Mediaboss Marketing

Samuel Corum/Getty Images News

One of the fallouts from the Federal Reserve's period of monetary expansion during the 2020-2021 period may be connected with the regulation of cryptoassets.

The pricing of cryptoassets had been very uninteresting until the Federal Reserve started to flood the banking system with liquidity.

This was true of what was going on in many other financial markets.

Well, the Fed saved the economy, at that time, from any serious economic catastrophe, but it generated many, many financial bubbles that it is now having to deal with as the Fed reverses its actions.

As the Fed moves to tighten up on its monetary policy so as to fight the current rise of inflation, one by one, we are finding adjustments taking place in the economy to deal with the monetary buildup that took place in various sectors of the financial world.

And, we are finding outcomes that make many uncomfortable.

The initial surge of support for cryptoassets that came from libertarian-thinking individuals has now receded somewhat.

More and more, as evidence grows of misuse or misapplication of the free-market program, we find the other side of the argument taking up more aggressive positions.

For example, columnist Greg Ip, of the Wall Street Journal, writes this morning about how "Crypto Meltdown Exposes Hollowness of its Libertarian Promise."

Mr. Ip writes,

"unable to displace the dollar, crypto became just another asset without traditional markets' guardrails."

Furthermore, the lead editorial in the Financial Times, written by Jemima Kelly, claims, in bold letters, "There is a moral case against crypto."

Ms. Kelly writes,

"it seems more appropriate to use the latest market crash as an opportunity to make the moral argument against crypto. Because it's not just that we should not treat it as a serious asset class; we also need to stop imagining that it is just all a bit of harmless fun."

So, some of the weaknesses of the Libertarian case have come to light.

But, we should not overreact and move too far in the opposite direction.

Yes, crypto markets have lost more than $1.0 trillion of value over the past six months.

The price of one Bitcoin (BTC-USD) was just over $67,000 on November 10, 2021.

Today, the price is right around $30,000, where it was below $26,000 several days ago.

TerraUSD (UST-USD), a token whose price was supposed to remain pegged to the dollar, suddenly dropped, along with the coin (LUNA-USD) that was meant to back it.

We have not fully experienced the full fallout of the recent collapse and await the further ramifications of the unregulated space.

Gary Gensler, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission has seen it as his mission to bring regulation to these cryptoassets.

Mr. Gensler is building his case.

After testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee panel hearing on Wednesday, he told reporters,

"I think a lot of these tokens will fail."

"I fear that in crypto...there's going to be a lot of people hurt, and that will undermine some of the confidence in markets and trust in markets writ large."

Mr. Gensler has his mission set out for him.

Others, like Rostin Behnam, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, are right there with him.

The pieces are all coming together.

Earlier this month, the SEC stated that it plans to add 20 investigators and litigators to its unit dedicated to cryptocurrency and cybersecurity enforcement, nearly doubly the unit's size.

Still, Mr. Gensler does not feel that this is near enough and that more will be added later.

Mr. Gensler, and his predecessor, Jay Clayton, believe that most cryptocurrencies meet the legal definition of a security and thereby should be registered with the SEC,

"There is a path forward," Mr. Gensler claims.

Mr. Gensler is in the process of constructing that path. He is receiving more and more support for this effort these days, and the number of advocates seems to be growing.

To me, this battle is going to grow and grow.

I lean to the side of less regulation than more. But, I believe that one should not just dismiss the need for regulation out of pure philosophical thought.

People cheat. People cut corners. People have incomplete knowledge. Bad things happen. Markets, in general, seem to need to have some kind of a watchdog.

It just makes common sense. In this, I am more of a pragmatist. And, like Cass Sunstein, I believe that the regulation of markets should be done incrementally. That we should work through "nudges."

The problem is, too often, that we wait too long and major problems occur.

In order to put things back into order, we must make major movements.

These major adjustments tend to create their own 'unintended consequences."

And, thus, more problems are introduced into the picture.

Markets need to be regulated.

My old Libertarian days are behind me.

We have a major correction taking place. Many, many people are getting hurt in the adjustment.

We need to have Mr. Gensler and others moving to bring more regulation into the area of cryptoassets so as to avoid even further pain.

The regulation is coming. Let's get on with it.

Read the original post:
More Crypto Regulation: Thank The Federal Reserve - Seeking Alpha

Mr. Musk has objected when politicians have tried to characterize his views as in sync with their own, insisting that he would rather leave politics to others, despite ample evidence on Twitter to the contrary. When Mr. Abbott last year defended a strict anti-abortion law that made the procedure virtually illegal in Texas by citing Mr. Musks support Elon consistently tells me that he likes the social policies in the state of Texas, the governor said Mr. Musk pushed back.

In general, I believe government should rarely impose its will upon the people, and, when doing so, should aspire to maximize their cumulative happiness, he responded on Twitter. That said, I would prefer to stay out of politics.

If thats the case, he often cant seem to help himself. He heckles political figures who have taken a position he disagrees with or who have seemingly slighted him. Mr. Musks response to Senator Elizabeth Warren after she said that he should pay more in income taxes was, Please dont call the manager on me, Senator Karen.

After one of Mr. Musks Twitter fans pointed out that President Biden had not congratulated SpaceX for the successful completion of a private spaceflight last fall, Mr. Musk hit back with a jab reminiscent of Mr. Trumps derisive nickname Sleepy Joe.

Hes still sleeping, he replied. Several days later, he criticized the Biden administration as not the friendliest and accused it of being controlled by labor unions. These comments came just a few weeks after his insistence that he preferred to stay out of politics.

Few issues have raised his ire as much as the coronavirus restrictions, which impeded Teslas manufacturing operations in California and nudged him closer to his decision last year to move the companys headquarters to Texas. That move, however, was very much symbolic since Tesla still has its main manufacturing plant in the San Francisco Bay Area suburb of Fremont, Calif., and a large office in Palo Alto.

Over the course of the pandemic, Mr. Musks outbursts flared dramatically as he lashed out at state and local governments over stay-at-home orders. He initially defied local regulations that shut down his Tesla factory in Fremont. He described the lockdowns as forcibly imprisoning people in their homes and posted a libertarian-tinged rallying cry to Twitter: FREE AMERICA NOW. He threatened to sue Alameda County for the shutdowns before relenting.

See the rest here:
The Elusive Politics of Elon Musk - The New York Times

The Libertarian Party of South Dakota is - Mitchell Republic | News, weather, sports from Mitchell South Dakota

Published April 16, 2022 03:00 AM

The Libertarian Party of South Dakota is pleased to announce our 2022 annual State Convention. Registered Libertarians from across South Dakota will once again gather in the middle of the State for their annual State Convention. The Convention is scheduled to take place on Saturday April 23rd at the Arrowwood Cedar Shore Resort in Oacoma SD. Doors will open at 11:30am with credentialing of the members to begin at 12:00pmCST, with the Convention officially set to start at 1:00pm and to end approximately 7pm. At the Convention this year the membership will be nominating candidates for the 2022 election cycle as well as conducting other Party business. There will be candidate speeches and possibly an informal debate if there are multiple nominees for the same Office. Must be a registered Libertarian to run for public office or to vote on Party business. Also we have some great guest speakers for the event that include: Lisa Marie Nolen Deputy State Director of Americans for Prosperity South Dakota, Matthew Schweich Campaign Director of South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and Ned Horsted Executive Director at Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota. We will also be hosting a forum on Amendment C with Lisa Marie Nolen speaking in favor of the Amendment and Matthew Schweich speaking against the Amendment. Free to attend, open to the public, however you must be a registered Libertarian in South Dakota to run for public office or to vote on Party business. For more information on the even please visit LPsouthdakota.org or Email us at info@lpsouthdakota.org Greg Baldwin Chairman Libertarian Party of South Dakota Po Box 569 Wakonda, SD 57069 Published once at the total approximate cost of $20.06. (April 16, 2022) 52746

See original here:
The Libertarian Party of South Dakota is - Mitchell Republic | News, weather, sports from Mitchell South Dakota - Mitchell Republic

Candidates file to run for governor of Oklahoma

Some of the candidates hoping to win the 2022 governor's race spoke after filing at the Oklahoma state Capitol.

Addison Kliewer, Oklahoman

Four years ago, a relatively unknown Tulsa businessman with no political experience jumped into the governor's race with little fanfare and an unlikelypathto victory.

Now, Gov. Kevin Stitt, 49,must fend off sevenchallengers to win a second term in office.

With the political playing field set after last week's candidate filing period, threeRepublicans,twoDemocrats, one Libertarian and one independentare vying to unseat the first-term Republican governor.

Most of Stitt'schallengers have come out swinging with criticism of the incumbent.

More:Trump-era EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt joins race to replace Jim Inhofe in U.S. Senate

But in an interview Wednesday, Stitt seemedunperturbed by his field of challengers.

Four years ago, there were 10 Republicans in the gubernatorial primary, he said.

"The more the merrier," Stitt said. "Let's have honest conversations about our past experience and how we want to lead the state."

In the June 28 Republican primary, Stitt will face Joel Kintsel, 46, Mark Sherwood, 57, and Moira McCabe, 40.

The winner of the primary will face either Democratic state schools Superintendent Joy Hofmeister, 57, or former Democratic Sen. Connie Johnson, 69, in the November general election. Former state Sen. Ervin Yen, 67, an independent,and Libertarian Natalie Bruno, 37, also will be on the general election ballot.

The director of the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, Kintsel recently took a leave of absence to launch his first bid for public office. He also is a a lieutenant colonel in the Oklahoma Air National Guard.

Kintsel said he first started contemplating running for governor after seeing Stitt's "abuse" toward Oklahoma's Native American tribes.

"We're all Oklahomans, we're all part of the same family," Kintsel said."I'm not from a tribal background, but I will treat all Oklahomans with civility, and respect."

Kintsel has alleged the Stitt administration is rife with corruption and cronyism. In a recent interview, he alleged the Office of Management and Enterprise Services is steering state contracts to specific contractors.

He also saidthe Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department's contracts with Swadley'sBar-B-Q to operate restaurants at some state parks are suspect. The contracts have come under scrutiny from state lawmakers and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

More: Was Swadley's state parks deal with Oklahoma too lucrative? We dive into records

In response, Stitt, who referred to Kintsel as a career bureaucrat, said he's not a fan ofname calling.

Stitt said he's not afraid to fight bureaucracy and special interest groups. He also touted his calls for audits of various state agencies, including the State Department of Education.

"A good CEO welcomes transparency," Stitt said. "That's why I've been asking for audits all over state government. We're trying to expose anything that's going on that'snot right forall fourmillion Oklahomans."

If elected, Kintsel said he would focus on public safety and improving the state's roads and bridges, although he expressed opposition toa controversial turnpike expansion in Norman that's part of the $5 billion ACCESS Oklahoma plan backed by Stitt.

Kintsel also said he plans to focus on courting support from veterans and their families.

"I have a different vision for Oklahoma," he said."It's one that's based on values, integrityfirst, service before self, excellence inall we do. Those are the values that I've lived under in the military."

Sherwood, a minister, retired police officer and naturopathic doctorwho owns a Tulsa wellness-based medical practice, is challenging Stitt from the far right.

He has criticized the governor for closing"nonessential" businesses at the start of the pandemic and said Stitt, who just signed a near-total abortion ban into law, hasn't gone far enough to abolish abortion.

McCabe is a stay-at-home mom who supports the Second Amendment, opposes abortion and has vowed to stand against federal overreach.

Although Hofmeister was a registeredRepublican up until early October, she's already the likely frontrunner in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. She's been highly critical of Stitt since launching her campaign.

Like millions of our neighbors, I am guided by faith, family, and the commonsense Oklahoma values Ive taught my four kids," she said in a statement. "But there doesnt seem to be much common sense guiding our state right now.

"Instead of working together, our governor stirs up division, pitting neighbor against neighbor. He prizes politics over people and his own self-interest over the public good."

The first Democrat to jump into the governor's race, Johnson has touted her progressive bona fides on the campaign trail. She is a longtime proponent of legalizing cannabis and has pushed for Oklahoma to abolish the death penalty.

Johnsonran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018 and for U.S. Senate in 2014.

My policy positions are clear, and I've been transparent about them my entire career," Johnson said."My entire life basically is built on Democratic values that that I hold dear."

Former state Sen. Ervin Yen, who is challenging Stitt as an independent, continued lastweek his criticism of the governor's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.An anesthesiologist and former Republican, Yen used to represent Oklahoma Cityin the state Senate.

He said Oklahoma is a top 10 state for COVID-19 cases because "our terrible vaccination rate and our state governments lack of proclaiming a statewide maskmandate ever."

'We never made that investment': Oklahoma mass release report prompts call for program funding

While most governors imposed temporary mask mandates when COVID-19 cases spiked, Stitt never imposed a statewide mask requirement.

Bruno said it's important for Oklahomans to have a third-party option this election cycle.

She also criticized the governor's rocky relationship with the tribes, and said she would have vetoed legislation to make it a felony to perform most abortions.

"I really feel like the current establishment, the current parties aren't putting forth good quality candidates that we can vote for," said the Edmond Libertarian. "We need more options."

Staff writers Ben Felder and Chris Casteel contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
'The more the merrier': Who looks to unseat Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt in 2022 election? - Oklahoman.com

Throughout the Trump era it was a frequent theme of liberal commentary that their political party represented a clear American majority, thwarted by our antidemocratic institutions and condemned to live under the rule of the conservative minority.

In the political context of 2016-20, this belief was overstated. Yes, Donald Trump won the presidential election of 2016 with a minority of the popular vote. But more Americans voted for Republican congressional candidates than Democratic congressional candidates, and more Americans voted for right-of-center candidates for president including the Libertarian vote than voted for Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. In strictly majoritarian terms, liberalism deserved to lose in 2016, even if Trump did not necessarily deserve to win.

And Republican structural advantages, while real, did not then prevent Democrats from reclaiming the House of Representatives in 2018 and the presidency in 2020 and Senate in 2021. These victories extended the pattern of 21st century American politics, which has featured significant swings every few cycles, not the entrenchment of either partys power.

The political landscape after 2024, however, might look more like liberalisms depictions of its Trump-era plight. According to calculations by liberalisms Cassandra, David Shor, the convergence of an unfavorable Senate map for Democrats with their pre-existing Electoral College and Senate disadvantages could easily produce a scenario where the party wins 50 percent of the congressional popular vote, 51 percent of the presidential vote and ends up losing the White House and staring down a nearly filibuster-proof Republican advantage in the Senate.

Thats a scenario for liberal horror, but its not one that conservatives should welcome either. In recent years, as their advantages in both institutions have increased, conservatives have defended institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College with variations of the argument that the United States is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy.

These arguments carry less weight, however, the more consistently undemocratic the systems overall results become. (They would fall apart completely in the scenario sought by Donald Trump and some of his allies after 2020, where state legislatures simply substitute their preferences for the voters in their states.)

The Electoral Colleges legitimacy can stand up if an occasional 49-47 percent popular vote result goes the other way; likewise the Senates legitimacy if it tilts a bit toward one party but changes hands consistently.

But a scenario where one party has sustained governing power while lacking majoritarian support is a recipe for delegitimization and reasonable disillusionment, which no clever conservative column about the constitutional significance of state sovereignty would adequately address.

From the Republican Partys perspective, the best way to avoid this future where the nature of conservative victories undercuts the perceived legitimacy of conservative governance is to stop being content with the advantages granted by the system and try harder to win majorities outright.

You cant expect a political party to simply cede its advantages: There will never be a bipartisan constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate, on any timeline you care to imagine. But you can expect a political party to show a little more electoral ambition than the G.O.P. has done of late to seek to win more elections the way that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon won them, rather than being content to keep it close and put their hopes in lucky breaks.

Especially in the current climate, which looks dire for the Democrats, the Republicans have an opportunity to make the Electoral College complaint moot, for a time at least, by simply taking plausible positions, nominating plausible candidates and winning majorities outright.

That means rejecting the politics of voter-fraud paranoia as, hopefully, Republican primary voters will do by choosing Brian Kemp over David Perdue in the Georgia gubernatorial primary.

It means rejecting the attempts to return to the libertarian makers versus takers politics of Tea Party era, currently manifested in Florida Senator Rick Scotts recent manifesto suggesting tax increases for the working class basically the right-wing equivalent of defund the police in terms of its political toxicity.

And it means and I fear this is beyond the G.O.P.s capacities nominating someone other than Donald Trump in 2024.

A Republican Party that managed to win popular majorities might still see its Senate or Electoral College majorities magnified by its structural advantages. But such magnification is a normal feature of many democratic systems, not just our own. Its very different from losing the popular vote consistently and yet being handed power anyway.

As for what the Democrats should do about their disadvantages well, thats a longer discussion, but two quick points for now.

First, to the extent the party wants to focus on structural answers to its structural challenges, it needs clarity about what kind of electoral reforms would actually accomplish something. Thats been lacking in the Biden era, where liberal reformers wasted considerable time and energy on voting bills that didnt pass and also werent likely to help the party much had they been actually pushed through.

A different reform idea, statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, wouldnt have happened in this period either, but its much more responsive to the actual challenges confronting Democrats in the Senate. So if youre a liberal activist or a legislator planning for the next brief window when your party holds power, pushing for an expanded Senate seems like a more reasonable long ball to try to train your team to throw.

Second, to the extent that theres a Democratic path back to greater parity in the Senate and Electoral College without structural reform, it probably requires the development of an explicit faction within the party dedicated to winning back two kinds of voters culturally conservative Latinos and working-class whites who were part of Barack Obamas coalition but have drifted rightward since.

That faction would have two missions: To hew to a poll-tested agenda on economic policy (not just the business-friendly agenda supported by many centrist Democrats) and to constantly find ways to distinguish itself from organized progressivism the foundations, the activists, the academics on cultural and social issues. And crucially, not in the tactical style favored by analysts like Shor, but in the language of principle: Rightward-drifting voters would need to know that this faction actually believes in its own moderation, its own attacks on progressive shibboleths, and that its members will remain a thorn in progressivisms side even once they reach Washington.

Right now the Democrats have scattered politicians, from West Virginia to New York City, who somewhat fit this mold. But they dont have an agenda for them to coalesce around, a group of donors ready to fund them, a set of intellectuals ready to embrace them as their own.

Necessity, however, is the mother of invention, and necessity may impose itself upon the Democratic Party soon enough.

See the rest here:
Opinion | Will Democrats Soon Be Locked Out of Power? - The New York Times