Something is wrong - Occupiers with no Occupation

I became an adult in the 1960's (although some may argue). During those years, protests were served up on the nightly news as frequently as people had cereal for breakfast. It was standard fare. Anti-Nuke, anti-war, anti-draft, pro-choice, pro-life, femme-lib, racial strife, assassinations, just-society, war on poverty, war on drugs (still happening) we had it all, day after day after day. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot to complain about, and interestingly, in almost every case I tended to side with the protestors, never with the government program or solution. That hasn't changed.
What is going on in the Occupy Wall Street Protests, well, I sympathize with that too, maybe not the way you think. Something is wrong, the protestors know that, I know that, if you don't know that, well its time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is not a simple issue, there will be no simple fix, no bailout to make it go away, and make no mistake, there will be blood. The system is broken.
The protestors are themselves products of the broken system. Most went to typical state-run schools, and were indoctrinated by people of my generation with the progressive-collectivist bullshit ideas common these days. The neo-cons and conservatives in the media are criticizing these young people for biting the hand that has fed them. I understand that view, its well illustrated in the picture (top left) that has made the rounds of social media. If that saying: "you are what you eat" is true, then surely you are what you wear, carry, play with, or use to communicate. The conservatives or Republicans, whatever you call them, look at these protestors as a whining minority. Well, so were the anti-draft, anti-Vietnam war protestors, look what happened.
The protesters bought into the broken system and are expecting the system will somehow care for them, you know, like we are all supposed to care for each other. Help each other realize our own potential, stay in school, get that degree in Psychology, Women's Studies or English Lit. But now we just have school debt, no job, no prospects and we're tired of living in our parent's basement. Something is wrong. Why aren't we getting that job, big salary, big benefits, why? They lied to us!

My friend Rod Rojas, knows something is wrong and in a recent article published in Mises.org he tries to pin the blame in this phrase: "The big problem with the honest Left is their absolute and obstinate refusal to learn the most basic economic principles." I like that. We're not talking financial literacy folks, we're talking Economics, one of the youngest and least understood of the sciences. It needs to be explained, Rod's article is simple and an excellent start. Who better to continue the explanation than Tom Woods, Misean Scholar, interviewed by Stefan Molyneux:

Libertarian Election results and the future

That chart is an unofficial tally of the Oct. 6, 2011 election results for the Ontario Libertarian Party. Compared to the last election in 2007 when the Party had 25 candidates, this time there were 51 candidates, and we received 19,695 votes, slightly more than twice the vote count of 2007.
Many of us were satisfied that we had made progress, the party had grown, more members, twice the candidates and more interest. Three of our candidates even beat the Green Party candidate in their particular ridings. Yes, we made inroads, but if looked at in perspective, our provincial total was roughly the same as the winning candidate, the incumbent Liberal, in my own riding. One person, the same as our total. We still have a long way to go.

Many of our Libertarian candidates took comfort in the fact that we beat the Freedom Party (FP), our disaffected and embittered kinfolk. Yes, they were once libertarians, and yes we beat them by a large margin (more than two to one), even though our real differences (based on those members that I know) are virtually nonexistent. They took a different approach in this election, deciding to pander a little more to popular appeal, and thus make themselves look less scary. Their leader was aggressive, obnoxious, a bit of a braggart, and not very nice to us (he called us "a scraggly bunch of anti-government protestors" even though he has the full beard). He got lots of free press (as you can see in the previous link), they had more candidates (57), a flashier website, more money, generally more exposure than we had, and yet, very disappointing results compared to us. I wish them no malice, their goal is very similar to ours, but when you act, and look just like a conservative, people will vote for the conservative party or candidate they feel has a better chance to win, in this case the oxymoronically named Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. That's what happened to FP, and they will need to rebrand themselves or rejoin us, because we are not going away.
There is a lesson for us here, we can't make ourselves less scary, because we lose what little credibility we have now, and we no longer become an alternative protest vote. The Libertarian brand is becoming established here in Canada, just as it has been in the US. This is not the time to change the formula or the packaging. Nor is there any chance we will be elected, not in the near or even distant future. We can change the conversation, and the Overton window in Ontario, without getting elected. Our socialist friends have done exactly that.
In 4 weeks we have a Convention, where new leadership may be chosen, and where we decide our future. There are noises among some of our new members that the time has come to get serious, to cast off our "debating society," modus operandi, and become a "real" political party. See that chart up there, we are real, we are also not the same as any other party, its time to accept that fact. Maybe thats what the noises are about. Is it time to look and act like the other parties, maybe? However, for a scraggly bunch of anti-government protestors, I think we are doing as well as can be expected, given how few of us are actually doing something, and how little our resources are. Size does matter folks, and we can only grow if people start pulling in the same direction.       

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs 1955 - 2011

"Selling lead weights to swimmers" Operation Twist

Among other things, the Ontario election has diverted my attention from general world foolishness. A most foolish thing I have not commented on lately, is the US Fed  FOMC "action" to buy long term bonds and sell shorter term bonds, called Operation Twist.
Bonds are debt instruments, and can be thought of this way: when sold in huge amounts,  money is made available, increasing money supply and reducing the cost of the money, interest. When bonds are purchased in huge amounts, supply is reduced, increasing the cost or interest. The length of time to repay a bond is important. Short term bonds would generally cost less, because risk is less, its more likely the bond will be repaid - maybe. Longer term bonds generally cost more because the risk of repayment is greater, because the time is greater.
Operation Twist is designed to keep interest rates lower for longer, thereby "stimulating the economy." Will it work? Here is a quote: "It works in the sense that it is perfectly possible to sell short-dated bonds and buy the long-dated variety and in the process change the make-up of the Fed's bond portfolio. Beyond that, the picture is murkier." And. "The last time the Fed tried something similar was in 1961, when it managed to lower long-term rates by only 0.15 of a percentage point. That is the estimated effect according to some economists. In a 2004 paper, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke downplayed the strategy's significance as a tool for promoting lower long-term rates." 
Sounds like a lot of trouble to lower rates by such a small amount. Mr. Tugwit's bears are back to voice their opinion.