They are building an Army

I guess the question is looking at the last Great Depression, did the government intervention work? Are the policies that are in place to avoid another huge meltdown actually doing that or are we faced with a paradigm shift in which those regulations no longer fit. And it may seem terrible, but as a free market society, should we be careening into socialism to avoid a second Great Depression?

It would seem that now is the most important time to stoke the flame of freedom and capitalism because Joe Schmo isn't thinking about a quantum shift in our political structure, he just wants a job. Now it appears that will be a government job. President Elect Obama has set out a plan to create 2.5 million jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, modernizing schools, new cars, etc. These will of course, be government jobs which have historically proven to be vastly efficient, well oiled machines.

Really?

We are setting up for a battle between the private and public sectors and the opposition is building an army. We have to work to stop government expansion or the last great hope for Capitalism on the Planet could be snuffed out. When the government is the largest employer, business owners and entrepreneurs become the minority.

And not the kind of minority that get protection.

The kind of minority that gets marginalized and disregarded while the government grows larger and more ubiquitous.

Then comes the Polit Bureau. The management layer of government.

That is when we are screwed.

The End is Near- Use your Vacation Time

We've heard it all before- the end is near.

But it seems that we are hearing it from all sides now. From self proclaimed prophet and pastor of God's Church, Robert Weinland who prophesied that 2008 marks the beginning of the end of the entire world to Igor Panarin who scales it back a bit and only predicts the total collapse and dissolution of the United States of America into a fractured collection of individual territories grouped by region.

At least we're expected to survive that one.

Weinland is written off as a loon who is a scruffy beard and a "The End is Near" sandwich board away from being a cliche'. He is the modern incarnation of the classic doomsday sayer and claims to be the first true prophet in the last 1900 years. His website doesn't say who the last one was according to Mr. Weinland but he does say that he was sent to all the religions of Abraham which includes Christianity, Islam and Judaism so I am guessing he is crediting Muhammad as the last one. In his books The Prophesied End-Time and 2008 A Space Odyssey, no wait, 2008-God's Final Witness, Weinland claims to be privy to divine information that the next 2 and 1/2 years will be wrought with the collapse of the US (why does the end of the world never start with anyone else? What about Trinidad or Lithuania, why can't they be the epicenter for the world's demise?)






On the secular front, Panarin, claims that our current financial crisis is the beginning of our national Armageddon for just the US and that we will soon be relegated to 6 separate regions and partially absorbed by neighboring countries-

the economically superior Mexico and Canada. Really?

He says that China and Russia will be there to pick up the pieces and keep the rest of the world's economy plugging along.

Once again, really?

Panarin cites the fact that the US currency isn't based on anything and the fact that we are in a huge amount of debt will contribute to the implosion of our financial system.

Um, he's got a point.

But our currency is based on something, other countries' willingness to buy it. Before we collapse we will just default on all the bonds other counties are holding and leave them holding the bag. National Chapter 11. If we wipe $11 trillion off the books we can go right back to the gold standard.

Who wins? We do.

As far as as a hellfire and brimstone Apocalypse goes, I guess we're screwed. But barring that, the United States still has too many resources, too much ingenuity, and too much National pride to crumble.

We'll leave that to the USSR.

It is worth noting that Panarin is a professor of the Diplomatic Academy Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia who specialized in information warfare. The KGB is back.

Bring Me a Bucket!

The Government of Canada has decided that airlines must grant morbidly obese passengers and extra seat, in which to wedge themselves according to Canada.com's The Province.

I think I'm going to be sick.

While this policy has not made its way to the US, rumor has it that Soutwest Airlines is giving free extra seats to passengers who cannot lower the armrests on their seats due to their girth. This may have been in response to the backlash from a previous position in which the airline announced it would begin enforcing a 20 year old rule they had on the books to charge for an extra seat if a passenger could not fit in a single seat.

I think I'm being discriminated against, I'm calling the ACLU.

I am not upset that airlines are showing compassion, or even that Canadian Airlines are being forced to show compassion for overweight people (1. It's Canada, what do you expect? and 2. Most of the heavies being shipped are probably coming home to the States.)

I'm upset because I get charged for fat luggage.

If my luggage is overweight a few pounds I am going to have to come out of pocket, probably $25. If my luggage has really let itself go, then its $50.

If the airlines have decided that they can calculate the extra fuel it takes to bring my wife's shoes (somehow they end up in my bag because she is maxed out on weight in her bags already and has it down to a science) and equate that to a $25 surcharge, why doesn't the plane know when I haven't been going to the gym and might be carrying a few extra pieces of pumpkin pie around the midsection?

Because luggage can't sue.

I hate the situation and I am sure we have all heard the suggestion that we get weighed as a total package, us plus our luggage equals cost. But it won't work. The lawyers would leave the courthouse records scavenging for just long enough to hang out at the airport to find the poor hefty with too much in his/her handbag that had to dole out a few extra bucks while Miss Liposuction was able to prance on with her 2 steamer trunks and have weight allowance left over for her Pomeranian in the Louis Vitton pet carrier.

I just hate that Canada is setting a precedent that may catch on down here. The government will use the Canadian ruling to stick its overstepping nose into the "too big for one seat" business and force airlines to follow the Great White North's suit, when the free market could handle it.

If we as Americans are getting bigger then we will choose airlines that accomodate us the best. Therefore we will gravitate to airlines that give us the best seating for our money. We are already seeing airlines compete on the basis of not charging for our fat luggage or our second bag.

Our butts are next.

Someone will cater to the overweight travelor and might gain profit margin by doing it. They could probably make it up by charging for some decent food.

But in reality, they wil proabably all follow suit to avoid government regulations or more likely because they are scared of the special interest groups that are quick to call "foul" when anyone is not made to feel like part of the collective.

Heaven forbid we hurt someone's feelings



.

Top down or bottom up economy?

As a free market economist and a proponent on small government and limited government spending I have been horrified by the stimulus packages, the bailouts now a second stimulus package that is in the works. Especially things like spending $42 million to send out notifications telling people that they will be getting a stimulus package (details here) . In total the first stimulus package cost about $168 BILLION. On top of that we have bailed out several banks, lenders, financial market makers and insurance companies to the tune of almost $1 TRILLION and now a second stimulus package is in the works for an ADDITIONAL $600 BILLION.

Growing up as a child of a Regan household I have always been a firm believer in "trickle down economics". Give the tax breaks to the businesses, they will stay in the US, hire more employees, give more benefits those employees will spend money at stores, pay taxes and buy homes and there will be less burden on the government. So naturally when I started hearing about Obama's plan to build a bottom up economy I almost chocked on my stimulus check. But then another ardent anti-bottom up guy, my brother-in-law Craig and I were discussing it and he may have changed my mind.

$ 168,000,000,000 First stimulus package
$1,000,000,000,000 Bailout
$ 600,000,000,000 Second bailout package
---------------------------------------------
$1.768 Trillion

Taxpayers in the US- approximately 280 million.

If we had given every taxpayer in the country $60,000 to start with what would have happened? Mortgages would be paid, avoiding the housing meltdown, cars would be bought presumably some of those from US automakers, credit cards would be paid, people would travel (helping the airlines) and goods and services would be bought flooding the economy with a lot of extra cash and stimulating the government from the bottom up.

It would have never passed but with hindsight being 20/20 it would have been a lot smarter than giving the companies the money so they can buy each other, prop up their antiquated business models and pay limp them along until the next crisis.

Capitalism would have been better served. The companies with the best product and the best business model would have benefitted the most from the government bailout of the people who the government is designed to serve in the first place.

It goes against everything I believe but it might have worked.

I don't care to see the government going into more debt to cut us a check but, if the government is going to shill out money, at least let the free market decide where it should go.

But that's my opionion, I could be wrong.

Bail This?

This is the 2009 Ford Flex 4 door. The 21st century version of the family truckster. I saw one of these sitting on the side of the road at the Ford Dealership and it hit me like a ton of bricks-

No wonder our auto makers are in trouble.

If we wonder why our auto manufacturers, for decades, have been closing plants, laying off workers and turning rust belt towns in Tombstone just look at what we turn out. How many foreign automakers have a Pinto, Aztec, Gremlin, Reliant K, or now a Flex 4 Door under their belts to be a constant source ridicule and "Who approved that?" criticisms.




Businesses are not governments. They are expected to succeed if they give the consumer what they want, practice fiscal responsibility with good governance and keep employees that can manufacture quality products.

Otherwise they are expected to fail.

Demand for US autos has been plummeting since the early 1980's and the Big 3 have done little to truly compete for the US market, the largest auto market in the world. The consumer wanted fuel efficiency, Honda gave them the Civic, Ford gave them the Mustang II, Chevy the Citation. In case you are wondering, there is still a Honda Civic. Foreign autos came on the scene and quickly gained a reputation for dependability, safety and fuel economy while the second purchase you were expected to make after buying a US car would be a US tool kit. Only in the last few years has consumer confidence grown at all in the US Automakers- now that a large portion of our autos are made in Canada or Mexico. US automakers have shown that they cannot keep up with foreign designers, technicians and engineers but they want the government to bail them out to the tune of over $50 BILLION.

I blame the Unions.

Unions were a great idea when companies were employing 12 year olds for $2 a day and forcing them to work 20 hours days. That doesn't happen anymore. Now GM's 111,000 unionized employees have guaranteed salaries, bilk the company for hundreds of thousands of dollars to not work as described here, slow down the process with petty grievances all while getting paid well above what unskilled labor in other industries make.

No wonder they need to be bailed out.

The market can dictate what a fair wage is to man an assembly line, it is done everyday by thousands of companies across the nation. While it may not mean the plush packages for spoiled employees it would mean tens of thousands of American jobs if we could get the US automakers running lean and efficiently. They could reroute some of the money they are wasting on Union negotiations to R&D and possibly become competitive in the world market.

The government has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to be efficient and they have not business getting into the auto market. If they choose not to bail out the Big 3 and they are forced into bankrupcy then maybe that can give them leverage to break their union ties and create a business model appropriate for the 21st century.

I may be wrong, but that is how I see it.

Not the Shining Muslim Beacon After All

In a shocking twist on the international love fest that is the impending Obama Presidency, Al-Qaida came out swinging in ways that would get your butt kicked in high school and shot in just about any inner city in America.

They called him a "house negro."

I am not sure if al-Zawahri was listening to the Democratic stump speeches where the candidates stumbled over each other to fight over who was going to get the troops home faster and try to ammend our relationship with the world but Obama won that scrum. He did ammend his comments toward the end of the campaign and started talking about shifting troops to Afganistan but he made it clear that his ultimate goal was to pull out of the region all together.

Why would they want to continue to draw the ire of the US President?

Perhaps it is arrogance, perhaps they lack the common sense to know that provoting the Commander in Chief of most potent military in the history of the planet is a bad idea, maybe they are testing him his mettle to see if he can be goaded.

Or maybe it is more than that.

Al-Qaida has taken full responsibility for the emconomic turmoil in the United States. They claim that the wars we have spent billions on (and they have done on the cheap) has dramatically depleted our economy and stature in the financial world and had the added bonus of being great propaganda for the Jihadist recruitment machine. Why would al-Zawahri want the war to end? He and Osama appear to be safely tucked away sending thousands upon thousands of martyrs to slaughter against the infidels and innocent women and children of Islam and sleep well at night in the belief that they are doing God's will.

Obama should know this, he knows the mind of Islam, he was raised at least part of his life as a muslim.

So now what does he do? Does he ignore the comments and try to show himself as the calm peacemaker allowing the world to know that he was called an Uncle Tom by sand bully who also said the dogs of Afganistan enjoy eating our soldiers and claims victory in Iraq? Or does he abandon his base and continue to persue Al-Qaida with everything we've got?

That is a tough one. But what is in the country's best interest?

Obviously, the wars we have waged have been expensive and we need to curb spending at some point. We already know that we will be losing some tax breaks and some of us will be seeing a bigger tax bill to pay for some promised programs. But the increasingly taxed can only take so much before it backfires on the economy. At the same time we need to finish what we have started and establish ourselves as a force that follows through with what we promise people and refuse to turn over an entire region to radical tyrants who oppress women, rival factions, new thought, education and freedom.

I believe they want us to continue to empty the country's coffers fighting on two fronts in hope's that it will bankrupt the country and cause suffering of the American people through financial turmoil. It is a strategy that might just work if we are not careful.

But what al-Zawahri is doing in the meantime is galvanizing a fractured constituancy behind the next president. I hear the jokes and the comments that come with having the first liberal, Democratic in almost a decade and the first African American president in our history and I don't appreciate the racial slurs but I think I stand witht the majority of Americans when I say to the rest of the world-

Watch what you call our President.

Regardless of who we voted for, he is still going to be our president and, just like family, we will stick together to defend our President against all comers regardless of what we say amonst ourselves.

The Almighty Dollar?

The Cold War didn't end because President Regan stood on top of the Berlin Wall and demanded its destruction. As poetic as that sounds there was more to it than that. The US and USSR were engaged in a decades long arms race that had both countries spending enormous amounts of money to secure mutually assured destruction to the point that together we could have annihilated the entire planet several times over. The only difference was, the US could absorb the cost (at the price of a massive National Debt) but the economy of the USSR could not garner the international confidence needed to survive the spending spree.

Simply put, we drove them bankrupt.

Fast forward a few decades, the US is spending more money on military expenditures than at any time in our nation's history, our import to export ration is so unfavorably imbalanced it is difficult to find anything in the house that says "Made in the USA", our housing market is in shambles, our big three automakers are in danger of flat lining and taking more than 3 million jobs with them and the only hope for them and the country's major financial institutions is a $trillion bailout.

Sound familiar.

What's worse is the sworn enemy of Capitalism and Democracy, Communism, specifically The People's Republic of China and many of the Islamic Republics of the Middle East are the one's holding our debt. According to the Brookings Institute, China now holds more of our debt than 100% of our GDP.

Let that soak in for a moment.

While it is unlikely that they could use this debt to destroy our economy by holding us ransom or financially blackmailing us, it is not wise to be indebted to your enemy. My grandmother could have told you that.

In June 2007, Keneth Rogoff of the Global Economy and Development House Committee on the Budget stated-

This is not to say that we should greet the U.S. current account deficit with equanimity. It is a significant vulnerability that could significantly amplify the effects of growth crisis precipitated either by economic factors (say, a historic collapse in housing prices), or geopolitical factors (a terrorist attack of unprecedented dimensions on U.S. soil.) If the United States were forced to cut back the flow of its new borrowing by say, a half — to $400 billion per year, the trade-weighted dollar could easily fall 20-25 percent, and interest rates could rise by close to one percent across the board.¹ On impact, it is quite possible that financial markets would overshoot. Thus, in a crisis, the United States' position as a big net borrower could prove an Achilles' heel that considerably amplifies the magnitude and duration of a crisis.

Read full article HERE

Oops!

If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Refoming the Reform Party

It appears that it is politics as usual at the supposed savior of the democratic process. The Reform Party which was noticeably absent from the ballot by all of us who were not excited by the choice between spend big or spend bigger, has fallen victim to infighting of a kind that was heretofore reserved for Congress or the Jerry Springer Show. It appears that the American Reform Party, which actually had a candidate to promote was not allowed to promote him because of a legal injunction by the Reform Party USA who had blocked the formers website URL and held a convention in Hicksville, NY separate from the American Reform Party convention in Dallas, Texas at which octogenarian, Ted Weill, was selected as the parties nomminee. The Reform Party USA chose to back Washington outsider and reform maverick, John McCain, rather than have a candidate of its own.

I didn't follow the party recommendation.

Much like the historical formation of the Sunnis and Shia, both groups claim to be the rightful descendants of the party founded by Ross Perot. Mr. Perot, much like the Prophet Muhammad, is deafeningly silent on the rift seemingly content to let them fight it out on their own.

So, those of us who are standing in the valley of the shadow of debt, staring with our mouths gaped open as we watch the Chinese buy up our currency like a loan shark on the Jersey boardwalk (I'm sure that won't come back to bite us) and wonder where we can turn for common sense government that would make Thomas Jefferson a bit more violently ill if he were alive today.

We only have about a month before the election cycle starts up again so we need to get our act together.

So kiss and make up or what ever has to happen but reform the Reform Party and get back to work.

And so it begins

So he isn't all powerful. The stock market didn't bother to notice that We are now entering the Obama era. The largest drop during the week of a Presidential election in history greeted the seemingly anointed savior of the United States. I am willing to give the Obama administration a chance and see what they can do but I know two things...

The market isn't impressed

and I trust the market.

The market can be irrational, fickle and undisciplined at times but for the most part the market is the collective thinking of some of the most brilliant financial and political minds on the planet. If the market isn't impressed then watch out. It's kind of like if you try to get a loan and you have to keep looking for someone to loan it to you then you probably shouldn't take the loan, you can't afford it. I think the market is telling us, "Be careful with all the stimulus packages and bailouts... you can't afford it."

The free market is one of the most powerful forces on the planet, it rewards good practices and severely punishes foolish choices. Trying to reign it in or fight against is will only build up pressure that will unleash itself in due time. If the powers that be try to bend the free market to their will, I predict it will end badly for all of us.

We are at the beginning of a long and treacherous road, who knows where it will end. And so it begins.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The Unity Hangover

One of the biggest positives of the Obama election is that there does not seem to be that, "We won, in your face!" mentality coming from the America Left. Instead there seems to be a lot of optimism for cooperation and... dare I say it.... unity. We got McCain giving arguably his best speech since his campaign began when he conceded the race to Mr. Obama, we have President Bush offering to help make the transition a smooth one when he was not welcomed into office by the Clintons but instead had to have a week of repairs to the White House to replace equipment and furnishings that were damaged, vandalized or conspicuously missing and we haven't heard boastful words from Speaker Pelosi. I am convinced this is what I am calling a Unity Hangover. President-elect Obama made so many references to unity in the weeks leading up to the election and in his eloquent acceptance speech that no one wants to be the guy that cast the first stone. Or maybe everyone is holding their breath and ducking so they don't get caught in poop storm the new President is about to step into. President Bush is going to stay under his desk for the next 75 days praying there isn't another terrorist attack while he is in office and can escape with the feeling he kept the country safe after 9/11. No small task to be sure.

Sadly however, they are out there, biding their time and biting their tongues. The ones with rocks and asprin ready to put and end to this Unity Hangover and treat us to a bit of the "hair of the dog" partisain politics we are used to.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Now what?!

We have elected a new president in President Elect Obama by a minor landslide. And the markets tumble amid the jubilation. The markets know that socialist leaning views are bad for the largest free market on the planet. I hope only the best for our country and I hope an Obama Presidency makes a difference for the better with most of the world. We'll see.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Wanted: Viable 3rd Party

When you mention that there are other candidate running for office than the Democrat and Republican people look at you like you are almost crazy. I had someone ask me why I would stand in line for hours to throw my vote away. I would argue that I am not throwing my vote away by not selecting the lesser of two evils by choosing between a Democrat and Republican, I would argue that I am voting my conscience and making a statement that the status qou is broken! Politics as usual has turned America from a beacon of freedom and opportunity into a shadow of what it once was. We have politicians enacting laws 7 or 8 months a year, every senator or congressman trying to sponsor legislation to get their name out there and make their mark. But when do they repeal laws? Their job has become a repetition of stacking new laws on top of old laws dictating one more thing that we either can't do or are required to do at the behest of our elected representatives. Our personal freedoms are being crushed under an avalanche of beuracracy everyday. But I am supposed to be okay with that because, "That's just how the world works."

I am not okay with that.

With the lines differentiating the democrats from the republicans being blurred to obscurity and both parties ready to spend us into more massive debt and wage wars for bogus reasons and play party politics and throw tantrums and forget who they represent until election time and, and, and.... ad infinitem.

We need another option.

When Ross Perot ran he garnered over 19 million votes, just shy of 20% of the votes cast. That means, at least in the 90's, almost 1 in 5 Americans agreed with me. But here we are over 10 years a few wars, scandles, crisises and an impeachment later and we still can get a third party candidate on the debate stage. The Reform Party backed McCain who has been part of the problem in Washington for almost 30 years and Libertarian Bob Barr isn't even on the ballow in all 50 states.

How long can we afford to forgo a 3rd party in this country and let our freedom of choice really only matter when we are getting dressed in the morning?

Vote 3rd party, just to make a point.

Blogged with the Flock Browser