Given Enough Time, Bad Policies Will Eventually Ruin Any Advantage

Recently I spent a month in Buenos Aires. I went there to study the culture and the economy of a formerly prosperous land, filled with kind well-educated people.

One key lesson was this: Given enough time, bad policies will eventually ruin any advantage.

While not as bad off as it was in 2002, when the masses took to the streets banging pots and pans in protest of their nations ruined economy, the city of Buenos Aires is still clearly depressed. As are most of its people.

More than that, all hope has been lost. Every time a new politician is elected, things are promised to get better, but they don't. Argentina's current woes are the result of far too many successive political regimes that made terrible decisions. It's a clear as simple as this: Bad policies lead to bad outcomes.

As we learned in our interview with Daron Acemoglu on Why Nations Fail, what matters most for widespread prosperity is that the political and economic institutions be fair and inclusive. From the podcast:

It all depends on incentives and opportunities. If people have opportunities to become rich, to open businesses, be innovative, do things that are going to further their interests and at the same time the nation's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and they have incentives to do so, that's going to lay the foundations of economic prosperity.
It sounds extremely simple but the thing is that most nations don't provide those sorts of opportunities and incentives to their citizens and therein lies the big divide. How do we summarize those opportunities and incentives?
It's the institutions, the rules, formal and informal regulations, and organization of society that determines what sort of opportunities are available to different people, to people from different walks of life, and what sorts of incentives they function under.

In Argentina, after having been economically disappointed so many times, any sense of economic vitality and entrepreneurial spirit has long since disappeared.

Old buildings there display a grandness in the quality of their architecture. Newer construction is clearly blocky, rushed, and low-grade.

“Basuras" are everywhere. They're the street-side dumpsters located all throughout the city. Sometimes I would notice people rummaging in them as I walked about during the day. But after dark, formerly middle-class people can be seen in the basuras, usually from the knees down with their feet waving in the air, as they rummaged through looking for anything of value to glean:

How did Argentina get here? How did a nation -- once the most prosperous in the world on a per capita basis -- stumble to a place of forlorn hope and such diminished prosperity that economists sometimes joke that there are first world economies, developing economies, and Argentina?

The answer is: Poor policies.

A long succession of flawed governance, coupled to some crucial mistakes in apportioning the spoils of the land to too-few wealthy families at the outset, has seved to erode the prospects for nearly all Argentinians.

Now rapid inflation is again back in the news. Having seen this movie before (and not that long ago, either) everyone dreads what's coming next.

Argentina is instructive for us living in the rest of the world, because it is a real-time case study in how bad polices lead to bad outcomes. And in applying this same logic to central banks, we can conclude: Bad models lead to terrible outcomes.

So we should all very much care when our institutions, both political and economic, are becoming less inclusive and more extractive (and/or oppressive). Because if we continue down that road far enough, eventually the majority of us will find ourselves similarly waiting for night to fall as we slink off to tip headfirst into a basura.

On Delusions & Rackets

The longer this massive delusion of the viability of perpetual economic growth goes on, the more entrenched I find myself in a foxhole half-filled with dread. And I really don't like it.

I'm ready for meaningful change. I want to be able to once again focus on the positive. I want to find ideas and people in leadership positions in whom I can believe. I'm sure you do as well.

I find myself thinking: Let's just rip the Band-Aid off already! Let's count the losses up now, apportion them fairly, and move on having learned some painful but useful lessons about living within one's means as a society.

But that's just fanciful dreaming. The powers that be are doing (and will continue to do) everything in their considerable power to prevent this from happening.

And so the list of things in which I have lost faith in in the US is large and growing:

  • The rule of law. Laid bare as a complete joke by Eric Holder under Obama, and now under Sessions/Trump.
  • Financial “markets." These are now the playthings of machines that apparently cannot produce a single losing day for their owners as if they were legitimately money-making machines. But pay no attention to the fact that central banks are pouring $200 billion a month into these same “markets." Further, try to ignore that it is the taxpayers on the hook for the “assets" the central banks are accumulating to legitimize the farce and remember to bust out your best 'surprised face' when the Wall Street machine operators get to keep their 'winnings' while taxpayers have to foot the eventual bill.
  • Politicians. Always a suspect crowd, their complete fawning subservience to banks, bankers and corporate money in general has led to an even more profound, almost final collapse in public confidence in them.
  • Sick care. Misnamed 'healthcare' this racket is so obviously a cesspool of corrupt, price gouging activities foisted upon desperate captive hostages in the throes of a medical emergency that it beggars belief that not one proposal out of DC has yet included the simple application of existing price-gouging laws that already protect you from hikes in the price of plywood during an approaching hurricane.
  • Foreign policy. Sure this is a complex sea of ever-changing interests and alliances but I am going to throw up if I hear one more State Department person talk about “democracy" in whatever country we're bombing or secretly funneling arms into while saying nothing at all of Saudi Arabia's grotesque violations of every principle that the State Department swears we hold dear. Bombing and creating chaos everywhere is a really bad policy, yet it's somehow gotten entrenched and I am beyond tired of it.
  • Environmental/ecological policy. Anybody who thinks the US already went through and achieved something with the environmental movement in the 1970's either hasn't read the papers carefully lately, been outside in enough places, or both. 500,000 chemicals, many of them far more toxic than ones previously banned, have been released and done their damage. Insects are now gone from thousands of square miles subjected to neotnicotinoid pesticides. Obama's administration punted as long as possible and then when the bad data was inescapable opted for “more study." Trump will be worse. There's another Silent Spring upon us. Shame is too light a word.
  • Main Stream “News." Could it get any worse for the MSM? Apparently it can. Caught firmly between the proverbial rock and a hard place, those being declining viewership and public hostility towards their lies, the MSM response has been to double down and manufacture clearly fake news to serve a truly awful set of craven purposes. At a time when we desperately need clear analysis and proper context, the MSM has stampeded off in a different direction.

I could keep going, but why bother? This list of ridiculous awfulness will serve as a rocket fuel for the speed and the depth of the coming big reset when it finally arrives.

Don't worry, there will be good news on the other end of the correction. But only once we finally get that Band-Aid pulled off. We should already be imagining that next world, and everything that we want to find in it. Which is why we need to understand how to adopt better models than the ones we're currently navigating by.

Bad Models = Terrible Outcomes

The main predicament at the core of everything is that economics is the primary way we organize ourselves. If your economic models are seriously flawed, meaning they will eventually fail, then your very society is at risk, as Argentina's neighbor Venezuela is currently demonstrating. Money is a critical part of our social glue, it is a central part of the narrative that we live by, and this is why we find it so deeply disturbing when that narrative is obviously beginning to fall apart.

That feeling in the air right now? The one making folks angry, hostile, anxious, and scared?

That's just the herd appropriately sensing an approaching storm.

The big issue here is that the central banks have seriously flawed models that guarantee even worse outcomes for everyone. This is no different than, say, if NASA were calculating a trip to Mars and used miles instead of kilometers for part of the atmospheric approach calculations and burned up a $125 million orbiter -- as indeed happened in 1999.

Whether or not you have the right numbers, the wrong model will always give you a bad outcome.

In Part 2: A Better Model For Predicting What Happens Next, we detail how today's bad models will literally destroy financial and economic markets for generations to come when that pesky thing called "reality" finally intervenes.

Debts do matter, because debts are a claim on future production. As we have repeated over the years, GDP growth is now way below past periods of GDP growth -- leading us to conclude that future resource constraints will not only prevent the economy from ever again returning to its prior rates of rapid expansion, but force it to face the prospect of shrinking instead.

Click here to read the report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.