Gaddafi, Gold, and Libyan Intervention

Over the course of the twentieth century, the United States (and its allies, most prominently the NATO coalition) has increasingly engaged in military intervention overseas. The justifications for intervention were many: maintaining stability, blocking the influence of other foreign powers, and humanitarian.

In 2011, NATO intervened during the Libyan Civil War between longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and various rebel groups, acting to enforce a no-fly zone and move towards a ceasefire. The intervention was justified partially on humanitarian grounds. Certain attacks on civilians, according to a UN resolution, could constitute "crimes against humanity".

Buried in one of the 3,000 recently released emails from Hillary Clinton's private server is an intelligence briefing detailing Gaddafi's supply of 143 tons of gold. Additionally, it notes French President Nicolas Sarkozy's reasons for seeking military intervention in Libya, none of which involve protecting from "crimes against humanity". His five reasons, according to the email, were:

1) A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production
2) Increase French influence in North Africa
3) Improve his internal political situation in France
4) Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world
5) Address the concern of his advisors over "Qaddafi's" long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

 The email goes on to note that the supply of gold "was one of the factors that influenced" the decision to "commit France to the attack on Libya".

Gaddafi had been stockpiling gold with the hopes of creating a new gold-backed currency, the gold Dinar, to rival the Euro and the Dollar. He had hoped to force acceptance of this new currency by only selling Libyan oil in exchange for the new Dinar. Further, Gaddafi planned to use the gold reserves to make the Dinar a pan-African currency, and eliminate Western influence in the process.

Francophone Africa, the nations of Africa where French is widely spoken, widely uses a currency called the CFA Franc. The CFA Franc is backed by the French treasury, and trades at a fixed rate to the Euro. The ostensible purpose of the CFA Franc is stability in trade between France and nations using it, but it has the added benefit of maintaining French influence in the region.

Gaddafi's gold dinar would have served as a substitute to the CFA Franc throughout Africa. Whether or not the dinar would have replaced the CFA Franc entirely is uncertain, but Sarkozy feared the possibility enough to support military intervention in Libya. Gaddafi was without a doubt an evil man, a dictator, and responsible for the deaths of many innocents. Yet it seems that supporters of military intervention were actually concerned with maintaining Western influence in Libya and the rest of Africa, and not as motivated by humanitarian reasons as they claimed.

The Left's War with Uber

Uber is a fast-growing company that serves as a unique alternative to traditional taxi service. Rather than try to hail a cab, one can simply request a ride through the Uber app. Independent Uber drivers then see the request, and come pick you up. The process is safe, easy, and often cheaper than a taxi.

Uber is a remarkable new innovation that improves the lives of many Americans. Despite that, Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders recently come out against it. Clinton starts off with paying lip service to the innovation that companies like Uber bring to the economy, but quickly switches to condemnation for their employment strategies.

Essentially, Uber treats all of their drivers as what they are: independent contractors. They are simply individuals willing to use give rides to others using Uber in exchange for money (which Uber takes a cut of), all done through the app. At no point in the process does Uber actually direct the drivers in any way. They are free to work as much or as little as they please, and take whatever jobs they see fit. If the drivers don't like it, they're free to quit at any time.

Hillary Clinton sees this arrangement, but ignores the mutual benefits between Uber, the drivers, and the passengers. Instead, she decries the lack of benefits and security that drivers have. She is correct that Uber doesn't offer maternity leave, but why should they have to? The vast majority of Uber drivers are happy to work under the conditions they are offered, so why should regulators have to step in to fix a perceived problem?

Clinton is not alone. Senator Bernie Sanders agrees, citing serious problems with Uber due to a "lack of regulation". Both Sanders and Clinton profess to want more jobs and more economic growth in America. Uber is a quintessential American innovation, using technological advances to offer a superior product. Their opposition to this speaks volumes to their economic ignorance.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio recently tried to cap the number of Uber drivers in New York City, citing similar fears to Clinton and Sanders. He dropped the plan after a the public outcry against the proposed scheme, which was widely perceived to benefit only the city-licensed cab drivers, and not the people of New York City.

Many politicians on the left who attack Uber miss the point. Uber provides quick, quality service that benefits both the driver and the passenger. It is a perfect example of a market innovation that improves the lives of people across the nation. Clinton should be praising Uber, not attacking them.

The market created Uber, and politicians are trying to destroy it.

The Economic Illiteracy of Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders, the feisty Independent Senator from Vermont, is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Originally seen as little more than a token resistance, Sanders has continually drawn crowds numbering in the thousands, and his fair share of media attention. 

A Monmouth University Poll (August 5) shows that he is still well behind the frontrunner, Clinton, but comfortably ahead of the rest of the meager Democratic field.

Sanders is tapping into the anti-establishment sentiment sweeping across the nation, blaming "establishment politics" for the woes of the country. This outsider spirit, youth appeal, and distrust towards the status quo have caused some to dub him "the Ron Paul of the left". Indeed, many young left-libertarians are applauding his stances on money in politics and crony capitalism, and deservedly so. However, this only captures a small part of his campaign platform.

From the beginning, Bernie Sanders' campaign has been about economic issues. He favors economic reforms such as a $15 per hour national minimum wage, an end to all free trade agreements, and economic redistribution (calling our current system "rigged"). For every one thing he gets right (such as his opposition to the Export-Import Bank), he gets five things dead wrong.

Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, and his campaign rhetoric revolves around not only the political establishment, but what he calls the oligarchy. The oligarchy is the power structure of big business and government that allegedly colludes to conspire against the average American. To an extent, he's right about the disease. Crony capitalism, government-private partnerships, or whatever other intrusions of the state into economic affairs there may be are indeed one of the biggest problems facing America today.

However, his cure is worse than the ailment. Sanders consistently advocates for MORE government intrusion into the market, not less. He wants more regulation, less freedom of trade, and less freedom of labor. While some of his proposed reforms may indeed weaken big business, he completely misses the point.

Commerical interests have a tendency to use the coercive apparatus of the government to restrict competition, increase their own market share, and lobby for regulations that benefit their own specific niche in the economy, rather than the market as a whole. Sanders sees this and decries big business. He glosses over the fact that the only reason business interests are able to do this is through the coercive apparatus of the government! The centralized, bureaurcratic, constantly growing government is the source of the problem.

In his quest to purge the country of inequality, Sanders also chooses the most ridiculous topics to attack. He has claimed that we have too many choices of deodorant and sneakers while children go hungry. He advocates for a minimum wage of $15 per hour while simultaneously pushing for full employment, and pays his interns less than his lofty minimum wage.

Bernie Sanders has consistently displayed a massive economic illiteracy. Even with the few things he gets right, his abysmal economic policy prescriptions make him the absolute wrong choice for President.