Student Loan Forgiveness For Those Already Getting Taxpayer Money

1 Comment

Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, has put forth a proposal to help those with student loan debt.  But this would only apply to those who get a job at a qualifying nonprofit organization, which would include government jobs.
Certain employees would see a gradual decrease in their outstanding student loan debt, with total forgiveness coming after 10 years.
It should be no surprise that a politician wants to buy votes.  But it is especially interesting that he wants to offer this vote-buying program only to those who choose not to work for a private, for-profit company.
Blumenthal stated, “Teachers, police officers, public health workers and other public servants should be applauded and supported – and not drowned in debt to pay for the degrees many such jobs require.”
So if this is the senator’s stance, then I guess he believes it is acceptable for private sector workers to drown in debt in jobs that require a degree.
One of the reasons that many cities and states are in so much trouble financially is because of promises made to government workers.  In particular, it is the huge pensions that are being paid to those who worked in professions such as teachers and police officers.
In other words, Blumenthal wants to hand over more taxpayer money, in the form of government loan forgiveness, to those who already are sucking the taxpayers dry.
Free Market Wages
Some people think I am against teachers, firefighters, and librarians, but I’m really not.  Some people think they are overpaid and some think they are underpaid.  I don’t really think either way, but the high demand for these occupations seem to indicate that they are generally overpaid by market standards.  But I’m sure there are some really great teachers and firefighters who should probably make more, and would make more in a free market.
The problem is that these are mostly government occupations.  The wages paid to the government employees are somewhat arbitrary.  The wages are not being determined through a free market pricing system, the way that other wages are determined.
It is no surprise that a Democratic senator in Washington DC wants to praise government work and buy votes.  It is no surprise that he considers them public servants, while he implies that private sector employees aren’t serving.  In reality, he has it mostly backwards.
If his proposed law became a reality, then it would be an added benefit for government employees.  This means it would be an added expense for taxpayers.  Since the free market isn’t determining the wages of these employees, it is easy for some windbag senator to come in and attempt to arbitrarily add benefits.  Who is to say whether this is deserved?  It certainly isn’t the free market.
Government Solutions
This is another case of where the government creates a problem and then just creates more problems by trying to solve the previous one.
It is the government that has encouraged and subsidized student loans, which has also contributed to the enormously high tuitions.  Now that the economy is weak and wages are down (thanks to the government and central bank), many young people are in over their heads with student loan debt.  It is mostly a government-created problem.
So the solution is obviously more government.  Just forgive the student loans and put the taxpayers on the hook for paying it back.  And only give this benefit to those who are in the nonprofit sector, particularly those who already get their full salary and benefits from the taxpayer.
Ultimately, I don’t think this proposed legislation will pass.  It is too blatant of a vote-buying program.  Sometimes the politicians need to learn to be a little more subtle.

The US Forest Service Backtracks

The U.S. Forest Service has a proposed directive that requires a permit for taking photos or videos under certain circumstances in wilderness areas.  This would apply to millions of acres of federal lands.
It was first reported that these rules would apply broadly, making exceptions only for coverage of breaking news.  With expensive permits and possible fines up to $1,000, this story started getting some traction.
Many opponents of the announcement are saying that it would violate 1st Amendment rights to free speech.
After the criticism picked up some steam, the U.S. Forest Service quickly backtracked.
The U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell stated, “The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the 1st Amendment.  To be clear, provisions in the draft directive do not apply to news gathering or activities.”
They are now claiming that the proposed directive would apply to those doing commercial filming in wilderness areas and that no permit is needed for journalism or recreational photography.
It is easy to think of reasons that the original intent may have been to limit all photography and filming.  It is an act of control.  It is a way to stop bad press.  Government agencies don’t like bad press.  If there is some kind of land mismanagement (which there certainly is), then the bureaucrats managing it certainly don’t want to be questioned or exposed.
Of course, at up to $1,500 per permit, the government can always use some extra cash in its pocket too.
The First Amendment and Property Rights
While I certainly side with those that fight government secrecy and those that quote the Bill of Rights, I think the argument of the 1stAmendment is overused.
In this particular case, there is certainly an element of free speech and free press.  But in most cases where the 1st Amendment is cited, it is usually an issue of property rights, or a lack of property rights.
It is said that you should be able to speak freely except in certain situations, such as yelling “fire” in a movie theater, when there is no fire.  But it really comes down to who owns the movie theater and what his policy is regarding this.
In most movie theaters, the owner doesn’t want you falsely yelling “fire”.  In fact, he probably doesn’t want you yelling anything unless there is an actual emergency.  If you are disrupting other customers, the owner of the movie theater (or a manager on his behalf) may tell you to leave, and it should be his right to do so.  It is his property, so he gets to dictate the terms of the speech.
When property rights are existent and respected, then there usually isn’t any issue about free speech.  It is up to the owner of the property.
So you can see the problem in the case of the U.S. Forest Service.  The problem comes about because it is so-called public land.
Why does the federal government own millions of acres of land?  It owns a large piece of the western United States.  If the land under the U.S. Forest Service’s domain were owned privately, then this problem wouldn’t exist.
In addition, a lot of other problems probably wouldn’t exist, as property owners tend to take care of their property a lot better than the government takes care of property.  It is no coincidence that most of these raging wildfires occur on government owned land.
In conclusion, it is positive news that this directive was brought to light and highly criticized.  It is positive news that it forced the agency to backtrack.  Now we need to get the government to start selling off some of this land, for the sake of our liberty and our environment.

SWAT Team Raid Impersonator and Finds Drugs

There was recently a strange story out of Peoria, Illinois, although not strange in terms of the government’s use and abuse of power.  It started with Jon Daniel, who set up a fake Twitter account to make fun of the mayor, Jim Ardis.
Since the politician in question naturally didn’t like that someone was imitating him and making fun of him, he sent in the SWAT team last April.  It was done in the name of “false personation”.
But the story took a twist when the authorities found marijuana.  But it didn’t belong to Daniels, the purported Twitter impersonator.  It belonged to Jacob Elliott, Daniel’s roommate.
So naturally, the authorities seized the drugs and arrested Jacob Elliott.  He now faces felony charges for marijuana possession.
This past week, a judge in Peoria ruled that the raid was legitimate and that the police had probable cause in looking for the electronic devices that were the source of the parody Twitter feed.  Unfortunately, this means that Elliott, who as far as we know had nothing to do with the fake Twitter account, is still on the hook for criminal charges for drug possession.
Government Gone Wild
This is just another example of an out of control government.  It just so happens that in this case, it is in a town of about 120,000 people.  There are so many things wrong with this case, it is hard to know where to begin.
First, what if this had been a celebrity that was being imitated?  Would the celebrity have been able to call in the SWAT team so quickly?
Politicians really hate being made fun of, so it is no surprise that this mayor sought revenge.  But ironically, because of the incident, there are now supposedly as many as 15 parody Twitter accounts of the mayor.
The second thing that sticks out to me is the level of force that was used.  Do you really need to send in a SWAT team?  Is that what taxpayer resources are going to?  If the authorities suspected it was Daniel doing it, why couldn’t they have picked up the phone and said something to him?  Wouldn’t that have been enough?
And if he refused to stop, then at least let a court decide on whether his actions were legal.  Did they really need to raid his house?  There is no indication that Daniel has denied the allegations.
Of course, the third thing that sticks out to someone who actually cares about liberty is that the drug war strikes again.  Jacob Elliott had nothing to do with the incident for which the warrant was issued; yet he is the one in trouble.  He did not harm anyone or incite anything.  He is guilty of possessing a plant.  He is another victim of the nation’s drug laws that convicts millions of non-violent people.
Meanwhile, Jon Daniel is getting help from the ACLU to sue the city for a civil rights violation.
If there is one good thing that comes out of this story, it is that the town’s mayor looks like a thug to the many thousands of people who have seen the story.  The original Twitter parody had very few followers and had almost no influence.  But because of the mayor’s ego and his lust to exercise power over others, he now faces far more heat than any fake Twitter account could have done to him.
The internet has been a great thing for exposing corrupt and lying politicians (which are many), but we should also expect them to use their power in an attempt to stop it.

Watching the Cops

With the recent death of Eric Garner at the hands of the NYPD, a bit more attention has been placed on the police in America lately.  The incident in Ferguson, Missouri has also helped people realize that the police are not always the great heroes they are made out to be.  Actually, it is the reaction of the police to the protests in Ferguson that has been even more glaring.
Like anything in life, there are good cops and bad cops.  The problem is that they hold a legal monopoly on the use of force.  And this often leads to a lack of accountability.  How many times do we see wrongdoing of cops, only for them to go on administrative leave (usually paid), while their own buddies supposedly investigate?
It usually takes a really serious incident with absolute proof before the other police will finally turn on their own.  It is only at that point that the person might be fired.  It is rare that there are criminal charges.
Personally, I think the police should be held criminally liable for their actions, even when on duty.  Some say this will restrain them from doing their job.  But that is the point.
If Eric Garner had been in a shopping mall or some other event with a private security firm, do you think it would have ended the same way?  Private security guards tend to want to de-escalate situations.
CopWatch
In 2011, Jose LaSalle witnessed the abusiveness of some cops in Harlem.  His stepson, who was only 16 at the time, was stopped by NYPD officers and had the sense to record the incident.  The police officers threatened the boy with physical harm, and even used racial slurs.
Frustrated with the incident and others like it, along with the lack of accountability, LaSalle later took matters in to his own hands.  He fought back with video cameras and volunteers.
He formed a group called CopWatch, which involves a small group of people going out on the streets to film the police, particularly when they are doing their stop-and-frisk activities.
LaSalle’s organization does not directly file complaints on behalf of victims of police abuse.  However, the work of him and his group has a strong deterrence effect.  It is amazing the difference in behavior of some cops who know that they have a camera recording their words and actions.
Technology and Civil Liberties
Many people today believe that our world of advanced technology is a detriment to our liberty.  Just look at the NSA and the revelations by Edward Snowden.  The federal government is collecting most of our electronic data.  We really don’t have any privacy from the government when it comes to email, phone calls, and any other computer-based communications.
However, I believe that technology, while playing both a positive and negative role towards liberty, is a net positive overall.  This story about CopWatch is a perfect example of where technology is on our side.
The majority of people in the U.S. now have a cell phone.  Most of the new cell phones have video cameras.  So most people walking around are walking around with a video camera available in their pocket.  They can usually turn it on in less than 10 seconds.
Politicians like to say that if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t be afraid.  This usually applies to each new invasion of our privacy and civil liberties.  While it is a completely false and absurd statement, it is more accurate when it comes to the police.
If the police have nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t mind having cameras on them.  The good police officers have nothing to worry about as long as they keep doing their job and acting in a professional and non-abusive manner.  It is the bad cops who should be afraid of the camera.
Ironically, the NYPD recently announced its own plans to have some officers where video cameras while on duty.  This may just be to quell opposition.  But this should really be a goal of liberty activists and those concerned with police abusing their power.
Let’s have all police where cameras, or at least audio recorders, at all times while working.  Technology is cheap enough now that it is feasible.
Aside from privatizing the police, I can’t think of a better way to significantly reduce the abuse of power and to hold the police more accountable.  We can fight back with technology on our side.

50 Years of Fighting Poverty

As the Census Bureau releases its annual report on poverty, we can look back on 50 years of fighting poverty.  That’s right.  This year is the 50th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty.
It is estimated that $22 trillion (in 2012 dollars) has been spent fighting poverty since Johnson announced this new war.  This includes a plethora of government programs that were designed for those with a low income.
This figure doesn’t include certain “entitlement” programs such as Social Security and Medicare.  It doesn’t include unemployment insurance.  It definitely does not include government education, which serves all levels of income.
There are currently over 100 million people in the U.S. that receive some kind of welfare specifically for low-income people.  That is about one-third of the entire population of the U.S.  I guess you could say that Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty has been a huge success in getting a massive segment of the population dependent on the federal government.
Of course, all of the money that funds these programs has to come from somewhere.  It is either through taxes, or through debt and inflation. Middle and upper income earners pay the large majority.  But poor people pay both also, so they are technically just getting some of their own money back, with major administrative costs being taken off the top.
While most low-income people don’t pay income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes if they are working.  They also pay many other taxes including gas taxes, sales taxes, phone taxes, cable taxes, and the list goes on.
And low-income people certainly take a hit with debt and inflation.  Wages tend to lag behind in increasing with consumer prices.  If a gallon of milk goes up in price by a dollar, who do you think it hurts the most?  A high-income earner or someone with a high net worth won’t feel it nearly as much as the guy barely getting by.
A War on Everything
It seems that the government knows how to make a mess of anything it declares war on.  (Ironically, there hasn’t been an official declaration of war, militarily speaking, since World War 2.)
When the government declares a war on drugs, then this leads to more violence and more drug use.  When the government declares a war on terror, this leads to more terrorists.  When the government declares a war on poverty, it leads to more poverty and more dependence on government.
Since Johnson declared the war on poverty, the poverty rate is no better today than it was 50 years ago.  You could argue that poor people are a little better off economically speaking.  Some have cell phones and cable television.  But this is really more of a reflection of the advancement in technology.  If it had been up to the government, people would be much poorer today than 50 years ago.
It is actually the things that the left hates that have managed to give some help to poor people.  Think about Walmart.  I don’t love shopping at Walmart because of the chaos there at times, but it has undoubtedly helped millions of people.  They can buy food and other consumer products at cheaper prices.
The free market, despite the massive government interference, is what has enabled some people to lift themselves out of poverty and to prosper.  And it is the free market that has given us an almost exponential growth in the electronics industry.  It has enabled poor people to afford cell phones, televisions, and computers.
Meanwhile, the government just hampers this process.  As both Frederic Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt taught, a good economist will look at the unseen effects of government policy.  In other words, if the government hadn’t spent $22 trillion over the last 50 years in the name of fighting poverty, imagine how much more we would have today.  Imagine the inventions and advances that we haven’t seen because the government deprived the market of this capital investment.
There would be far less poverty today if the government had never started a war on poverty.  And we also wouldn’t have a hundred million people dependent on the government.  It is going to be that much more painful when the government faces major fiscal problems and has to break some of its promises.  Meanwhile, let’s hope the government doesn’t declare any more wars.

FOMC Statement – September 17, 2014

4 Comments

The FOMC released its latest policy statement on September 17, 2014.  The Fed will continue its “taper” by reducing its purchases to “just” $15 billion per month.

For reference, in most of 2013, the Fed was purchasing assets (creating money) by the tune of $85 billion per month, which is an annual rate of about $1 trillion.  So $15 billion per month, which would have been considered a lot 6 years ago, is a huge reduction compared to what the Fed had been doing last year.

If nothing drastic happens over the next 6 weeks, then the Fed is expected to end its so-called quantitative easing program at the end of October.

If you study Austrian school economics, and in in particular the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, you will know that loose money and artificially low interest rates cause resources to be misallocated and unsustainable bubble activity.  At some point, this has to stop.  Just by reducing the rate of monetary inflation, this can be enough to pop the bubble activity.  But we have to realize that there is a time lag.

In other words, if the Fed doesn’t ramp up the digital printing presses again, then we are going to see a recession in the somewhat near term.  The only exception to this might be if there is some kind of a major event or if commercial banks start lending out some of their excess reserves.

Price inflation, according to the government’s CPI numbers, had started to pick up a few months ago.  But the report for August showed it has slowed down again.  If the CPI stays down, this is a sign that Americans are holding back their spending and borrowing.  It is also a sign that a recession may not be far away.

Everyone is obsessed with interest rates right now, but I’m not sure why.  The Fed controls the federal funds rate, which is the overnight borrowing rate for banks.  This rate has mattered in the past because the Fed typically would increase it by tightening monetary policy and it would decrease the rate by loosening monetary policy.  But this rate has been near zero for almost 6 years.  It hasn’t mattered what the Fed has done in terms of monetary policy.

The Fed is not going to raise the federal funds rate by massively selling off assets.  That would crash the economy quickly.  Its main option is to pay a higher interest rate on excess reserves.  But in terms of creating money out of thin air, it doesn’t seem to matter what the Fed does in relation to the federal funds rate.

So why is everyone concerned about the interest rate?  We were concerned about this in the past because it determined the monetary policy.  But we already know what the monetary policy is.  The Fed is now purchasing assets at $15 billion per month and it is expected to stop at the end of October.  It continues to roll over its maturing debt, making sure the monetary base does not go down.

There are a lot of factors at play right now, but I am leaning towards a recession.  I would not be in the stock market except as it relates to a permanent portfolio and in terms of specific stocks and sectors.  The stock markets may hit new all-time highs for a little while longer, but I would rather be out a little early than out too late.

Scotland Independence May Disrupt the Banking System

On September 18, there will be a vote in Scotland on independence from the United Kingdom.  As suspected, most politicians and other defenders of the establishment are completely against this idea, using fear tactics and bribes in order to get the Scottish people to remain in the U.K.
It is no surprise that most of the establishment is against independence for Scotland.  They always prefer centralization.  And they don’t know the ramifications of this, particularly as it pertains to the European Union.  This could potentially cause an eventual breakup of the European Union.
Now Scotland’s two biggest banks are joining the opposition to Scottish independence.  Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland Group both indicated that they would likely move their headquarters to London, or somewhere else in England, if there is a majority “yes” vote for independence.  Both banks are partially state-owned.
Part of this uncertainty is because it is unclear if the British pound would remain the currency in an independent Scotland.  And since the banks and government are so tightly connected, it just adds to the problems.
The banks rely on the support of the government, along with the central bank.  It is a similar scenario in most major advanced countries of the world.  Even the so-called private banks are under government regulation and given a backstop by the central bank as the lender of last resort.
What if a State Seceded in the U.S.?
Imagine a scenario in the United States where one particular state decided to secede.  What would happen to the banks, little or big, in that state?  My guess is that the same thing would happen.  They would probably move their headquarters.
In the U.S., banks have the FDIC.  While the FDIC is sold as a protection for consumers, it is really important for the banks in our world of fractional reserve lending.
If the FDIC didn’t exist, then the great degree of fractional reserve lending would not exist.  If there is a fear from customers that banks are lending out too much money, then this can trigger a bank run.  The FDIC has prevented most bank runs (for better or for worse) except for the really insolvent ones.
While the FDIC doesn’t really have much money, it is has the backing of the U.S. Treasury, which has the backing of the Federal Reserve.  The Fed can create money out of thin air at any time to save the banks, as we saw in 2008.
If Texas were to secede from the union, and be allowed to do so, what would happen to all of the banks headquartered in Texas?  You can use this same example for any other state.
Would the FDIC no longer apply to a bank headquartered in Texas?  If not, then the banks there would find themselves insolvent very quickly.  All it would take is for a few depositors to get scared and demand a withdrawal of their money.
In this hypothetical example, Texas could form its own version of the FDIC.  But this won’t really work unless it also forms a central bank that can fund it.  You see the problem here.  What is the point of secession if you bring back all of the bad institutions that you are trying to leave behind?
Don’t take this as an argument against secession.  I believe decentralization is usually beneficial for liberty in the long run.  But this does show the problems we face today because of fiat currencies, central banking, government guarantees, and government alliances with businesses.
These banks in Scotland will leave an independent Scotland because they want to stay solvent.  They need the government guarantees and government backing.  Otherwise, they won’t be able to compete with all of the banks that do have the government guarantees.
For those who favor independence and secession movements, I would also encourage you to support getting rid of central banking and government guarantees.  There is more of a link than many realize and it may become more evident in the coming weeks and months ahead, if Scotland becomes an independent country.

Argentina Gets in on the Anti-Dollar Action

It is being reported that there will be a currency swap between the central banks of China and Argentina.  The swap is reported to be for a total of $11 billion, with the first payment going to Argentina in the range of just under $1 billion by the end of the year.  It will be in the form of yuan, the Chinese currency.
Argentina just recently defaulted on its debt obligations a couple of months ago.  This announced swap will help Argentina to shore up its reserves.  The yuan could also be used to buy Chinese imports.
Of course, $11 billion, while quite significant for Argentina, is a drop in the bucket for the U.S. government.  I mention this because the U.S. government, along with the Federal Reserve, is not involved in this transaction.  It is a drop in the bucket, but little drops do add up over time.
You could also say that each snowflake accumulates to eventually make an avalanche.  It takes millions of snowflakes, but they start to add up after a while.  I say all of this in reference to the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
I don’t think there is going to be an avalanche in the U.S. dollar losing its reserve status.  It will likely happen more subtly, one transaction at a time.
It is interesting that China is finding more and more countries that will deal in yuan.  Despite China’s problems, it is finding that the U.S. dollar does not command the same respect as it once did.
Chinese Reserves
This currency swap is really something of a loan to Argentina.  Argentina is plagued with debt and inflation problems.  Reserves have been draining away and it is difficult for the central bank there to get dollars because of the unreliability of its currency.
So while every international transaction that doesn’t involve the U.S. dollar is a small step away from the dollar as the reserve currency, this deal with Argentina makes Chinese officials look a bit foolish.
China holds well in excess of one trillion dollars in U.S. government debt.  Long-term, this may prove to be really foolish, as the dollar loses purchasing power due to the Fed’s massive monetary inflation.
If the answer of Chinese officials is to start loaning money to Argentina, then this is even more foolish.  The U.S. government is in a great financial condition compared to that of Argentina.  The U.S. dollar is a safe and stable currency compared to Argentina’s.
Chinese officials have been making significant changes in at least starting to get away from the U.S. dollar for transactions that don’t involve the U.S.  The most significant is Chinese and Russian officials making deals in rubles or yuan.
But Chinese central bankers keep buying up U.S. debt.  Apparently they are adding a little Argentina debt into the mix.  If they want to pile up reserves, why don’t they start buying more gold?  While they have been adding gold to their reserves, it is almost nothing compared to the holdings of U.S. Treasuries.
We should keep watching for these international deals that are being done without the use of U.S. dollars.  Hopefully, for China’s sake, they will find some better countries to do business with than Argentina.
But Chinese officials still believe in central planning and Keynesian economics.  They are mercantilists who believe that they have to subsidize their export sector by keeping a weak currency.  And until they stop buying U.S. Treasuries, I can’t take them too seriously.
If China starts trading dollars for gold in order to back their currency, then I will start to really take them seriously.  In the long run, this would actually benefit Americans because it would help put a stop to their reckless government and central bank.  And obviously it would help the Chinese people tremendously.

Free Trade or Corporate Welfare?

We live in a global world today, where there is a high division of labor and a lot of trading constantly going on across the planet.  While some people see this is a bad thing, it makes us more prosperous.
Free trade is beneficial for all parties.  It allows even poor people in other countries, with little capital, to share in at least a little prosperity.  People can specialize in one particular thing, whether it is working in a factory, or growing a certain kind of food, or anything else.
Free trade across countries is beneficial, just as it is beneficial between states, cities, and individuals in a neighborhood.  If trade is beneficial within a country, then it applies the same to trade between people in different countries.
Unfortunately, politicians exploit the mantra of free trade in order to get handouts for their buddies.  Free trade agreements are used as a cover for corporate welfare and other power plays.
These so-called free trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT, are not free trade agreements at all.  You don’t have to have some complex agreement to ensure free trade.
If two countries really believe in free trade, they can just make an agreement not to levy any tariffs and to not interfere with any peaceful trade.  It is really that simple.  Unfortunately, this isn’t what is happening with these agreements.
Guatemala to Subsidize U.S. Corporate Giants
There was a trade agreement signed back in 2005 call CAFTA-DR.  It is an agreement between Central American countries and the U.S.  It contains a provision that would essentially give a monopoly on certain plants or seeds to the companies that supposedly discovered them.  It is sold as a protection of intellectual property rights, as if anyone should have the right to own the rights to a particular type of seed or plant.
In order to abide by the agreement, the government in Guatemala passed the “Law for the Protection of New Plant Varieties”.  Critics of the new law have appropriately called it the “Monsanto Law”, named after the giant U.S. corporation.  I would be surprised if Monsanto lobbyists didn’t help write the agreement and the law.
The law in Guatemala would make it illegal to own certain types of seeds or possess any plants derived from them.  This would be punishable by fines, and even possible prison time.
Fortunately, because of the uproar of farmers and other groups in Guatemala, the highest court there has suspended the law.  If the country doesn’t abide by the provision in the original “free trade” agreement, then it is possible Guatemala will get dropped from the agreement.  Of course, it is always dangerous for foreign politicians to defy the U.S. government.
It is amazing that corporate lobbyists in the U.S. not only affect U.S. residents, but also those in poor foreign countries.  As if some rural farmer in Guatemala were not poor enough, let’s grant a monopoly to Monsanto and other giant U.S. companies so that the poor guy can’t grow a particular plant on his land.  And if the poor farmer doesn’t obey, then just throw him in jail.
This is what our politicians call free trade.  I’m guessing this isn’t quite what Adam Smith had in mind when he wrote The Wealth of Nations.
We must not be fooled by labels.  These so-called free trade agreements may have some good aspects, but they generally do more harm than good.  They are written by lawmakers and corporate lobbyists.
The Occupy Wall Street crowd is correct in complaining about the top 1%.  But it isn’t the top 1% of wealthy people they should be complaining about.  It is the top 1% who get their money and power from political connections and government favors.  At least the people in Guatemala seem to understand what U.S. politicians are doing.

Combining Free Market Economics with Investing