Mediaboss Marketing

Editors note: The following is an opinion piece submitted by an elected official.

Its election season and word gets around the county quickly.

Its hard to know whats true or not, but some things have been told to me by my constituents that made me want to set the record straight on some of what people should keep in mind as they are assessing candidates for local office, whomever they support.

Candidates should pay attention, too.

Ive served on the County Board for 26 years and only on rare occasions have so many people decided to run for office. Thanks to all of them for being willing to step into public service.

The most important recommendation I have is for non-incumbent candidates who are running for any positionbut it goes for those of us who have been serving, too: Educate yourselves.

You may have chosen to run for one or two issues or because you just dont like the person currently holding the office. It doesnt matter. If you win, you will immediately find yourselves in the position of acting on a lot of important issues, and some of them you might not have seen coming.

The county is not a one- or two-issue organization. If you need help, call county staff and others in the know who you respect and ask for it. Many issues are time-sensitive and cannot be put off until youre able to form an educated opinion or make an informed vote.

In the County Executive race, people need to remember that whoever is in that position does not get a vote or make county policy. That is the job of the policymakers who sit on the County Board. Election season and politics, in general, tend to bring out beliefs, promises, and statements that forget this fact.

Theres also the debate over the Executive position and whether or not an Administrator would be better. Regardless of your opinion on that, the people voted to put the position into Portage County government and only the people can take it out. State statute explains this very clearly. It also doesnt matter if we have an Executive or Administrator when it comes to administering the day-to-day operations of the county. Regardless of the title, this position is in charge of that.

Last but not least, elected officials dont tell each other what to do. County electeds dont have authority over municipal electeds or other elected bodies like school boards. They can work together or not, but its the laws of the land that we all have to follow.

Our positions are non-partisan for the most part. Parties support candidates, which is fine and expected, but a non-partisan approach that respects what Im talking about here will keep you on a good path because Portage County is not Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Libertarian, or Other. Its all of those labels we use. People are also more than just their political affiliation.

Jeanne Dodge is a Board Supervisor for the countys 21st District. She can be reached at 715-592-4153.

More here:
Column: Candidates for office, voters, need to educate themselves better - Point/Plover Metro Wire

Damien Grant is a regular columnist for Stuff, and a business owner based in Auckland. He writes from a libertarian perspective and is a member of the Taxpayers Union but not of any political party.

OPINION: We are a content lot. Secure in our Shire as Omicron batters away at our MIQ like orcs raging against the citadel of Minas Tirith. We are remarkably sanguine given what is occurring just over the horizon.

Going about life behind our mighty moat, there is a feeling that we are fine, no matter what happens on the other side of the Misty Mountains.

We need to pay more attention.

READ MORE:* An economic catastrophe is looming* The Reserve Bank is in disarray* Housing rule changes hit retirement plans to help middle-class moaners* The Government's Covid-19 spending will be an economic albatross for decades

There have been enough articles, books and even movies dedicated to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) to fill Lake Taup; yet lost in the sheer volume was where it all began. And it began in the back blocks of American suburbia and the unintended consequences of the US federal governments noble desire to expand home ownership to the poor.

STUFF

Investors now own 36 per cent of all Kiwi homes, new research shows.

This process had a long history over multiple administrations, but one of the regulatory effects was to give banks an incentive to make loans to low-income households. It is clear that this played a role in the development of predatory lending practices, such as teaser and no-doc loans.

Many commentators, myself included, believe that these and similar practices contributed to the sub-prime crisis. Others hotly dispute this.

What isnt contested is that by the mid-2000s America was enjoying a house price bubble. From 2004 the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates, which contributed to a fall in house prices and a sharp rise in housing loan defaults. Eventually, a financial house of cards that had been built on institutions who owed these now-toxic loans, fell over.

We know what happened next, but we forget that no one saw the GFC coming. I mean, no one. Not really. It is true there are pundits now pointing to pre-GFC articles predicting some calamity, but there is always some idiot forecasting an economic collapse.

If you dont believe me, just go back and read my last decade of columns. Ive confidently anticipated all sorts of economic disasters that have not occurred. One day I will get something right and will be crowing insufferably about it from that day forth.

My point, which I have taken some time to get to, is that we do not know what will cause the next big thing, because we keep looking back at the last big thing and expecting it to repeat. It rarely does because knowledge works like a vaccine. We see it coming and prepare for it.

We cant stop what we cannot predict.

Because my business and temperament is built around catching the next wave of economic bad news, I am consistently looking for evidence that it is coming, yelling like an exuberant dwarf stumbling over a lost penny when I find it. Predictably I am let down by the failure of the real world to respond appropriately.

As a consequence, I was self-aware enough not to get excited as Evergrande, an incomprehensively massive Chinese developer, fell over this week. Financial journalists appeared even more excited than me as they tapped out breathless stories about the size of the default and the implications for the global economy.

Ng Han Guan/AP

The Evergrande Group headquarters at left is seen near other skyscrapers and construction sites in Shenzhen in southern China's Guangdong province, Friday, Sept. 24, 2021.

I do not think this will amount to anything, because the monetary authorities in Beijing have seen it coming and will have observed how the Americans handled similar defaults. They will probably successfully navigate the financial fallout of Evergrandes demise without their entire economy contracting.

Yet; there is something else occurring in China that isnt being widely reported and, consequently, is more interesting to me. LGFVs, or Local Government Financing Vehicles. Id never heard of this odd financial instrument until I read an article in The Economist during the Christmas break. Now I am seeing them everywhere.

LGFVs became popular in China after the GFC. They are loans raised by Chinese provincial authorities to build infrastructure projects; at least nominally. They are usually off-balance-sheet and secured by the returns from the projects they funded.

According to the South China Morning Post, most of these loans are short-term, while the returns from the projects have proven to be inadequate to cover the debt.

The Economist and others have reported that the scale of these opaque instruments is massive, rising from 16 trillion yuan in 2013 to 53 trillion yuan today. This is equal to half of Chinas GDP.

Local authorities are beginning to default. Assuming that LGFVs constitute a substantial part of a large number of global balance sheets, a systemic China-wide default would have a greater impact on the Chinese economy than the sub-prime loan defaults did in the United States. The sheer scale of the problem could be beyond even Beijings ability to contain.

AP

China's President Xi Jinping.

When we look back at the GFC, it helps to remind ourselves that even though this economic collapse happened on the other side of the Pacific, the contagion spread to our shores. Today our trade with China is considerably more important than our commercial relationship with our American friends. Our exports to the Middle Kingdom are worth around $20 billion annually.

If that market falls over we will lose not just a substantial export market but expect to see a massive repatriation of capital as Chinese investors pull cash out of New Zealand. Readers would be surprised by the extent of Chinese capital propping up large sectors of our economy, especially in construction.

Of course, none of this might happen. Or it could happen tomorrow. What should concern us, sitting smugly behind our quarantined moat, is that we are plugged into a deeply uncertain global economy with risks and potholes that we neither know about nor would really understand if they were explained to us.

Like Frodo and his band of merry halflings we are wandering blissfully into a dangerous environment not really comprehending the risks that abound, and ill-equipped for the challenges certain to be tossed our way. Let us hope that our pluck and charm will serve us as well as it did Tolkiens little creations.

See the article here:
We Kiwis are a content lot, but trouble looms over the horizon - Stuff.co.nz

American politician

Stan Jones

Stan Jones (born January 13, 1943) is a Libertarian Party politician who has twice run unsuccessfully for the United States Senate in 2002 and 2006, and three times unsuccessfully as the Libertarian nominee for governor of Montana, in 2000, 2004, and 2008. He is known for his artificially induced blue-grey skin tone.

In his book The Disappearing Spoon, about the periodic table, author Sam Kean chronicled the experience of Jones, who developed argyria, which permanently turned his skin a blue-grey color, by consuming large quantities of home-made colloidal silver.[1] Jones' purposeful consumption of silver, which he believed to be an antibiotic, was a measure he undertook in response to his fears that the Y2K problem would make antibiotics unavailable, an event that did not occur.[1] The peculiar coloration of his skin featured prominently in media coverage of his unsuccessful campaign.[2][3] Jones is reported to have said, given the chance to go back, he would do it all over again.[1] Jones is not alone in his beliefs; the use of colloidal silver has found support among some notables, such as actress Gwyneth Paltrow and Infowars' Alex Jones.[4] However, regarding colloidal silver, the National Institutes of Health have stated that evidence supporting health-related claims is lacking.[4]

His stances on policy issues tend to be socially conservative; among other issues, he supports the death penalty, opposes same-sex marriage, and has called abortion a "crime against humanity."[3][5] During the senatorial debate held on October 9, 2006, Jones proposed that a collaboration of European Union and North American elites are on the verge of forming a "one world communist government."

He currently works as a business consultant in Bozeman, the seat of Gallatin County.[citation needed]

Read the original:
Stan Jones (Libertarian politician) - Wikipedia

Key Difference Libertarian vs Republican

Libertarianism and Republicanism are two main philosophies that govern within the context of the modern international political system. Libertarianism principles are grounded in the rights of an individual which emphasize on the right to life, right to pursue happiness, liberty etc. Thus, it strongly opposes the governments interference in the individuals personal life matters, interests and decision-making process. Republicanism is the philosophy that emphasizes on the freedom of the individuals while emphasizing more on the moral conduct of people.

Though there are ideological similarities between Libertarian and a Republican the key difference between these two political advocates is that a Libertarian primarily dont believe in a government whereas a Republican believes in a government, or rather a Republican form of a government and such a government should not interfere with individual freedom excessively.

1. Overview and Key Difference2. Who is a Libertarian3. Who is a Republican4. Similarities Between a Libertarian and a Republican5. Side by Side Comparison Libertarian vs Republican in Tabular Form6. Summary

Libertarian; a follower of the Libertarianism political philosophy is someone who believes people are free to involve in any activity as long as they dont create violence or harm others. This philosophy is bounded by the Non-Aggression Principle which means none may use violence, coercion or any use of force for any other apart from using it as a self-defense mechanism.

As defined by Merriam Webster, Libertarian is an advocate of the doctrine of free will or a person who upholds the principles of individuallibertyespecially of thought and action. Similarly, the Cambridge dictionary explains a Libertarian as a person who believes that people should be free to think and behave as they want and should not have limits put on them by governments.

Fig 01:Howard Stern Libertarian Party

Their motto is Live and lets Live. which is suggestive of the fact that people are free to do any form of activity ranging from eating, smoking, taking drugs, having varied sexual preferences in life with anyone they like as long as they dont harm anyone. They simply dont believe either in the existence of a government (to interfere with an individuals free will) or in the process of electing.

Thus, a Libertarian never believes in any form of a government, unlike a Republican. They believe people themselves can use their own sense of self-reliability and self-defense thus an exterior government or a form of the ruling is not necessary for the humans.

Republican is primarily a person who supports and believes in a representative republican government which gives the individual freedom, simultaneously considers on maintaining the moral/social norms of the country under the rule of the government. Thus, a Republican believes in a government where it is elected by the people so that those who are elected are none other than the representatives of the people.

As defined in the Cambridge dictionary, a Republican is a supporter of government by elected representatives of the people rather than government by a king or queen. Similarly, Merriam Webster explains a Republican as one that favors or supports a republican form of government. Thus, unlike libertarian, A Republican advocates and believes in the form of a government though they both rely on the opinion that the government has no right to control the free will of an individual.

Fig 02: The emblem of the GOP (Grand Od Party), The main Republican party in United States of America

Similarly, a Republican believes in a Republican form of a government which centers its role in enabling people to secure the benefits of the society for themselves and for others. Moreover, such a form of government should limit its intervention to individuals work and should only intervene when the society cannot function at the level of the individual so that, the particular society can reach prosperity on its own.

Some of the core beliefs as outlined on the National Website of National Republican Committee can be indicated as follows;

Republican is a person who supports the form of government by elected representatives of the people rather than government by a king or queen

A Libertarian and a Republican both support the liberty or the individual freedom. Thus, superficially they share similar ideological views. However, unlike a Libertarian who basically doesnt concern about social inequalities or civic virtue, a Republican believes in promoting a government that can concern in the maintenance of civic virtue in the society. This can be highlighted as the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican.

You can download PDF version of this article and use it for offline purposes as per citation note. Please download PDF version hereDifference Between Libertarian and Republican

1.What is Republican:Republican Definition. Accessed 30 September,2017. Available here2.Preamble of the Republican National Committee Accessed 30 September,2017. Available here

1.Howard Stern Libertarian Party by Ted Van Pelt (CC BY 2.0) via Flickr2. Republican Disc By Republican Party Republican National Committee, Public Domain via Commons Wikimedia

Excerpt from:
Difference Between Libertarian and Republican | Compare ...

Free-market think tank

The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is a libertarian[3] think tank[4] located in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. It was founded in 1933 by Edward C. Harwood, an economist and investment advisor. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.[5]

Col. Edward C. Harwood was a graduate of the United States Military Academy and served in the Army Corps of Engineers. In the 1920s, he began writing freelance magazine articles on economic issues.[6] With $200 saved from selling his articles, Harwood founded AIER in 1933.[6][5]

AIER statements and publications portray the risks of climate change as minor and manageable,[7] with titles such as "What Greta Thunberg Forgets About Climate Change", "The Real Reason Nobody Takes Environmental Activists Seriously" and "Brazilians Should Keep Slashing Their Rainforest".[8][9][10]

The institution has also funded research on the comparative benefits that sweatshops supplying multinationals bring to the people working in them.[11][12]

AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by many public health experts.[13][14] Anthony Fauci, the infectious disease expert appointed by the White House, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific.[13] Tyler Cowen, a libertarian economist at George Mason University, wrote that while he sympathizes with a libertarian approach to deal with the pandemic, the declaration was dangerous and misguided.[15] The declaration was also criticized by the Niskanen Center,[16] a formerly libertarian think tank[17] that now calls itself moderate.[18]

AIER paid for ads on Facebook promoting its articles against government social distancing measures and mask mandates.[19]

In October 2020, Twitter removed a tweet by White House coronavirus adviser Scott Atlas linking to an AIER article that argued against the effectiveness of masks.[20]

AIER maintains a global network of local chapters called the Bastiat Society.[19] It partners with the Atlas Network and other groups.[21][22]

AIER owns American Investment Services Inc., an investment advisory firm whose private fund was valued at around $285 million in 2020.[23][7] The fund includes holdings in a wide range of companies, but holds a majority of its assets in diversified exchange-traded funds and gold investments. In 2020, about 14% of its investments were in information technology and telecom companies including Microsoft and Alphabet Inc., about 6% in electric and gas utilities, 5% in fossil fuel companies including Chevron and ExxonMobil, and 2% in food, alcohol, and tobacco stocks, including Mondelez International and Philip Morris International.[7][24]

Over half of AIER's funding comes from its investments, but it also receives contributions and foundation grants. In 2018 it reportedly received US$68,100 from the Charles Koch Foundation, approximately 3% of AIER's revenue for the year.[19][7][13][1] It has partnered with Emergent Order, a public relations company also funded by the Charles Koch Foundation.[7]

In 2019 the American Institute for Economic Research had total assets of $184,901,564.[2]

Revenue and support as of 2019: $2,222,727

Investment income (57.2%)

Contributions and grants (36.3%)

Other revenue (5.2%)

Program service (1.3%)

Expenses as of 2019: $5,129,945

Salaries, compensation, benefits (50.1%)

Other expenses (48.7%)

Grants (1.2%)

See the original post:
American Institute for Economic Research - Wikipedia