Morality101.net

Morality is Liberty without Force

Browsing Posts tagged government

Who Is Compassionate?

Like everyone else I have been thinking a lot about the health insurance problem in America – how so many apparently don’t have coverage, how so many are dropped from insurance roles, how the government should step in and with tax dollars cover ‘everybody’, how our economy is in the tank, how so many are unemployed, how unfair people are, how cruel some are, how compassionate some are, how government takeover of healthcare is a either a terrible idea or the only solution.

I may have a non-governmental solution.  One person commenting on Propeller told me the issue is too big for individuals to solve and that it should be given to government to solve.   Another told me how heartless I was to have NO compassion for the poor, the needy, the insured, etc.  I will credit these people with giving me the inspiration for this article.

All of us know that virtually none of us is heartless, without compassion.  So what would be the answer for:
1) the needy,  2) the liberals, and 3) the conservatives?

Answer:  Private coverage.  Private assistance.

Insurance is expensive.  Let’s work on lowering it.  In the meanwhile, each of us who can afford to might like to “adopt” a family who simply cannot afford health insurance.  Those of us who cannot afford it alone could go into the “adoption” with other people helping with the expense. I have great faith in the American people, much more so than in the federal government.

This could also be done with the truly poor, with poor starving children which I am told exist in America – though I don’t really believe it, with the unemployed, etc.  It would be completely voluntary.  If we can adopt a mile of highway for maintenance, why can’t we adopt a family?  No government involvement whatsoever.  Hence, no tax dollars going to these social programs that we cannot afford any longer.

People helping people.  Not a new concept.  But for all the talk about compassion, how compassionate are we really?  We can solve all of the aforementioned problem in this manner to everyone’s satisfaction.  Are we truly compassionate? Or do we prefer a socialist government?  If we must argue, let’s argue about the actual arguing point, not “compassion”.

If you disagree, that’s O.K., but please do not do it on the basis of “it can’t be done” because I do not understand those words – they are not in my vocabulary and I will not argue them.  Nor will I give them any credence.

Over the past few months, I established website No-Ruler.net with Blogger.

We have seen ever-increasing collectivism using the immoral Force of government to bring upon America an totalitarian government which has proceeded to set aside our Constitution.  This is nothing new, but we have passed all possibility of return.

The collapse we have been writing about here on Morality101 for a couple of years remains largely ahead of us.  The more government manipulates with TARP and “Stimulus”, the real effects are delayed but building up to cause this “recession” to become the deep dark abyss of the Greatest Depression this world has ever known.  It will result in bankruptcy of the U.S.A. and of most or all other countries; a collapse not only of the monetary system but of the governments as well.

Please visit our article http://no-ruler.net/blog/secession/.   As we anticipate that this work will take most of our attention over the next several months, we could certainly use comments, feedback, and related articles there.  So please also register so that you can participate!

If you are in tune with us here, the biggest help you might be is simply forwarding the No-Ruler article to everyone you know!  The more quickly we can spread the word, the better our chances will be of avoiding the battles of revolution.

And since it’s that time, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

I am always in favor of helping anyone who needs help.  I am in favor of supporting them until they can get on their feet.  I would prefer this were done privately whereby it would be voluntary giving out of love rather than by force of law.  But even I, a person who opposes big government, have no problem with the NEEDY receiving the help they need, from whatever source until they are able to make it on their own.  And they must be allowed to try to make it on their own.

I have been accused of being cold-hearted, mean-spirited, selfish, self-centered, spiteful, heartless because I call for the government to clean itself up and fly right.  The issue in question last time I was accused related to the welfare programs, the feel good programs.
I find myself hard-pressed to explain a concept that is so natural for me to someone who has never thought along the same lines, but I do it anyway, albeit rather poorly.

Our government has been explanding, probably since time for it began, but has exploded in scope in the last 50 years to the extent it bears little resemblence to my younger days.  Some of that expansion may have been good, but I perceive most of it as bad.

I contend that many people who initially get on welfare do so illegally – I’ve had social workers say they’ve had mothers borrow children from a neighbor to show how many kids she had, I’ve known some who have scammed the system, and I know it is done regularly.  I have no reason to think government actually tries to get anyone off welfare because to do so loses a certain degree of control it will then have over that person.  Welfare is a two headed monster.  It serves both the recipient and the politician.  The victim will, if he votes at all, definitely vote and defend the politician who promised him the moon, especially if he delivers on the promise.  The politician will always promise the moon in order to get the votes.   I’ve heard others tell about when bird food is made available, the birds flock around, and once the bird food is gone, the birds leave too.  As long as it’s there, the birds will stay and eat rather than look for more.
There are people who milk the system, and some believe that is rare.  I don’t. I think  it is horribly abused – and I correctly translate that into abuse of the taxpayer who provides the money to take care of those people.  It isn’t just the “welfare system” – it is all the other “feel good” programs designed to create dependency on government, such as subsidized transit, meals on wheels, senior citizen discounts, Medicare, Medicaid, free clinics, etc.

One example.  I once was director for the senior citizen centers, meals on wheels, and transit for my county.  One woman had been having meals delivered to her home at taxpayer expense for months and one day ran into the center to tell me not to have that day’s meal delivered because she was “going shopping with the girls”.  She ran up the 5 steps to the front door rather than take the ramp.  I stopped her delivered meals that same day as she was obviously not qualified to receive home delivered meals.   She was scamming the system, and everyone who knew it was helping her scam the system.  She is one example of many, many I could list.  If the government could bring itself to actually clean house and straighten out things once in a while I would not be so antagonistic, but that has never been done and will never be done.  Someone somewhere must draw the line – otherwise the scammers and cheaters will destroy the system and people who champiion these government handouts will be sorely upset.

I have to ask myself, as possibly you do, how needy is a person who walks around with ipods and cell phones?  How needy is a person who swills booze all day?  How needy is a person who always seems to have cigarettes?  How needy is a person who drives an expensive car?  How needy is a person who goes to the shop for manicures?  How needy is a person who takes illegal drugs?  How needy is a person who uses the money to have her ears (and other parts) pierced, to have fake nails put on, etc?  How needy is a person who has 3 TVs in their home?  How needy is a person who is so important that they wear a pager?  How needy is a person who wears designer jeans?  How needy is a person who gets free medical care, but ignores the medical advice?

I don’t blame the poor person nearly as much as I blame the government.  Maybe not all citizens, but certainly legislators should understand that tax dollars are finite.  What is so hard to understand about one family going without something so that the their taxes will pay for the exact same thing for some other family?  Do people not understand that when a person works and earns a day’s pay, that pay is HIS, NOT the government’s, and not anyone else’s.  If it is HIS money, how does government have the legal right to FORCE him to give whatever percentage of it the government deems necessary?  This constitutes neither caring nor compassion – this constitutes force to steal from one to give to another, primarily for votes.

Our government is becoming increasingly socialist, to the point that some even ask what is so bad about socialism.  Our government schools aren’t doing such a hot job with education if civics and real history are no longer being taught.  Maybe they are still being taught, but slow students get a passing grade so as to not be made to feel badly.

To those who question conservative’s compassion and caring, I tell them the truth about what I do – hours and hours of volunteering at nursing homes and churches for senior citizens, fund raising for Child Protective Services, financially support 4-H, the high school band, food baskets for Christmas, donations to local charities, churches, and schools.  Perhaps this doesn’t impress the critics, but it isn’t meant to.  Do they assume if there was no government help and I found a family in need that I would cheerfully watch it starve to death?  What goes on in these people’s minds?  Anything?

Am I perfect?  Goodness, NO, I am NOT.  Is the critic perfect?  NO, he is not.

I feel I am compassionate.  Stupid, I am NOT.  Wasteful, I am NOT.  Naive, I am NOT.
I will do anything, go to almost any limit to help someone help himself, but when he expects me to do it all for him, I assume I am being scammed.

Chevrolet Corvair

I received this in an email and found some food for thought. I think others may too.

BODY OF EMAIL TEXT

The numbers I checked out are okay except I can’t verify the $1 Billion to run the program. I suspect that is way off base. There was an article that said there were 3 agencies involved in the program but the government does not specify if these were existing employees or new hires or a combination of both but that 79 employees were brought in to assist in the program. If only 80 employees were involved I estimated their wages at $91,000 annually (with 30% fringe benefits) or $45,500 for six months for a total cost $3.6 million. If you throw congress and their staff into the equation you are talking, for three months, about $27 million.


Sorry about the lengthy follow up. I just wanted to be sure I was comfortable with the numbers.

What is clear is we are throwing money at a problem without reasonable numbers to determine the game plan results.

A good example of how our Federal Government uses your tax dollars to fund one of their money/earth saving programs and then announces how successful it was!!!!


· A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

· A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

· So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons a year.

· They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that’s 224 million gallons a year.

· That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

· 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day’s US oil consumption.

· And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at $75/bbl.

· So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

. I billion of the package was for the Dept. of Transportation to administer the program.

. You don’t need to provide citizenship information, SS# etc. to qualify and Canadians and Mexicans can cross the border to cash in.

Edmonds (a highly thought of on line auto retailer, auto comparison web site.

Edmunds.com estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer will be about $20,000 per vehicle.


If all buyers have qualified for the higher $4,500 rebate, the “cash for clunkers” program will mean a marginal increase in car sales of 22,000 this quarter. $1 billion divided by 22,000 means a net cost to the government of $45,354 per car. (This is a cost estimate for the first $1 billion and does not consider the additional $2 billion.)

. Some clunker deals are being rejected by the government because they don’t meet all of the program’s specifications. For example, the trade-in must have been continuously insured for the 12 months prior to the clunkers transaction.

Car & Driver

. if you’re trading in a car that’s worth $3000, your net gain is only $500. Although if your car is worth $100, CFC couldn’t come at a better time.

people driving cheap old beaters are probably doing so because they can’t afford a new car. And $3500 doesn’t go far when the average transaction price of new cars hovers around $24K. The vouchers don’t apply toward the purchase of used cars, for which the majority of old beaters are traded in.

However, we hope these legislators don’t expect it to meaningfully help the domestic automakers. Many of the automobiles with fuel-economy ratings high enough to qualify for the vouchers come from Japan and Korea


Washington Post

Cash for clunkers’ effect on pollution? A blip (The article has been pulled from the post. This was the the title of the article.)


Wall Street Journal-Auto Repair Association comments.

The automotive after-market, a $250 billion industry that employs about 4.6 million people, could be among the biggest losers in the clunkers program, said Kathleen Schmatz, head of the Automotive After-market Industry Association: “It’s everybody from the Fortune 500 parts manufacturer all the way through the supply chain to the independent repair shop.

On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years.


U.S. News and World Report

Cash for Clunkers may have cut our oil consumption by less than 0.2 percent per year. It didn’t even save us a day’s worth of gas. (The numbers in this report are a little different

than the numbers I received in red above but are very close).

What’s more, some analysts wonder if Cash for Clunkers really created any new sales at all. It’s possible that the program simply caused some people to buy cars earlier than they otherwise would have. What good comes from adding to August sales if we subtract from future sales to do it?

Even if it brought in new buyers, that scenario might create its own economic problems. The program led hundreds of thousands of Americans, for instance, to take on new debt in the midst of a recession and an uncertain job market.

GaryNorth

“NO QUESTIONS, SIR!” by Gary North, at http://garynorth.com

Date 9/10/2009


I will now make an assertion:

You have no major questions about the economy, unemployment, retirement, inflation, deflation, depression, the possible collapse of the dollar, real estate, or gold.

Am I wrong? Then call my bluff. Send me a question. I’ll answer it.

If you are asking a career decision question, I will need the following information:

Your age Your location Your occupation Your retirement date Your #1 goal in life Deadline date

Then ask your question. Send you question (25 words or fewer) to this address:

garynorth@garynorth.com

Put the word “QUESTION” in the subject box.

I will answer all of them in future issues of this newsletter.

Back in 2005, I offered this service. For a year, I answered questions every other issue. This helped me find out what topics my readers were interested in. Well, a few of my readers, anyway. One-tenth of one percent of my mailing list sent a question. Yes, one out of 1,000.

Nobody else had any questions.

People do not ask questions. There are three main reasons for this.

1. They are the blind being led into a ditch by the blind.

2. They know the answers, and they don’t want to have them confirmed.

3. They just don’t care.

A SHAKY TRESTLE

Our problem is procrastination. Most of our lives are routine. We do not get too far away from a comfortable routine. Most of the time this routine works.

Some people call this being in a rut. Others call it staying on track. Sometimes the trestle is wobbling.

I have no objection to routines. My routine keeps me on track in my rut. But part of my routine is to look down the tracks to see if there is anything out of the ordinary.

Today, the economy is out of the ordinary. The trestle almost collapsed a year ago.

The question is: Will it collapse next time? Also, when might this next time be?

There are signs that the trestle is missing pillars. Every Friday afternoon, after the stock market closes, the FDIC closes five more banks. Investors shrug it off. “No problem.” Then, the next Friday, five more banks get closed. How long can this go on? Not much longer. The number of closings will increase. A man whose firm buys busted banks says that he expects 1,000 banks to close. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/32581463) “No problem.”

Then there is unemployment. Every month, the number of jobs declines by 200,000 or more. The rate of unemployment jumps. Investors immediately buy more shares. Why? Because they see unemployment as a cost-cutting tactic. Therefore, “corporate earnings will go up soon.” They don’t think that an S&P price-earnings ratio of 129 (August 31) is a danger signal. It has never been this high before. It has never reached 50 before. “No problem.” They think that profits will rise to bring the P/E back to something like 15, which would be a buy-and- hold signal.

Then there is the Federal deficit. It will end up on September 30 in the range of $1.6 trillion. The administration has offered an estimate of $9 trillion between now and 2019, meaning $900 billion a year.

Social Security is officially expected to go into the red in 2017. One Congressman thinks this could happen before the next Presidential election. He is on the House Committee for Financial Services.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/886.htm

When this happens, the Social Security Trust Fund will have to cash in some of its Treasury bonds in order to get money to send to people on the rolls. The Treasury will have to sell enough debt to the public (including the Federal Reserve System) to cover these transactions.

In 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Trust Fund went negative. It received less money from Medicare taxes than it spent. Thus, it had to sell its nonmarketable Treasury bonds back to the Treasury. Its press release admitted that the program was negative, but it spoke of the Trust Fund as solvent. It is solvent legally. It has government-issued IOU’s in it. But not for long.

The Trustees report that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will become insolvent earlier in 2019 than reported last year. HI expenditure growth is estimated to average 7.4 percent each year over the next 10 years, a higher rate than either Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Consumer Price Index (CPI) growth. This year the HI Trust Fund will spend more than its income, and from 2009 through 2017, about $342 billion will need to be transferred from the Federal treasury to cover beneficiaries’ hospital insurance costs.

That’s a nice, precise figure: $342 billion. The key words are these: “will need to be transferred from the Federal treasury.”

From the empty Federal Treasury.

“We need to act quickly and effectively to address Medicare’s fiscal health, including enacting the steps proposed in the President’s budget, which would postpone the insolvency date of the Part A trust fund for ten years,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. “Congress should also act immediately on the smart changes put forward by the Administration after last year’s funding warning, which would allow the program to be modernized and transformed.”

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/887.htm

I love this phrase: “Congress should also act immediately.”

Congress did nothing except run up the general deficit by another $750 billion (minimum) in October. Then it did it again this spring.

The Medicare hospital insurance program is bankrupt, but nobody in government except Ron Paul uses this word to describe government programs.

CALM IN THE EYE OF THE HURRICANE

Most people know little or none of this. They go through their daily routines. They are oblivious. The government has deliberately disguised these matters. The average citizen thinks that someone at the top has a solution. He cannot conceive of the possibility that experts who run the system are making things up as they go along.

Most of the time the system lumbers along. But then, once in a while — such as a year ago — the system grinds to a halt. Then the response is the same: create money and increase the Federal deficit. The average guy thinks this will solve the problem at no cost to him.

It feels like no cost, but the debt level rises. This year, the Federal deficit has added another $17,000 per household. No one seemed to care. Few even noticed.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/888.htm

As we watch these things going on around us, and when we perceive that those around us perceive none of this, we remain calm. The calm serenity of those around us calms us, as well. We see the trestle ahead. We see the engine disappear from sight. We suspect what is going to happen to us if we don’t get off the train. But no one around us is moving toward the exit. No one even seems to notice.

The problem is, the trestle has wobbled before. It has looked as though the engine has disappeared, but it always reappears on the far side of the trestle. So, we assume that this time it will not go over the edge into the blackness below.

But there are lots of trestles between here and our final destination.

We are calmed by the calm of those around us. They seem to know what they are doing. Yet they didn’t know a year ago. Henry Paulson was frantic. He nationalized the mortgage market on his own authority exactly one year ago. The markets remained calm. Within weeks, the bailouts of the big banks began. Goldman Sach’s rival, Lehman Brothers Holdings, went bust over a weekend. Merrill Lynch was swallowed by Bank of America.

The underlying causes of the problem, namely, toxic assets, have not gone away. There are lots more of them ahead of us: Alt-A mortgages (liars’ loans), option ARMs (folks too poor even to lie loans), and commercial real estate.

The re-sets will hit families that will not be able to qualify for loans. There are no more liar loans available. Lending standards have tightened over the last year and a half. The loans that were easy to get in 2007 and earlier are now ancient history. The re-sets will mean busted loans. They will end. Some of them will not be replaced. No one knows how many.

The lending agencies will not be able to hide these re-set loans. They die on schedule. They must be replaced. They will not be replaced. The lenders will have expired loans on their books.

The lenders have been playing “let’s pretend” with bad loans. They have not reported these loans as being in default. They have pretended that there is hope to get the owners paying again. A re-set mortgage does not offer wiggle room. Unless the regulators change the rules, these loans will have to be written down as soon as the re-set date arrives.

Example: my son-on-law bought a new home in a nice neighborhood. He bought a bank-foreclosed house in a bank- foreclosed development. It was $100,000 less expensive than a few months before. The houses sold fast because the bank priced the houses to sell. Recently, his next-door neighbor lost his job. He moved back to northern Illinois to get a seasonal job. His wife and family stayed behind. Now she has been laid off. This is not a poor neighborhood. It is middle class.

Unemployment climbs relentlessly. This is having fall-out effects on housing. The summer season for selling houses ended in late August. The reports on home sales will turn negative as the percentage of foreclosure sales increases in relation to total sales.

Yet people in the know are calm. The average Joe is calm until the guy across the street loses his job.

THE IMPLICATIONS

Have you sat down with a pencil and paper to outline your situation?

If you were in the market for a new mortgage, what could you present to the lender to prove that you are a low-risk debtor?

If you were in the market for a new job, how much wiggle room would your finances allow you?

Where are you vulnerable? Your job?

Where is your employer vulnerable?

People assume that corporate management knows what it is doing. Then they are amazed when they are told that their services are no longer needed.

Managers don’t warn people whose jobs are at risk. They hold out hope that a turnaround is imminent. They want to believe that it really is imminent. They don’t want to lose anyone because of a premature warning to him that his job is coming to an end. So, they don’t tell a targeted employee until there is just no wiggle room remaining.

Are you seeing this at your firm? Is there a drip- drip-drip phenomenon going on, the way it is with insolvent banks? If there is, what have you done to see to it that your job is safe? Anything new? If not, you should assume that your job is not safe.

What about your company’s market? Is it stabilizing? Talk to someone in sales. That’s where the first signs of recovery will occur.

Here is a strategy you can quietly use to assess your firm’s line of credit. Which bank is its main lender? You need to know. Once you know, check what the bank is paying on time deposits. If it’s 2% or higher, the bank is probably in trouble. It is offering rates way above the federal funds rate of 0.15% that the Federal Reserve is paying on excess reserves. It is buying time at a loss.

That bank is a candidate for an FDIC take-over. The problem then will be this: a new set of managers will be in charge of rolling over old loans. They will examine every business loan on the dead banks’ books. Your firm may be at risk along with the bank that supplies the credit.

The looming decline of commercial real estate threatens local banks. A recent “Wall Street Journal” article shows why.

In contrast to home loans — the majority of which were made by only 10 or so giant institutions — thousands of small and regional banks loaded up on commercial property debt. As a result, commercial real estate troubles would be even more widespread among the financial system than the housing woes. At the present, more than 3,000 banks and savings institutions have more than 300% of their risk-based capital in commercial real-estate loans.

http://GaryNorth.com/snip/889.htm

When these loans go bad, this will force more of these banks out of business. It will be crunch time for local lines of credit.

CONCLUSIONS

Does any of this raise some questions in your mind?

Have you thought through your answers?

If not, why not?

Questions can be asked here of Morality101 via Comment, or

to Author, garynorth@garynorth.com (subject: Questions)

President Obama on January 29,2009 signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Bill and made remarks that included “…..it’s bad for business to pay somebody less because of their gender or their age or their race or their ethnicity, religion or disability; and that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory, or footnote in a casebook. It’s about how our laws affect the daily lives and the daily realities of people: their ability to make a living and care for their families and achieve their goal.”

I don’t know a lot about this bill, I don’t know Lilly Ledbetter, and I don’t know why this legislation was passed, but I still have some thoughts I’d like to share.

All people working for the same person, doing the same job – same duties, same shifts, etc. – should be paid the same hourly wage.

I believe that for the most part, that is done. Everyone knows that two people don’t do anything identically, including their jobs. The person who does his job well and to the best of his ability is of greater value to the company than is a less dedicated employee, and I believe that most “discrimination” results from raises given to some, bonuses given to some, and some not receiving either . If that is the case, and discrimination raises its ugly head, the issue should get a really good inspection, and if it is found that the worker getting more was a more valuable employee, I think it should be the company’s decision to reward the more valuable employee without fear of any reprisal whatsoever. Was this bill truly the result of widespread discrimination against women, or was it a feel-good piece of legislation for the government to be able to toot its own horn at the expense of private businesses?

Let’s address the handicapped and employment. There are some jobs certain handicaps preclude their victims from doing, and this is not the fault of the business. If a handicapped person can handle the job as well as the next person without causing extra cost or stress in the workplace, he should be hired, if the employer wants him, at full pay, whatever it may be. There is no justification for paying less. If the employee sees he cannot adequately do the job, he should approach the business manager and ask about being placed somewhere else, and if not, he probably should resign and look for work he in fact can do. If the owner learns after hiring the handicapped person that he is not capable of doing the job, he is, in my opinion, well within his rights to fire the person or demote him as he didn’t live up to the agreement made at the time of hiring.

Let it be known I am NOT an employer, nor am I an employee. I feel that employers have for many years been treated terribly bad by their own government. Their government bows to unions in order to get votes while stabbing employers in the back. In addition to that , in order to get the minority vote, the handicapped vote, the women’s vote, the poor vote, our dear politicians have enacted some of the most convoluted self-serving “laws” imaginable hence, everything has become so politically incorrect that an employer probably has to carry a check list with him at all times to not offend this employee, that employee, etc.

We have had bad governments before, several times, but the one that exists today cannot be beaten when it comes to sleaze, pork, theft of public funds, irresponsible legislation that defies the US Constitution, and that ridicules and chastises the citizens of this country for expressing their views.

Let me close by just saying that I will be forever grateful that I am not an employer, not an entrepreneur, not in big business. Not because they are not noble, but because their government has incited so much hatred directed at them for no purpose other than to get a dirty, bloody vote that were I they, I’d do an Ayn Rand on them.

The Five Financial Shockwaves to Expect When China’s Yuan Swaps Places with the U.S. Dollar | Overseas Stock Markets. | Overseas Stock Markets.

This article is from Australia, for goodness sake!  It’s written more for the viewpoint of investors, but will apply to everyone.  Obviously Australians can see past the brainwashing better than we Americans!

Due to the continuing increases in the debt, now beyond any ability of America to pay, our vaunted dollar will most surely collapse.  This article says it will be replaced by the yuan of China; well maybe, maybe something else, but which doesn’t really matter.

The USA Fed and Treasury will be unable to maintain the charade forever.  Adding to the debt will absolutely result in severe inflation or hyperinflation of our dollar, and America will be forced to admit bankruptcy.  That will mean that all the funding for defense, collectivist shams, … everything, will cease.

The government and it’s welfare system will be unable to pay itself to send you more checks, because it is out of “real” money.  This will be the economic collapse, far worse than the Great Depression.

It will be plain hell falling into that abyss.  The many who have never learned to be self-sustaining. who have survived only via the welfare system, will have no means of buying food or services, no reserves, and will resort to being the thieving criminals they have always been.  There will be severe shortages of everything as producers fail and their goods and services disappear.

The bright light at the end of that tunnel can be the opportunity for, either Anarchy (NO RULER) or a new constitution, which severely and absolutely limits the powers of government and it’s force upon the people.

We must return to Reason and assert our true Right to Life.  Either we get it together at that time, or humanity, if it survives at all, will return to the Stone Age.  All the alternative scenarios are too horrible to even think about.

This article, while oriented to investors, holds much which must be grasped by we everyday folk.  Understanding it will not be enough, for each of us must act to prepare for the events ahead.

Failure to use your mind and your Reason may well mean that you cannot survive.

ONLY LIBERTY IS MORAL.  Force and Sacrifice of collectivism is the immoral cause of this collapse, and if one fails to choose liberty, humanity can well disappear.  The leftist brain-dead altruists are not your friends, they are your mortal enemy.

See it now, or you’ll see it later the hard way. Ditch them!

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Refuting “Economic Suicide”

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. These are the words of Milton Friedman in A Monetary History of the United States. The meaning of those words is that no matter what, inflation is a function of the amount of money available. Inflation occurs when more money is introduced into the supply. When this happens, the real value of the money goes down. This is the reality. The face value perception is that things begin to “cost more.” Physical things actually still hold their same value, it is the money, due to inflation, that has lost its value, meaning that it takes more of that money to buy the same thing. Nowhere was the phenomenon of inflation, and indeed hyperinflation, more evident than in the Weimar Republic, where we find the famous historical incident of it costing a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.

I bring up a brief discussion on the nature of inflation in response to possibly one of the most foolish articles I have seen lately. At Seeking Alpha, Henry Bee writes that Auditing the Fed is Economic Suicide. In an incredible feat of intellectual gymnastics, Bee lays down the accusation that somehow the public knowing what is happening with the money supply will be the end of the free market:

The free market understands that auditing the fed is a very dangerous line to cross. If crossed, U.S. inflation will likely skyrocket over the next decade to unseen levels. U.S. economy tanks. Bond investors lose money as interest rates rise. Stock investors earn negative real return as equity risk premium rises and aggregate PE ratio tank. The US Dollar erodes due to higher domestic inflation relative to foreign inflation. Gold and commodity prices rise.

Perhaps we can forgive Mr. Bee for being Canadian, and therefore not understanding the history of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy in the United States. Or perhaps we can direct him to the aforementioned Milton Friedman, or maybe Murray Rothbard, or F.A. Hayek, for some simple education on monetary policy. Remember, “gold and commodity prices rise” only in terms of the value of the money itself. They are physical, tangible things. They always retain the same value, and it is the value of the money itself that changes due to inflation. After beginning with the Vault, Bee continues and moves on to the Balance Beam:

How Does Auditing the Fed Cause Inflation?

Inflation is caused by a central bank that loses control of its money supply. There are two ways that a politically compromised central bank can lose control of its money supply.

I’ll interrupt Mr. Bee while he’s still doing some of his simple posing, and before he really gets going with the tumbling. Inflation is caused by a central bank that loses control of its money supply? I think not. Remember, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Inflation is caused by the introduction of more money into the supply. Who introduces more money into the supply? The central bank. The Federal Reserve is our central bank. Incidentally, Mr. Bee might be interested to know that since its inception, the Federal Reserve has practiced nothing but inflationary monetary policy and, in about 100 years, has managed thereby to devalue the dollar by approximately 97%. It would seem then, that the Federal Reserve itself has been the cause of inflation all along. But I will allow Mr. Bee to continue:

Road to Inflation #1: Repeating the Political Cycle

When the central bank is not independent, politicians have historically pumped up the money supply (for temporary economic boost) shortly before an election to buy votes with a lower unemployment rate. After the election, the effects wear off, returning the economy to its natural rate of unemployment but at a higher inflation rate than before. Because it is hard to fight off inflation quickly, by the time the next election rolls around the economy has not been squeezed back to its original inflation rate. Politicians pump up the money supply again, this time from a higher base inflation. As this cycle repeats itself, the central bank loses control of the money supply.

Bee makes a good point here in defending the separation of church bank and state. However, akin to a balance beam backflip, Bee here asserts that an audit of Federal Reserve will allow politicians direct control of the money supply. Since the discussion surrounding HR 1207 has been one of simply getting a look at the books, Bee’s arguments, while valid conceptually, are unfounded in reality. Indeed, both Barney Frank and Ron Paul have agreed with Bee’s own argument, and intend to be disciplined in making the audit one that trails real time by enough that exactly what Bee purports to be the danger will not happen.

That said, I would like to ask Mr. Bee a simple question. What makes you suppose, Mr. Bee, that the Federal Reserve is not already unduly influenced by politicians? As I have explained in the past, the Fed is largely a conglomeration of private banking institutions, overseen by a Board of Governors, headed by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, currently Ben Bernanke. The Board of Governors is a seven-member panel appointed by the President of the United States. This means, Mr. Bee, that seven people who, through their appointment, answer to the President, and the President alone, control all that is our monetary policy, all that is our money supply, and therefore all that is our inflation. If Ben Bernanke and six others answer only to the President, how exactly is the Federal Reserve not influenced by politics in the manner you suggest already?

Bee goes on to discuss a second road to inflation:

Road to Inflation #2: Financing Government Spending

A central bank that lacks independence from politicians makes it tempting for the government to finance an inappropriately large portion of its spending through printing money. A central bank that promises to finance too much government spending also loses control of the money supply.

Now honestly, there is only just so much we can forgive of Mr. Bee for his being Canadian. This really represents a complete lack of attention to current events. Inside of a four month period, the Federal Reserve just financed a $700 billion bailout of the US Financial industry through TARP, an effort, mind you, that resulted in all that money going to the noble purpose of, well, nobody really knows, followed by the $800 billion stimulus package. Based on Barney Frank’s admission in the video found in this post, Ben Bernanke indicated to him when the bailouts began with AIG, that he had $800 billion to play with. Well that covered TARP. The only logical inference then is that the Fed printed the rest to finance the stimulus. Our central bank is already following this road, Mr. Bee. The only question is, how much have they inflated the money supply?

Well the answer from the Fed has been, to this point, simple. Silence.

When seven men who answer to one man control the entire money supply, and hold no accountability, they can do as they please. Adding a check to this highly centralized power by making their actions transparent to the public cannot be a bad thing.

This morning I received an email from American Future Fund.  It is something most taxpayers will want to read.  It’s chilling.

This is the body of the email:
Last week, we told you how Obama’s tanking approval ratings were hanging like an anvil tied around the ObamaCare legislation, dooming it to a near-certain failure. So, the liberals were quick to adapt, and called it KennedyCare with the hopes of capitalizing on all of the good will and around-the-clock media coverage that engulfed the airwaves for the past few days.
So, why are congressional liberals so hell-bent on passing a wildly unpopular, government-run health care program? Because to them, it’s not even about health care anymore!
House Minority Leader John Boehner has uncovered explosive new revelations. You won’t believe what’s contained within the bill – it’s LOADED with special interest projects!
So, the liberals are desperate to pass their bill so as to bring home more power to the unions, trial lawyers and THIS:

Page 95; Section 205 – The bill directs the “Health Choices Commissioner” to conduct outreach activities, including through the use of outside organizations such as ACORN and others, to reach out and enroll exchange-eligible individuals and employers.
ACORN?! Unreal. Had enough?
How about this little nugget?

Page 53; Section 154 – The bill ensures that the new federal health care program will set a floor (but not a ceiling) for health care negotiations for unionized employers. The legislation cannot be construed to excuse them from good-faith bargaining over health care benefits. Furthermore, it will not permit unionized employers to unilaterally drop health coverage of its employees in favor of shunting them into the government-run plan or simply paying the penalty associated with not offering health care benefits to workers.
Can you believe it?!
With this bill, the liberals are intent on giving everyone power EXCEPT the taxpayers!
While you and I work each day, diligently paying the taxes that will foot this bill, the liberals in Congress have turned this bill into a playground for labor unions!
There’s more – this time it’s a nice kickback for trial lawyers:


Pages 533-551; Section 1412
– The bill requires the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct a study examining: “(A) the extent to which corporations that own or operate large numbers of nursing facilities … are undercapitalizing such facilities; (B) the effects of such undercapitalization on quality of care, including staffing and food costs, at such facilities; (C) options to address such undercapitalization, such as requirements relating to surety bonds, liability insurance, or minimum capitalization.” This provision primarily benefits trial lawyers who sue nursing homes.
Have you had enough yet?
This is what the liberals envision as KennedyCare. That’s some legacy to leave him, huh?
No matter how you feel about Sen. Kennedy, naming a pork-laden, special interest bill in his name is just plain wrong.
Yet, congressional liberals will stop at nothing until they can pay back their valued constituencies, no matter what the price – paid by YOU, the taxpayer.
Enough is enough. It’s time to put an end to Obama/Kennedy/GovernmentCare for GOOD.
Thanks for your support of American Future Fund Political Action
Tim Albrecht
AFF Political Action

What with the Obama Administration’s frantic push for socialized medicine, a lot of people have come up with some unique ideas to justify its passage.  One unique idea that strikes me is the old canard:  The federal government is responsible for the “General Welfare” of its citizens, and having the government provide for the health care is in keeping with that responsibility.

I am in perfect harmony with our Constitution, and, yes, it does charge the federal government to insure its citizens “General Welfare”.    BUT…..

I accessed the CONSTITUTIONAL DICTIONARY
(see  http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html)

I searched for ‘General Welfare’, and here are the results of that search:

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

NOTE: (according to the Constitutional Dictionary)
Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is NOT the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think people do not understand much about our government because our politicians have denigrated and misused words and meanings so often and so vocally that they have created a populace that is totally confused.  The sad part is that, in many cases, the politicians’ misuse of words is NOT deliberate, and this leads me to believe we elect some very, very dumb people to represent us and write laws for us, all of which deny us liberties we would otherwise be enjoying.  Please do not misunderstand when I say dumb.  I am not referring to education – I am referring mostly to character and sincerity which will lead anyone running for public office to learn the Constitution backwards and forwards.