On the Need for Regulations and Tariffs

By Glen Wallace

I think we tend to take for granted the regulations that protect the consumer.  As an example there was the problem with the toxic drywall from China that had it been manufactured in the US perhaps the existing regulations in this country would have prevented the problems from occurring in the first place.  Additionally there are certain food and drink manufacturing regulations that we count on to insure that those products are safe to consume.  But these are the sorts of regulations that the consumer both wants and needs.  I think both of those factors must be present before regulatory restrictions are implemented on any given product.  If the consumer wants to consume something that the government believes is unsafe for the consumer, then the consumer should still be allowed to consume the product.  The government should not be taking on a 'Big Brother knows best' approach where they exist to be our masters that protect us from ourselves.  Rather government should be the servant of the people and only takes on the role of protector when we ask it to, but quickly backs off when ordered to do so as well.

The following is a post I wrote somewhere in response to a speech/testimony by Peter Schiff:

Mr Schiff is so selective in his arguments, only pulling out the best examples that appear to support his positions while selectively ignoring the glaring refutational examples.  For instance in the case of Henry Ford the workers and the economy benefited by the wisdom and benevolence of Mr Ford.  But given human nature we can not count on all the heads of business to have such virtuous characteristics.

All too many in business suffer from a case of tunnel vision nearsightedness, where if they can get away with squeezing every last dime of productivity without killing their employees they will do it.  I'm thinking of the sort of characters as Scarlett O'hara from 'Gone with the Wind' and her treatment of the prison laborers in her husbands lumber mill.  It is for those sorts that government regulation is absolutely necessary to protect the worker from abuse by the Scarlett O'haras and pre-epiphany Ebenezer Scrooges of the world.  I also think back to the working conditions as featured accurately in Upton Sinclair's book 'The Jungle'.  There wasn't much unions or government regulation then either.  What did the free market do for those workers Mr Schiff?

But on the other hand I believe supporters of heavy regulation in the US often have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach in ignoring how a lack of regulations on foreign businesses with regard to workers rights and the environment, creates an incentive to offshore work to those countries with factories that abuse the environment and their workers due to lack of regulations.  But when it comes time to import those foreign made goods, the pro regulation set is silent and by their silence, imply that it is perfectly fine to buy those goods and thereby support those foreign factories that may be paying slave-like wages and polluting the environment.

It doesn't make any sense to support regulation under the pretext that it is being done to protect the workers and the environment when there is no disincentive to offshore the work to countries where workers and the environment are not being protected.  As a solution I would suggest implementing a tariff system that varies inversely with the level of regulation in the country of manufacture for a product.  For instance, a very high tariff would be levied against Chinese made goods whereas little to no tariff would be put on products made in Germany.

Why capitalism can be a disincentive to good medicine

By Glen Wallace

There have recently been some prominent news stories featured on the mainstream media about shortages of certain drugs faced by hospitals and emergency rooms.  In addition to shortages there has also been problems with price gouging by pharmaceutical manufacturers of certain prescription drugs.  And one more problem that I recently saw featured on the mainstream network national news was about the growing problem of antibiotic drug resistant bacteria. What all those problems have in common is an inability of the drug companies to adequately respond to the needs of the public using those drugs.  The drug companies are not responding to the public's needs because they are not directed by those needs but are instead being driven and directed solely by the profit motive. Drug companies price gouge because they can get away with it because the drug patents can provide a total monopoly in cases where there are no comparable alternatives.  New antibiotics are not being developed at the rate that is needed to respond to drug resistance because there is not enough money to be made off of any new antibiotics to justify the enormous cost necessary to bring them to market.  And shortages are occurring because production capacity may be more profitably utilized by some other drugs. Once they are done making their money makers then if they have time maybe they will make more of the less profitable drugs for which there is a shortage. All this is recognized by the media and the medical field but few seem to put two and two together and realize that capitalism has been an abject failure at promoting good medicine.

So far I've only discussed the problems between capitalism and medicine that are already readily recognized by mainstream media and medicine.  But if one turns to alternative medicine one sees further evidence of the antagonism between Capitalism and good medicine.


The problem is that drug companies will not spend money at all on research that they cannot see a potential return on.  The only goal of the big pharmaceutical corporations is to make a profit, not benefit mankind.  Therefore, if there is already some research showing promise on an herb or compound that cannot be patented then there is no incentive to spend all the money on further research to bring the product to market.  Additionally, keep in mind that most big pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded corporations and therefore have a legal obligation to act in the financial interests of shareholders and not in the medical interests of the users of the pharmaceuticals that those corporations produce.

For instance I heard of a study of mice where their Alzheimer's disease was halted and reversed when the mice consumed caffeine in an amount that was the human equivalent of 5 cups of caffeinated coffee per day. 
 I have also read anecdotal reports of Alzheimer's patients improving just through the consumption of coconut oil.  Currently pharmaceutical corporations are enjoying a nice gravy train of profits from drugs for Alzheimer's that are not a cure but a treatment where the patient continually takes the medicine and therefore pays for the medicine over a period of time that will likely amount to years.  Why would the for-profit pharmaceutical corporations want to spend money to research something like caffeine or coconut oil that they wouldn't be able to patent, but instead if the caffeine was found to be as useful in humans as it is in mice for Alzheimers, or if the anecdotal reports about coconut oil and Alzheimers were scientifically verified, the drug companies would  be facing an elimination of the currently reliable long-term revenue stream that they already enjoy with their prescription Alzheimer meds?

As another example, there is an alternative medicine doctor by the name of Dr. Tullio Simoncini from Italy, that is using ordinary baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) to treat cancer with what he claims is very successful results.  Currently the cancer treatment industry is very profitable as is; but if drug companies were to explore and find baking soda is indeed superior to any of their current chemotherapy meds, then billions in revenue would be eliminated if cancer patients were to be prescribed a non-patentable product like baking soda that can be had for fifty cents a pound.

There is a great deal of collusion and cronyism between such organizations as the FDA, the AMA, University research facilities, the mainstream media and congress.  Any close examination of those organizations reveals that they are clearly working together with the goal of maximizing the profits of big pharmaceutical corporations.

Have you ever watched the commercials during the breaks on the big network national TV news?  Those commercials are filled with ads for prescription pharmaceuticals still under patent protection that offer huge monopolistic profits to the big pharma companies buying the expensive ad space from the large TV networks.  The networks want to keep their largest sponsors happy so you'll regularly see features on the national news badmouthing any alternative medicine that would replace big pharma's monopoly profits if those 'supplements' became 'replacements'.

Anyone trying to bring a non-patentable drug to the mainstream medical market with FDA approval,  will be going against the collusion of cronies mentioned above.  Just to get a drug approved by the FDA requires investments of 100's of millions of dollars by an organization that is already set up to do the research.  Much more if you're not already a drug company or University that has the facilities and know-how to do the enormous research required for FDA approval.  As for universities, they are either already getting grant money from big pharma or they are already enjoying profits from patent medicines.  Universities get a lot of their funding from patents for medicines they own. 

There is a widespread assumption that there is always a synergistic relationship between capitalism and good medicine.  But the evidence indicates that the opposite is true; there is an antagonistic relationship between capitalism and good medicine.  If only the medical field would apply the same testing standards to the for-profit medical paradigm as they do to individual drugs, they would soon discover widespread refutations of the belief in the necessarily benevolent nature of the overall for-profit capitalistic setup of the mainstream medical system.

The only solution as I see it is to eliminate medical patents and nationalize most medical research.  There already are plenty of people that go into medical research with the highest of ideals, but only their ideas that have the potential to profit the company they work for, will be supported.  Instead, we need to set up a system that eliminates the profit variable and allows those idealistic individuals to act as both the researchers and executives in the medical development field, whose decision making control of what avenues to pursue is only measured by other members of the medical field and the citizens observing and funding their work.

The NIH has already set up a division to study alternative medicines, but even though I've seen promising results from at least one of their studies, it seems like we only hear about the the results on the mainstream media that are not so promising.  In Germany they've set up a government run organization called the E commission, that studies and gives rulings on herbal medicines and what they can be prescribed for.  Those are a couple of examples of the nationalization of medical research that are good starts in that direction.  But to achieve the ideal of  good medicine, the profit motive from patent monopolies needs to be completely eliminated.  The allure of those patent monopolies is too corrupting because there is just too much money that can be made with them. 

End the Fed but Keep the Fiat

By Glen Wallace

We need to end the Fed, but not go back to a gold or silver standard.  Sometimes I think there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy whereby the powers that be deliberately put forth a gold standard as the only alternative currency if the Fed was abolished.

The general conspiracy is the creation and existence of the private central bank 'The Fed' and all the other private central banks around the world and their issuance of debt based currency.

The conspiracy within that general conspiracy is where the private central bank conspiracy is exposed, but only in a manner where the only alternative given is one that allows the private bankers, that own a majority of the worlds gold, even more power with a gold backed currency. The banksters would then be gaining increased power through the ability they would then have to manipulate the money supply to their advantage through the manipulation of their own huge stockpiles of gold. The plebs are then effectively being led down a primrose path to a destination not of freedom from the banksters, but just the opposite, further enslavement to the private banking system.

Bill Still, in his documentary 'The Secret of Oz' (that I've embedded at the end of this post) shows in historical instances of where gold-backed money was issued, how the masses were oppressed by bankers who withheld their gold, leading to an unnecessary scarcity of money, which in turn lead to a deflationary depression among the masses, but was advantageous to the wealthy bankers insofar as they could then buy up properties of the downtrodden masses for pennies on the dollar.

But Mr Still also showed how when president Lincoln issued, via the US Treasury, the Lincoln Greenbacks as debt free fiat money, there was widespread prosperity as a result.  Backing money with gold limits the growth of the economy because the supply of gold itself is limited.  The Lincoln Greenback on the other hand effectively amounted to a barter equivalency which grew in supply as the growth in goods and services also grew.

And as occurred with the Lincoln Greenback, when a money supply is not limited by the supply and suppliers of gold nor is arbitrarily limited according to the vested interests of the private central bankers, a bountiful burst in organic economic growth seems to occur once the unnecessary limits to the money supply are removed. It is as though, within all of us, is a natural eagerness and curiosity to create and explore in ways that, if harnessed, will result in a verdant economy flourishing in an environment of widespread entrepreneurship.  But we are tied down and shackled by the bankers, prevented from exploring our human potential, while at the same time we are chastised for the very indebtedness that is the shackles the bankers put on us that keeps us from actualizing our potential.        

So there still would be a backing of sorts to a fiat currency that was issued by the US Treasury insofar as the dollars could be exchanged for a given market-determined amount, of any given goods or services.  Just so long as the fiat dollars are issued in a controlled manner that varies directly with the supply of goods and services in existence, that the dollars are exchanged for, hyperinflation will not occur.  Hyperinflation would not occur because the money printers would be limited in the amount of money they could print to the amount of real goods and services in the economy and not the amount of paper and ink available to print that money.

While some may argue that we could not count on our government to issue fiat currency in a controlled manner, I would counter that the risk would be just as great for a gold backed currency to be issued in an uncontrolled manner by an irresponsible government.  It is just as easy to print a dollar that says it's backed by gold as one that does not.  After all, isn't that why I so often read the goldbugs urging people to take physical delivery of their gold and not trust paper gold certificates?  If the issuers of gold backed certificates cannot be trusted, why would they necessarily expect an improvement from an institution that the goldbugs seem to generally mistrust -- the government.

I think that if there is sufficient transparency along with adequate democratic measurement, we can at least sufficiently count on the government to issue our currency in a controlled manner. I certainly think that a transparent democratically controlled government is many times more trustworthy than the private banking system that is currently controlling our central bank, the Federal Reserve.  And for the reasons I've explained, if the government is going to be issuing money, it should be in the form of debt free fiat currency.

If you go to the Federal Reserves website you can see where they tell the story of the Continental.  The Continental is the name of one of Americas earliest currencies.  In what seems like an ironic case of the pot calling the kettle black, the Feds article argues that the continental became worthless because it is a fiat currency, not backed by anything, and as a result became worthless due to rampant printing.  What the article ignores is that Federal Reserve Notes, the dollar, is also a form of fiat currency insofar as it is not backed by anything material either. Additionally the only reason that the Continental fiat currency became worthless, due to hyperinflation, was because the British, in a military act against the American Colonies, printed mass quantities of counterfeit Continental notes in a successful attempt to undermine the value of the money used by the Colonies.  But there is no reason to believe that the British would have been any less successful had the Continental been printed with a statement that said it was backed by gold or silver.

All things being equal, history and reason shows that the best chance for economic success as a nation is with a government treasury being the sole issuer of a debt free fiat currency, issued in a controlled manner.