The Civil War was not started because of slavery

One of the common myths that American kids are taught in school is that the Civil War was fought over slavery.  That's incorrect: the war was not started because of the North's objection to the institution of slavery. During his inaugural address, Lincoln said he would not interfere with slavery wherever it existed, and the south abolished African slave trade as part of the Confederate Constitution. Slavery was also legal in the north during the war.

The war was started because the north tried to impose heavy tariffs on the south. When the south refused to pay, the north responded by threatening to blockade southern ports -- which is an act of war.

[[MORE]]
From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html :

The Republican platform of 1860 called for higher tariffs; that was implemented by the new Congress in the Morill tariff of March 1861, signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln took the oath of office. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The nascent Confederacy followed with a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now cried for war. The Philadelphia Press on 18 March 1861 demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."

Also see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

The slavery issue was raised by Lincoln later, as a way to create support for the war. In fact, slavery was already on its way out, and would have faded away on its own without the war.

Motivations for moving to New Zealand

I moved from California (Silicon Valley) to New Zealand in Dec 2006, with my wife and two kids.

NZ is 65% the size of California, but only has 10% of the population. Housing is less expensive, property taxes are 95% lower, there are no death taxes, no capital gains taxes on the sale of your home, and it's beautiful and relatively unpolluted. I'm new to NZ politics, but so far it seems much more under control than in the US. Special interests don't seem to dominate things here.

[[MORE]]
They do have socialized medicine -- but there's also a parallel private system that allows you to opt-out of the public one if you want to. Taxes are high -- but at least the tax forms and associated tax law are extremely simple in comparison to the US (the annual tax return is only about 4 pages long). The overall tax rates aren't directly comparable, but I'm sure I'll pay less here overall than I would in the US.

I haven't found the government to be anywhere near as intrusive as in the US. In foreign policy, they have been solidly against the war in the Iraq. Many laws are relatively lax compared to the US -- gambling is legal, the drinking age is 18, minimum age for a driver's license is 15, etc. It's legal to own guns here, although it requires a license. The courts don't allow the type of distorted settlements that happen regularly in the US. Million-dollar awards for "damages" are unheard of. For example, in an auto accident case, the person who was hurt is likely to be awarded lost wages plus a little extra. The result is that insurance costs much less than in the US.

My overall sense of New Zealanders is that they understand and support the idea of personal responsibility -- something that was lost in the US a long time ago.

Native Kiwis, please let me know if I'm off-track, or if any of this resonates with you.

Although I was attracted to NZ, I also felt driven away from the US. Who wants to live in a country that a large part of the rest of the world hates? That's a situation that isn't likely to end well. I don't want my tax dollars to continue to be used to support perpetual wars of aggression. The level of government intrusion and the loss of respect for personal liberty is really crazy.

How to abolish the Fed?

G. Edward Griffin, in his book "The Creature from Jekyll Island", outlines a plan for eliminating the Federal Reserve. Although I don't agree with his bi-metalism, it's otherwise a well thought-out approach, and nothing in it would be especially time consuming. Here's a short summary, modified slightly to reflect a gold-focused approach instead:

[[MORE]]

1. Repeal the legal tender laws


2. Define a "new" dollar in terms of gold


3. Restore free coinage at the US Mint (where you can bring in raw gold and exchange it for gold coins)


4. Pay off the Federal Debt with Federal Reserve Notes created for that purpose


5. Freeze the supply of Federal Reserve Notes


6. Pledge the government's hoard of gold to be used as backing for all FRNs in circulation


7. Determine the weight of all gold owned by the US Government and calculate the total value of that supply in terms of new dollars


8. Determine the number of FRNs in circulation and calculate the new dollar value of each one by dividing the value of the precious metals by the number of notes


9. Retire all FRNs from circulation by offering to exchange them for new dollars at the calculated ratio


10. Convert all contracts based on FRNs to new dollars at the same ratio


11. Issue gold certificates. In exchange for FRNs, recipients will have the option of taking coins or Treasury Certificates, which are 100% backed (the certificates will become the new paper currency)


12. Abolish the Federal Reserve System. It would be possible to allow it to continue to operate as a check-clearinghouse, but not as a central bank


13. Introduce free banking. Banks should be deregulated and cut loose from Federal bailouts. The FDIC and other similar organizations should be phased out. Banks should be required to keep 100% reserves for demand deposits

About the War on Terror

The "War on Terror" has nothing to do with terrorism. It's a tactic that helps facilitate a larger, more intrusive, more corrupt government. Like the wars on crime, drugs and poverty, by definition its a war that can never be won.

[[MORE]]Terrorism is defined as hurting or killing innocent civilians. The US has now killed more than a million Iraqi civilians. That's not "fighting terrorism". That's becoming terrorists ourselves. Leaving Iraq has nothing to do with "cut and run". It's an unjust war of aggression -- the same crime that the Nazi leaders were convicted of during the Nuremburg trials. The real reason for the Iraq war is control over the Iraqi oil fields. Is that something that Americans should feel bad about abandoning?

Why are we in Iraq?

I like to ask neo-cons why they think we're fighting in Iraq. Most will answer that we're there to make the world a safer place, reduce the potential for terrorism in the US, bring democracy to the region, or some similar crap.

My response is something along the lines of:
Do you think that goal has been worth killing more than a million Iraqis? Doesn't that make us more like Saddam than some kind of saviour?

[[MORE]]
Some will dispute the number of deaths, but it's readily supported with a search on the web.

I also like to point out that the main people behind 9/11 were Saudis, not Iraqis -- so what have the Iraqis ever done to us, or threatened to do to us, that has warranted killing on such a large scale?

If they're open to a follow-up, I might add that I think one of the big reasons we're in both Iraq and Afghanistan is for control of the their oil fields and pipeline routes. I just plant the seed, and let them think about it. I try not to get into a big debate, because it almost always ends poorly.

US vs. New Zealand Tax Rates

Let's look at tax rates in the US vs. New Zealand, comparing apples to apples (highest tax bracket).  Here are the US rates:

Income tax: 35%
Sales tax in California: 8.25%
State income tax: 9%
FICA: 6.2%
E-FICA: 6.2% (paid by your employer on your behalf)
Medicare: 1.45%

Total = 66.1% (59.9% not including E-FICA)

[[MORE]]
You could argue that the second / hidden 6.2% FICA shouldn't be included since it's paid by your employer, but that's money your employer could be paying you if they didn't have to pay the tax.

vs. 39.5% income + 12.5% VAT = 52% for NZ

Except in NZ, the taxes also cover basic medical care. Insurance costs of all kinds are a small fraction of the US costs, and true inflation rates are lower (inflation is another hidden tax). Property taxes are around 0.1%, there are no capital gains on the sale of your home, and there are no inheritance taxes. The government has actually been operating at a net surplus for the last few years.

Yes, both tax rates are very high. I think the income tax should be abolished in both countries. But until that happens, NZ doesn't look too bad.

What to do about Iran?

OK, let's say Iran does develop a nuclear weapon.

Why should we attack and kill the Iranian people for doing something that other countries have done (Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa, etc)? If they do develop a weapon, I'm sure a large part of their motivation is self-defense (from, say, other countries that threaten to bomb them).

[[MORE]]
Let's say Iran think about using the bomb against a US target. It could be done with a missile of some kind, or indirectly through one of their terrorist organizations. The neo-con argument is the second one. Imagine yourself in Iran's position. You have one or a small number of nukes. Would you really trust some third-party organization to deliver it? Hell no. It could just as easily end up getting used against you. The other way, we're almost certainly going to know who did it. Even if Iran was confident they could get away with it, they could never be 100% sure. Since they know that if they were identified, the retaliation would be huge, I just can't see them ever using a bomb in any sort of first-strike capacity. The real value of a small number of nukes is either against non-nuclear countries or as a defensive / deterrant weapon.

In spite of that, let's say they do decide to set off a bomb in the US -- New York City. A big bomb might kill 1M people. Yes, that's terrible. But is it so terrible that it warrants killing hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Iranians before they ever do something? It's like killing your neighbor and his entire family because he bought a gun. Sure, he might use against you, but until he does, shouldn't he be considered a lawful gun owner?

Remember, they don't hate us for being rich and free. They hate us because we can't seem to keep our meddling fingers out of their lives!

The best -- and really only -- defense against terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise) is to mind our own fucking business. Talk, trade, travel, etc, and stop interfering.

BTW, I think the real reason the Bush Administration seems to want to bomb Iran has nothing to do with nukes. Instead, I think the real issues are oil and China -- but that's another post...

New Zealand isn't (very) socialist

After moving to New Zealand in Dec 2006, something I hear a lot from my friends in the US is: "why would you move to New Zealand? They're socialist!"  No, NZ isn't socialist. That's a common misconception in the US for some reason. They are really a mixed economy, much like the US, though arguably not nearly as bad.

[[MORE]]
They do have government subsidized medical care. They are a parliamentary democracy, and members of government have a reputation here of being extremely open and honest, with a very low level of corruption compared to other western countries, including the US. Unemployment and inflation are both low.

They do have high interest rates here (banks currently pay 7.6% for a savings account), partly caused by an attempt by their central bank to tone-down the recent housing boom. They have somewhat high income taxes (19.5% to 39.5%) and a 12.5% goods and services tax (GST), but very few hidden taxes (the US has a million of them), no state taxes, zero capital gains tax on the sale of your home, no inheritance taxes and very very low property taxes. They have a simple tax code: their income tax form is only about 4 pages long. The government raised something like NZ$4B more in taxes than it spent last year. They are very anti-Iraq war (there was a big flap here a few months ago about Air New Zealand being used by the Australians to fly soldiers to Iraq), anti-nuclear and pro-green (members of the Green party have even been able to get elected to parliament).

It's not perfect, of course. I would prefer a totally free-market society, but such a thing doesn't exist. I'm still an American at heart, though. If the politics in the US ever returns to something close to free-market capitalism, I will definitely consider moving back.

Distortions in China

China has a widely-quoted 10%+ annual growth rate, and a weak currency. Lots of exports. What's not so widely reported is that they also have something like a 40% default rate on loans -- it's all a house of cards. Growth is easy when borrowing is cheap and easy, but they're suffering now because of the increasing prices of imports used for raw materials.

[[MORE]]

A weaker currency increases exports. Temporarily. China keeps their currency suppressed because they need the inflow of cash to keep their banking system from collapsing (due to the 40% loan default rate). They are in a deep hole that's going to be very difficult to climb out of.

China's artificially weak currency is a big issue. The reason the Chinese are being pressured to float their currency is because its artificial weakness substantially distorts the market, and causes people to make decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make.

Even today, it's still considered a smart business move to close down US-based manufacturing and move it to China. If people really understood how the economic situation is badly distorted and how fragile the Chinese banking system is, they would definitely think twice (which is why the banking aspect is close to being a Chinese state secret).

The press seem to be focused on the problems from the short-term perspective of US businesses, which is why they emphasize prices. Long-term, if the US wants to "win" against Chinese imports, one could argue that we should let them continue to abuse themselves. The problem is that they are also abusing the rest of us in the process.

Of course the Chinese aren't the only ones playing the distortion game. For example the US government distorts many widely-published statistics that are relied on by many to guide investments, timing, etc -- things like the CPI, GDP, unemployment (did you know that real unemployment in the US is around 12%, real inflation is around 10% and that we are already in a recession?).

Distortions in the teaching of US History

Most of what you learned in HS history is either useless (out of context names and dates), a distortion, or an outright lie. HS American history is supposed to make students proud of their country, but tries to do so in a completely backwards way. None of the bad things, struggles or controversies are included. It's really pathetic.

[[MORE]]
The list of disortions and lies is very long, but just for example, did you know:

• Columbus and most of the world in 1492 knew the world was round.


• People from Africa and other parts of Europe came to North America before Columbus.


• Columbus was responsible for plundering Haiti, including the death or enslavement of hundreds of thousands of natives.


• The population of the Americas may have been around 100 million before European settlers arrived in the early 1600s, compared to 70 million in Europe.


• As many as 96% of American natives were killed by a massive pandemic brought from Europe.


• Residents of Europe in the early 1600s rarely bathed because they thought it was unhealthy, but native Americans were very clean.


• Thanksgiving, as celebrated by many Americans, is a myth -- a religous ritual. Almost nothing in the myth happened as it is presented in history books.


• Hitler was elected to office by popular vote.

Similarly, a lot of "common knowledge" about the Federal Reserve is based on historical inaccuracies. The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel. They are not the "protectors of the public" that they make themselves out to be. In reality, they are the protectors of the big banks. This isn't "conspiracy". This fact can be easily supported with a long list of historical references. And of course that's only the tip of the iceberg...

Guy Fawkes Day

Funny how the American press never seems to acknowledge that Guy Fawkes Day is actually celebrated every year in the UK and related countries like NZ, including fireworks displays, etc.

It seems to always be described from the terrorist side, where in the real event Guy Fawkes was captured before he did any harm -- the celebration is about successfully stopping terrorism, not starting it.