United States, contributing to the high incarceratino rate.

Oregon is one state that has taken a stand in decriminalizing the use of all drugs, including cocaine and heroin in 2020. To be more specific, criminal penalties have been removed for those possessing small quantities, and offenders would instead pay a $100 fine, or be required to get a “completed health assessment”. Yet the sale of these drugs is still illegal. The tax revenue from marijuana sales, however, would be redirected to fund drug addiction programs instead of spending them on incarceration. The impacts of the legal policy have yet to be studied, and will need to be revisited in the long-term. However, we do have data of a country that did end the criminalization of drugs more or less successfully—Portugal.

For many years, Portugal was riddled with crime and drug use. They began to institute new policies in 2001. Instead of jail time, offenders might receive a small fine, given a warning, or asked to appear before a local commission to provide support services to addicts. As a result, there was a large drop in drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates. HIV cases fell from 104.2 new cases per million to just 4.2 cases per million in 2015. One major thing to note, is that a cultural shift was required to help pass the law, as well as change the way citizens viewed drug addicts. Instead of treating them with disgust, they became viewed as people who needed help, just like anyone else with a medical condition. Portugal has been successful in its efforts to decriminalize not just marijuana, but drugs as a whole with positive outcomes as a result. The United States could borrow this idea, and try to pass it in Congress, though this seems unlikely due to the partisan attitudes toward drugs overall.

Conclusion

Although important measures to address the War on Drugs have been implemented, there is still a lot of work to do. Many states have not yet decriminalized marijuana, much less all drugs. With the success of the program in Portugal, there is a good chance it would work here in the United States.

Throwing people in jail for what they choose to do on their own time is a violation of their own personal liberty. Since they are not hurting anyone in the vast majority of cases, the government has only made things worse instead of better. While the future remains unclear about what will happen next, two-thirds of the public support marijuana legalization. Perhaps the country is now ready to acknowledge and correct the mistakes of 50 years ago.

The post Is This the Beginning of the End for the War On Drugs? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

It sounds like a ridiculous anecdote, but it is a simplified representation of the current primary and secondary educational system. As a recent high school graduate, I have seen firsthand so many flaws in the education system. From my experience, as well as research, I have identified three important factors that currently negatively contribute to the education of millions of students around the country. Some of these flaws are found not only in K-12 schools, but also in colleges as well.

COVID-19 Fear Mongering

With the COVID-19 pandemic continuing well into the spring of 2021, some teacher unions have lobbied to stay on an asynchronous learning basis, with schools still remaining closed and the education of the children still being jeopardized for no currently scientific-based reasons. One example of such nonsense comes in the form of a video from the Chicago Teacher’s Union, which went live on Facebook on January 23 and depicts many of the teachers dancing while a narrator and captions convey the importance of staying safe during the pandemic. While the relation of dancing and safety is unclear, what is evident is the many falsehoods that are indirectly propagated by the video. These need to be analyzed to see whether a case can be made that it is too early to go back to in-person learning.

To debunk such a ridiculous video, it is important to first look at the number of cases and deaths by age group to determine the validity of any possible claims the union might make. First, deaths have been on the decline—even on the day that the video was originally published—and future projections as of the writing of this article show a similar trend. What if the students get each other infected and spread the coronavirus even more? Good question, yet statistically the number of deaths from COVID-19, pneumonia and the flu among the sick aged 0-17 is only 978 people across the whole country.

In comparison, the average age of a teacher in the United States is 42 years old. Looking at the figures, those in the 40-49 age range, accounted for 20,148 COVID-19 related deaths. These figures are from the start of the pandemic to today. This indicates that students are more than 20 times less susceptible than their teacher counterparts and, although the student population is large, they would not be at an elevated risk of infecting each other and the teachers. With vaccines being administered in daily increasing numbers, older teachers would be at an even lower risk than everyone else. As a result, safety is not as big a concern as the unions or the media make it out to be.

While the figures are not in the favor of the Chicago Teacher’s Union, I am not arguing that there should be no masks or social distancing in place. What I am saying is that schools need to open up and allow students to have face-to-face interactions with their teachers. What are the implications of continuing online learning? According to one Gallup poll, 30 percent of parents said that their child’s mental health has worsened as a result of online schooling and restrictions that are in place. In terms of education, it has been estimated that the students are only receiving 70% of their knowledge for a typical school year, while in mathematics that figure drops to 50%. Children are simply not learning the material that they would be able to learn in person.

Speaking from experience, I spent my last semester of senior year, and now my second semester in college being stuck with online learning. Many of my lectures are asynchronous only. I have rarely been able to ask my professors for help, and I had to resort to using outside sources and spending more time than necessary just to be able to pass many of my basic general education classes. Although I have made some friends through my online interactions with other students and through clubs that I virtually attend, I have not been able to meet most of those people in person. It is time to open up the schools and get everyone back to normal and into the classroom.

Reject Alternative Schooling Options and Parental Choice

One key aspect that is ignored by many politicians is the many alternative options to public schools that could be available to students through the use of student vouchers. Parents could select where they want to place their children. The Department of Education itself admits that funding would not solve all of the problems that cause disparity in the performance of students from low-income and high-income families. One option that they themselves proposed is community schools, which allow a greater involvement of parents and the local community in the structure of the learning curriculum as well as spending. Instead of having the state or federal government make those decisions on behalf of a local community, the local ordinance should decide how to approach its wants and needs and how to resolve any issues that may arise.

Charter schools have gained a lot of ground in the past 20 years, and now more than 7,200 exist in 44 different states. The main benefit is the increase in parental choice and satisfaction ratings. Among the different types of schooling, charter schools had 13% higher satisfaction ratings than district schools. Charter school parents also indicated that they were able to have more extensive communication with their teachers by 15% more than parents in district schools. Of course, private schools scored at the top of the satisfaction ratings, as parents with more money are able to send their children to an even wider array of schools. However, since charter schools are free to the public and take a huge portion of low-income students there is more competition to get in. Instead of being stuck in a low-income area and having one’s child go to that one school, parents are able to take their children to a school of their choice that is more competitive and provides more opportunities to their students. Even under Barack Obama’s administration, millions of dollars were spent on the development of charter schools. If there was little belief in them, why would they be funded so heavily? Students would be able to attend a school that fits their learning needs and desires and a general district school is not always able to provide that.

In my high school, for instance, we had only a small fraction of the classes for humanity-related courses compared to other schools in my county. Students have asked for many years to add courses to the registration list, yet they were always denied for unclear reasons. I wanted to take Russian as my foreign language instead of French, and to have more classes that would have been more applicable to my future career goals instead of being stuck with math all of these years. I understand that it is not possible to please everyone, but I have not heard of a single class being added from student requests. What time we did have to take an interesting elective was taken up by physical education or other unimportant classes—at least in my opinion.

Force Standardized Testing On All Students

One of the bigger downsides of high school that every student knows, including myself, is studying for the SAT/ACT tests. Colleges heavily rely on this metric, claiming that it provides a standardized baseline for applicants across the country, so that the performance of each of them can be accurately measured, as opposed to a grade point average (GPA), which might vary from school to school. The main problem with the SAT (and this is coming from a person who scored in the top 2% of the percentile range) is that it only accesses two subjects—math and English. Students come from different backgrounds, have different skillsets, and, as a result, might struggle with one or both of these subjects. A more artistically inclined student might be trying to become an art major, yet he or she might not get in due to doing worse on two subjects that are almost unrelated to future prospects. Since many colleges have begun to realize the flaw in these standardized tests, almost a third of schools do not require standardized test scores for admission. Instead, they rely on other metrics, such as the GPA, Advanced Placement test scores, the quality of the admissions essay, etc..

This trend will most likely be seen in secondary level education as well. If charter schools and even district schools decide to do away with standardized testing entirely, students will be under less stress, and their performance can be measured with standard class tests created by that very institution. This will help address the problem of having teachers “teach to the test”, and allow them to have more creative control and do a much better job of educating their students. Teachers are often evaluated and promoted or fired on how students perform on this flawed metric, and in many cases, negative results may be out of the educators’ control. For the same reason, besides discontinuing the requirement of SAT and ACT tests for students to get into college, schools should also drop the various other tests, like the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) in their entirety, and having a more flexible approach in teaching students.

What Does the Future Hold?

With Joe Biden as President, it is unclear what will happen with secondary education in the United States. In his campaign, he pledged to spend more money funding low incomes areas, while improving teachers’ salaries. On his website, there is no mention of alternative schooling options, and the cycle of perpetually throwing money in hopes to solve the various flaws in the education system continues. At this point in time, not much can be done to make the mentioned changes necessary on the federal level. Yet, states have the power to design their own educational systems. Hopefully, they will realize that the current school districting system needs to be redone instead of slapping on band-aids time and time again. Charter and private schools need to be allowed to compete for students instead of having a government monopoly on education.

The post How to Destroy Your Child’s Education in 3 Easy Steps appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has ravaged the world for the last year, and continues to be a threat even now as vaccines are being distributed worldwide. Lockdowns in most countries have resulted in millions of jobs lost, economies tanking, as well as countless businesses going bankrupt. The US government’s attempts to mitigate the economic hardship predictably included bailing out big business more than ordinary Americans. 

With the passage of two waves of stimulus checks, the government has been desperately trying to keep the airline industry afloat as part of the many bailouts, setting negative precedents and creating a chain of dependency for the companies. With the length of the pandemic remaining unclear, there is no doubt that the American government will redistribute the income of taxpayers to big business, which results in not only a moral quandary, but also an economic one as well. 

The airline industry has a long history of being bailed out by the American government. The first time this occurred was after the September 11th attacks when Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which provided $5 billion in an instant cash injection, and $10 billion in federal loans. Some criticized the necessity of the government handing out money in the first place, as flights were grounded for only four days after the tragedy occurred. In addition, the industry itself was already coming apart at the seams after years of mismanagement. So, does that mean that 9/11 was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back? Possibly, but is it still excusable for companies to operate so poorly that one event will turn an entire industry upside down?  Airlines have come to rely on the government to save them from the consequences of their own mistakes, and the government has enabled this expectation at the expense of Americans.

In April, as part of the CARES Act, the airline industry received $25 billion dollars. President Trump claimed that this would prevent thousands of employees being laid off, as well as maintain the importance of the airlines as part of the U.S. economy, while protecting tax payers. In exchange, Congress would receive up to 10% in equity and part of the money will be given in the form of 10-year loans. In December 2020, as part of the second $900 billion stimulus package, airlines were given another $15 billion to help cover more expenses.

Although this time the reason for the bailouts was not primarily due to corporate mismanagement, they are still partly to blame. Why do these companies not have emergency funds? It is understandable, that with losses totaling millions of dollars each day in cancelled flights and unsold tickets, they would be hemorrhaging money, but they seem to have no savings whatsoever to fall back on. Even if emergency funds were insuffiicent,  having some could decrease the amount begged and borrowed from the government. And have they exhausted all private options, first?

To what extent will airline companies be able to pay back what they owe the federal government? The grant monies will never be seen again, and the chances of the loans being repaid are questionable. During the 2008-2014 automotive bailouts, General Motors was sold off at a loss of $11.3 billion. GMAC (Ally Bank) was the only profitable one, which was sold for a $2.4 billion profit, while with Chrysler there was a $1.3 billion dollar loss. In total, taxpayers lost $10.2 billion dollars. Maybe GM and Chrysler would not have laid off their employees? Well, they did so anyway down the line, and the presence of Honda and Toyota building more American plants would boost the workforce either way. The free market would have run its course and if the American brands would have had to disappear, so be it.

Will the airline industry be able to pay back what they owe? Historically, it seems unlikely. What would happen to the employees? They would probably be absorbed by surviving companies, much like what happened to Pan Am, when it was dissolved. The free market is excellent at running its course and weeding out inferior brands. 

How do we know when it will be the “last time” to bail out the airline industry? They have been bailed out twice just over the course of one year. With the COVID-19 pandemic stretching for months on end, it is unclear when passenger travel will be profitable again—and at the end of the day, some companies may be grounded permanently.

Finally, when do we break this cycle of bailouts? Not just the airline industry, but all companies the government deems “too big to fail”? The principle of free markets is having as little government intervention as possible. From an economic perspective, keeping unnecessary workers on the payroll is hurting the company itself, resulting in more government handouts. Even as large companies go down, there is likely to be an increase in newer, smaller airlines, as they are able to adapt to the decreased demand, and do not have as much overhead cost.As Mercatus posits, smaller airline companies should be able to thrive, and this reveals the necessity of breaking the cycle of dependency on the American government.

Knowing Joe Biden and the Democratic Party’s agenda, they will continue sinking more and more taxpayer dollars into affected industries instead of reopening the economy. This will add to the national debt with no good short or long term results. Instead, the increasing government involvement in the economy and disruption of free trade will ultimately hurt the very people they claim to be helping.

Mikhail Timonin is a student at the University of Maryland studying Government and Politics. He believes that people are able to make their own decisions,without government intervention, and as a result, each and every one of us are able to shape our own destiny.

The post Covid Bailouts for Big Business is Bad for Business appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In 2010, Barack Obama’s administration passed the controversial Affordable Care Act, or ‘Obamacare’, which aimed to provide coverage for the uninsured and to control premiums. Although, it did provide the coverage, it was done with the government forcing many to get insurance or face a penalty.

Artificially forcing people to pay for a product they do not want is already theft, but the worst part was when the ACA increased premiums by 56% to 63.2% for all ages within four years of the program’s implementation, dragging everyone else down with it.

Not wanting to deal with such a program, Florida and 12 other states sued, arguing that Obamacare was unconstitutional as it violated Article 1 of the Constitution and that Congress could not collect penalties. While the Supreme Court ruled that states were not required to adopt it, the Court itself did not comment on whether the individual mandate could be removed.

President Trump liberated Americans from the tax penalty, fixing one of the glaring issues with the ACA. California filed a lawsuit with Texas being the primary respondent, as many states on either side joined in their own respective coalitions. On November 10th, oral arguments were heard and now the Supreme Court will answer the following questions: Was the separation of the individual mandate from the rest of the ACA constitutional? And if not, is it separable from the rest of the ACA?

Depending on the ruling, the ACA could come crashing down for good or remain in place, left to be patched up with many band-aids by future presidential administrations. What would be the possible impact and outcome of such a ruling in either scenario?

First, let’s look at the scenario in which Obamacare does not get repealed and remains in place as is. With the incoming Biden administration advocating what is essentially a single payer system, as well as supporting Obama’s ACA, there is little doubt that Biden will attempt to pass even more strict regulations, monopolizing the healthcare market. The court could rule on the ACA as it stands right now, if the Republican bias of the majority does not come into play and the 2012 court case is considered.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt (the architect of the modern welfare state) was in office, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, a key provision of the New Deal, limited the number of crops farmers could grow. This act was ruled unconstitutional, as it exceeded Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. If the justices do not take this fact into account, then the ACA might be upheld.

This seems unlikely, but even if such a ruling occurs, the second failsafe that exists in the government is the consent of the Senate. Although Georgia is in the middle of two difficult runoff elections and the outcome is unclear, if the Republican majority remains in the Senate, then the chance of Biden passing the reforms is slim. If the Democrats take over all of Congress, all bets are off and the administration will try to force the bill through the legislative process as quick as possible. A new court case could arise as a result of Biden’s plan. 

If Joe Biden gets his way, what happens next? Taxes would have to go up, especially on the top earners in the country, leading to more spending as a whole. The cost would be approximately $2.25 trillion over 10 years, while saving $450 billion and raising revenue of $950 billion. The plan would either decrease national expenditures on health by 3% or increase them by 1%. As you can see, spending goes up—same with the revenue, which he leeched of off you, the taxpayer. It is unclear how Biden will save billions of dollars, but the revenue is directly at your expense. Even the original ACA did not help lower healthcare costs, but at best slowed the rate at which they increased. And then we will hear the typical phrase from the left, when someone brings up socialism and the downfall of its policies— “it was not done right.”

If the alternative scenario where the Supreme Court rules all of Obamacare to be unconstitutional occurs, it would be a huge blow to Biden’s administration. Like Obama in 2008, healthcare was a large part of Joe Biden’s platform, and with that piece gone, his presidency will be less stable. If the Affordable Care Act is removed in its entirety, 20 million Americans would lose their health insurance. Yes, it would not be an opportune time due to COVID-19, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. As history has shown, whenever a good or service is first released—like a computer, for instance—the price of said item is extremely high due to the price of parts, labor, etc.. But over time prices fall. Quality has increased, while prices have generally dropped. What is there to say that the same thing will not happen with healthcare as a whole? Over time, prices will have to decrease.

In terms of more sensible private insurance plans, for instance, President Trump allowed many small businesses to join together as a coalition and buy group insurance for themselves, which would decrease costs by 30 percent. By reducing the scope of government, the healthcare prices will drop and America will have a much cheaper and efficient system.

If, for some reason, the Affordable Care Act is ruled unconstitutional, but remains in place with Joe Biden not being able to go to a single payer model,  the ACA would likely become essentially untouchable by politicians for fear of losing public support. This is vital to both Democrats and Republicans, as the former relies on minorities on the program while the latter relies on the rural states, which are heavily dependent on the healthcare plan. The damage has already been done by Obama, and America will keep slapping band-aids on the policy through minor adjustments, rather than any total overhauls.

Although the issue of healthcare remains a prevalent one in America, and the Democrats and Republicans will claw each other until the end of time, one thing remains absolutely clear—market forces cannot be disrupted by the federal government, and it usually ends up making the problem worse. What matters is removing excessive regulations around healthcare, and treating it like a good rather than a right.

The outcome of the Supreme Court case remains to be seen, but at the end of the day, what matters is the freedom of choice—the choice of a person to have a company that they want to cover them, not the government monopoly that Joe Biden wants to establish.

Mikhail Timonin is a student at the University of Maryland studying Government and Politics. He believes that people are able to make their own decisions,without government intervention, and as a result, each and every one of us are able to shape our own destiny

The post A Ticking Time Bomb: The Legacy of the Affordable Care Act appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

What does honor mean to you? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is “a good name or public esteem; or, a showing of usually merited respect.”

Cultures throughout the world put a heavy emphasis on honor. You may consider a soldier in the military earning a medal in combat through blood, sweat and tears to be honorable. Or receiving an award for exceptional accomplishments at work. What would be considered dishonorable? Military desertion is considered to be a horrible offense, but dishonor could be as simple as telling a lie. Repercussions can be as extreme as the ‘honor killings‘ of females by male family members that occur in Southeast Asia if a woman does not preserve her “sexual purity” for her husband.

 But what if there was a way for people to preserve their honor in a legal way, with two consenting adults being able to fight each other—whether to let out their anger or settle it with the finality of death? First, it will be necessary to examine the historical impacts of dueling in the United States. We must then examine variations thereof that exist today before a conclusion can be reached as to whether such a legal proposal  could survive in America—or if it will be stuck in the past.

How does dueling work? The typical duel protocol was relatively simple. The offended party would send a ‘second’, whose primary duty was to reconcile the conflict without violence. If the recipient did not apologize for the offense, he would have been able to choose the weapon—swords or pistols. Then, the duel would commence and it could end at any point if honor was satisfied.

Dueling culture has existed for centuries in the Western world since the Middle Ages, with knights fighting each other with swords. The Code Duello, written in 1777, established the European rules for dueling, while in the United States in 1838, South Carolina Governor John Lyde Wilson adapted the rules for America. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington both condemned dueling. Washington was losing many officers during the Revolutionary War and congratulated those who chose not to participate in the practice.

The most famous duel in American history occurred between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. After a series of insults directed at Burr by Hamilton, a duel was arranged. Hamilton, of course, ended up getting shot to death, even though, according to some historians, he did not intend to fire at his opponent. Burr received harsh criticism from the public and his career later fell apart as an indirect result. Dueling in America eventually came to an end, not by the government’s wrath, but public opinion. The old tradition was viewed as being barbaric and equivalent to murder, so it has disappeared completely in the United States.

So how would dueling translate to today? You could argue that we have boxing and MMA fights that fulfill that role, with the safety of gloves, as well as the whistle of the referee at the ready. But, in a sports match, typically the two athletes do not hate each other. Rivalries may exist, but not at the expense of honor. 

 What might legalizing dueling look like from a legal perspective? A contract would need to be signed by consenting adults of sound mind. Yet, that may not be enough. In a gruesome case in Germany, a man named Armin Meiwes went to prison on charges of manslaughter for killing his friend who had consented to be eaten in a prerecorded video, and the country did not have a law against cannibalism. Contracts would likely need to be arranged by lawyers so that there is no possibility of criminal or civil charges for wrongful death.

The duel would have to take place on private land, as there could be disputes over jurisdiction if the police became involved and the duel was not properly sanctioned. Witnesses and seconds would be absolutely necessary for legal verification, recording each fight. The choice of weapons could be firearms as used historically in America, or fists to minimize injuries. An apology, if one were to be given, would have to be in writing for verification purposes. Gun accidents and injuries would likely increase as a result of the practice, adding the expense of having ambulances on standby for every duel. Clearly, any official way to sanction a duel would be insanely difficult, and both parties could probably resolve the conflict peacefully by the time the process was over. 

Any legislation introduced to legalize dueling would likely never make it to the floor of either legislative body. Additionally, in modern times, the general public would probably not support such a practice. Although it may have been viewed as acceptable due to codes of chivalry, times have changed. If post-Civil War dueling was viewed as barbaric then, it would now be viewed as even more cruel. Democrats would use it as an excuse to once again to attack the 2nd Amendment, while some Republicans would be drawing up lists of whom they would want to duel the most.

Ultimately, due to changes in American culture, there would be a near impossible chance of such a bill becoming law, given the complicated logistics of having a duel “legalized”. Even then, it would probably only be among the few rich and spiteful, who would spend millions of dollars to have a chance to shoot someone they do not like (and then only if the other party agreed). For the rest of the population, life would not change drastically, as no one would want to go through the legal conundrum, where there would still be a significant risk that it could end in murder charges.

At the end of the day, although dueling has a negligible chance of coming back, freedom lovers and thrill seekers like myself can still dream of a day when we can say (with all the proper contracts in place), “Give me honor, or give me death!”

Mikhail Timonin is a student at the University of Maryland studying Government and Politics. He believes that people are able to make their own decisions,without government intervention, and as a result, each and
every one of us are able to shape our own destiny

The post Give Me Liberty: Could We Make Dueling Legal Again? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.