The debt that banks wrote off no longer competes with individuals’ savings and income. This helps people trying to save their income and live without going further into debt.

On the other hand, this is terrible for the financial industry’s profits. Clearly Washington DC needs to do something, right? Congress and the President to the rescue!

MSN reports that on “May 22, President Barack Obama signed into law the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009.” The bill has the following ominous detail (emphasis mine):

Under the new law, no one under age 21 can get a credit card unless a parent, guardian or spouse is willing to co-sign or unless the young adult has proof of sufficient income to cover the credit obligations.

The bill claims to stop young people from getting into debt. But will it work? The world is full of propaganda encouraging parents to get their children addicted to debt:

Waiting until age 21 to have a credit card has drawbacks. Length of credit history, regardless of age, matters when determining a credit score. And those without a credit history will find that renting an apartment or leasing a car on their own is next to impossible. What’s more, once someone obtains a credit card, there’s a six-month period before the person’s credit is considered “scoreable.”

Even some defenders of the new requirements agree that it’s important to start building a credit history early. “If you can’t qualify on your own, get a part-time job,” advises Campbell.

Many families will continue giving their children credit cards. And thanks to this bill, the families will suffer much more whenever these kids make poor financial decisions:

The bank considers the young person and the parent to be equal players. Now you have two people on hook to the payment rather than just one

In other words, no longer can a child who runs into financial trouble just declare bankruptcy and start fresh. The parent, guardian or spouse must now declare bankruptcy as well. If the parents want to avoid bankruptcy, the parents must repay all the debt the bank gave the child. Or the child must continue living in financial ruin.

Hopefully this scares parents and children away from credit cards. Doubtful. More likely, this law will prevent children from using bankruptcy to repair their financial situation out of concern for their parents. This law will reduce families’ financial redundancy; parents will find themselves with the same financial problems as their children.

I spent a large number of hours in adolescence playing Rummikub with my family. We played the game according to our understanding of the printed rules that came with the game. Eventually we lost that piece of paper, but we kept playing and having fun.

As an adult I sometimes play this game with new groups of people with prior experience of the game. Sometimes they interpreted the rules differently. Generally we resolve these differences without calling the police or giving someone the right to beat up whoever disagrees. I would be very unhappy if the police threw my friend in jail because he wanted to play the game differently. I would be very unhappy if my friend had to pay a heavy fine because he understood the rules differently than a judge.

Do I really need a government forcing my friends to play Rummikub with a specific set of rules? Things seem to work pretty well without it. Maybe the same can be said of coercive government in other areas too.

A person may note the necessity of judges in any highly competitive game. The World Cup and World Series use judges to resolve inevitable disputes. Not all people agree with the results, but the process works pretty well.

Does this idea work as well in real life?

The nature of games and real life have a very importance difference: the goals of a game are predetermined. Everyone playing the game agreed to play by those rules beforehand. It is impossible to play outside the rules or invent new rules while still playing the game.

For example, a player cannot decide during a chess match that he wants to arrange his pawns in the shape of an S. His goal is predetermined: capture the other player’s king. The black and white teams cannot decide to work together to move all their pawns to the other side of the board.

Real life is more flexible. A baby is not born holding a piece of paper upon which a handy set of rules and goals are written.

In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises noted how man must discover his own goals:

man chooses not only between various material things and services. All human values are offered for option. All ends and all means, both material and ideal issues, the sublime and the base, the noble and the ignoble, are ranged in a single row and subjected to a decision which picks out one thing and sets aside another. Nothing that men aim at or want to avoid remains outside of this arrangement into a unique scale of gradation and preference.

And the best way to accomplish them:

Means are not in the given universe; in this universe there exist only things. A thing becomes a means when human reason plans to employ it for the attainment of some end and human action really employs it for this purpose. Thinking man sees the serviceableness of things, i.e., their ability to minister to his ends, and acting man makes them means. It is of primary importance to realize that parts of the external world become means only through the operation of the human mind and its offshoot, human action. External objects are as such only phenomena of the physical universe and the subject matter of the natural sciences. It is human meaning and action which transform them into means.

We will disagree on both goals and the means to achieve them: I want to code; you want to fish.

Daneil Lapin explains how these disagreements are what creates prosperity:

If we all agreed that fishing was better than sitting on a computer, none of us could be discussing such things on the internet.

What is causing the delay?

I have heard from many of his constituents in Bellevue, Mercer Island, Issaquah and the rest of the 8th congressional district. They want him to cosponsor the bill. They have been calling his office, reaching out to their neighbors and delivering petitions in an attempt to get it. Reichert’s response? Nothing. He has declined to make any statement: nothing in support, nothing in opposition to the bill.

This silence is very surprising. He is on the record voicing the importance of transparency and fact collection. In March he made opening relevant remarks to this bill during a hearing on TARP oversight. From Reichert’s official YouTube channel:

one particularly troubling change is the apparent transfer of authority from treasury to the federal reserve without any new congressional oversight

without transparency we are left with outrageous abuses like bailout bonuses for companies surviving on the backs of taxpayers alone.

we have an obligation to [taxpayers] to find answers, to collect facts and data and to hold accountable the policies and people that lead to the abuses like those at aig

He voices the right words. Consider contacting Reichert and reminding him of those words.

Let him know that The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 is a great opportunity for Reichert to join his colleagues and convert those words into action.

Rep. Inslee Promises to Cosponsor HR-1207 by 5/12

Inslee held two town halls this weekend. The first town hall was in Shoreline. Numerous people wanted to know whether he intended to cosponsor HR 1207, but I heard that he made no commitment either way in Shoreline.

I attended the second town hall in Woodinville. A man representing a group of local Democrats expressed his anger about the banking oligarchy. This received a huge applause line, as well as a laugh when Inslee remarked that there must have been few oligarchs in attendance.

The next questioner reminded Inslee of the Democrat’s pledge of greater government transparency. The questioner said this should include the Federal Reserve, and suggested HR-1207 would be a great way to demonstrate his commitment to that pledge. Inslee agreed and promised that she would find his name on the list of cosponsors by 10am Tuesday morning.

The crowd erupted into applause. Watch the TheConcernedVoter’s movie and see it for yourself:

It was a great moment for Inslee, the Campaign for Liberty and the Democratic process.

I am looking forward to finding Inslee’s name on the list of HR 1207 cosponsors. He will be in good company.

Congratulations eastern Washington! Republican Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers joins her peers from the Democrat caucus: Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle) and Adam Smith (WA-9, Renton to Olympia) as cosponsors of the bill.

As a “member of the Republican Leadership team” let us hope she can lead the rest of Washington’s congressional representatives to join her! That means you, Dave Reichert. They will be in like company: the bill has 134 cosponsors as of the time of this writing.

Do you want her to do this? Send her a line and your thanks for supporting the great Washington state.

What risks does Bernanke take with our tax dollars? Which banks benefit from his credit programs? We deserve to know. In April we asked him for greater transparency into the Federal Reserve.

We received that support. Recently Congressman McDermott made the wonderful decision to join Ron Paul, Adam Smith (WA-9) and 120 of his congressional peers in cosponsoring the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (HR-1207):

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009′.
SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

(a) In General- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after `shall audit an agency’ and inserting a period.
(b) Audit- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.
`(2) REPORT-
`(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.
`(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.’.

I know the Campaign for Liberty members in the 8th congressional district delivered many petitions to Rep. Reichert. Why is his support still missing?

And what is preventing Inslee from joining his colleagues? Luckily he is holding townhalls in Shoreline and Woodinville this weekend. We intend to ask him.

There are 7,000 different tax agencies in the United States. Who do you think can better afford to comply with these myriad regulations: A large, multinational company like Wal-Mart or someone starting up in his West Seattle basement or Queen Anne apartment?

It is hard enough for local, Seattle businesses to get by in this troubled economy. The last thing we need are distant governments making it too expensive for our new businesses to grow and provide new jobs to Seattle residents. Is not unemployment high enough already?

If Enzi and Delahunt believe their local constituents pay too little taxes, fine. They can go to their constituents and collect any necessary taxes. But they have no right to place this burden of collection and compliance on our local businessmen, thousands of miles from their localities.

Seattle needs to concentrate on what we are best at: providing great products and service for the best value. Learning how to comply with Wyoming tax law prevents this.

Please contact your representatives and let them know you feel the same.

I am pretty sure anyone from this crowd would be a more ethical Treasury Secretary than Geithner.

More pictures after my comments.

Here are my observations:

The Seattle event felt a little more partisan to me. People calling for an end to the trillions we spend murdering

I talked with friends at the Libertarian party, Campaign for Liberty and Committees of Safety. I believe this is a great time to be a libertarian. In fact, one of the C4L members looked like he had a body guard. Of course, the body guard was at the last C4L meeting promoting a marksmanship class. I wanted to say hello but he had that serious, “on duty” attitude.

I saw many Objectivist signs: Ayn Rand was right; Who is John Galt? etc. Bill Herman, one of the leading Objectivists in the area was passing out fliers. I think this is an exciting time to be an Objectivist.

More pictures:

Libertarian-minded individuals filled the crowd.

I was pleased to see so many people citing the true cause of our economic troubles.

More pictures here.

Between 500 and 1,000 people attended the Tea Party in Bellevue. It was a lot of fun!

I observed the following:

• Very loud, powerful rejection of the idea of a state income tax and taxation in general: property taxes, excise taxes, etc.
• Lots of love on the liberty and constitution.
• Most people were libertarian/non-partisan, but partisan sentiment did exist:
  • Repeated attempts to assert the non-partisan nature that went over well.
  • Partisan attacks usually began with an apology, “I know this is not a partisan event but…”
  • Partisan flavor was almost all Republican/Conservative.
  • Far less excitement over partisan attempts to criticize Obama (ie, he’s weak on foreign policy type comments) than on criticism of debt, spending and taxation.

I plan to attend the rally in Seattle this afternoon. I hope to see some of you there!

More pictures:

We ask this question because we consider God to be like ourselves. We can lift some things but not others. God is omnipotent. Does that mean God can lift everything?

Lifting requires a subject and an object. It implies the existence of two things: the subject doing the lifting and the object receiving the lifting. An object like a stone will only lift after forming a relationship with a subject. Until the object is subjected to some other force, it remains in its current state.

Lifting — like action generally — adds characteristics to the object at the expense of the subject. I expend energy in order to add velocity and altitude to the boulder. The first law of thermodynamics tells us the work outputted never exceeds the work inputted. So if the object of input and output are one and the same it is impossible to accomplish anything. I cannot move myself. Lifting — like all action — requires distinction between subject and object.

At first it may appear otherwise — I can lift myself in the air with a handstand. But this ignores the other forces at play. A handstand works on the ground because I can push against the earth. But throw me out of a plane: my handstands no longer have any effect. I can only perform a handstand when a platform is under me. In reality, the object of my handstand is the earth itself. I do not lift up myself; I push down the earth.

So the question, “can God create an unmovable object?” assumes that God can create something beyond himself. Is this a wise assumption?

Saint Anselm described God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. He used this idea to prove God’s existence in reality. To do so, he assumes attributes can only add to existence. So existing with attributes A and B is greater than existing with attribute A alone. If we consider God to have all the attributes that we imagine, then we can also conceive of God having those attributes and in addition the attribute of existence in reality.

Spinoza and Leibniz built upon this framework to show that God must be part of everything. If we can conceive of God having the particular set of attributes that allows him to create an unmovable object, we can also conceive of him having the attribute where he is part of the unmovable object in addition. Therefore, God includes the unmovable object — and everything else. God is everything and everything is God.

Who wonders whether he is a better lover than God? This assumes love is possible outside the presence of God. The reality is that it is only through God’s graces that love is even possible in the first place. The question makes no sense. No one asks this question.

The unmovable rock makes no more sense. The idea of a rock — movable or unmovable — existing outside of God contradicts the very meaning of the word God. Asking whether God can move himself assumes there is a place outside of God to which he can move. This is no less a contradiction. So asking whether God can create an unmovable rock makes no more sense than asking whether God can create a square circle or a colorless blue.

I have an interesting question for the author of the Human Action Study Guide: Can a God who is all knowing nonetheless act?