Morality101.net

Yesterday’s news of the oil producing nations upping the production output of oil, in order to avoid economic calamity comes as no surprise to this author. After all when the looters are running the show, what else can you expect.

What are we to make of this?

Who is really in control?

Is this any kind of a free market economy, or what do you call it, when a few control the means of production?

There are those of you out there who believe, we live in a wonderful world of supply and demand, when actually it should be called corporate fixes, and control.

We need more than a tax strike to change the tyranny we live under!

We need a strike against the very system that controls us. Stay tuned for further developments, as this author proposes a peaceful non violent strike against the very economic machine that enslaves and uses us like so much grease on a chain.

One day you will realize this is the only way to change our destiny of subjugation, and misery.

Everyone seems to want to point fingers at George Bush, and his friends for the current situation over energy. No one seems to want to remember back in the 1980′s, when our then political leaders, and noted scientists, industrialists, etc, were warning us that one day the world of supply and demand, would far outstrip, the available stockpile and also fields of oil on our planet.
That day has come, and even though there may be some shenanigans going on between commodity traders and such, in this so called free-market, the new global market, and new emerging industrial nations, are competing directly, with the U.S. for oil, on the new global economy.
It is a culmination of three economic factors driving the price of oil. A weak dollar, competition from the global economic community, and less of the product to divide amongst a growing world with an insatiable appetite for oil.
You may remember last year when a new car was produced for approximately $1500 per unit, in south east asia, which according to last reports, is being bought at a faster pace than can actually be produced.
Now everyone in China is buying a car, and also need gasoline to drive it, and are adding to the hydrocarbons proliferating in our atmosphere, which in turn is causing a much faster rate of polar warming.
The U.S. at one time consumed 60% of the worlds energy, now it is down to 40%, and yet we still cannot get enough of the black gold to run our machinery, even though as a more modern technocal industrial nation, our use of oil is less wasteful, the demand is still far greater than the supply.
All of the leaders of industry say now $4 a gallon for gas is here to stay, and if there is any kind of interruption in the flow of the supply, could really climb to $7 a gallon overnight.
As a nation for far to long we have been putting off the inevitable, which is less of the oil to go around for everyone, thereby driving the price up, to supply and demand, as our so-called free-market adapts to the situation.
No one has an answer to the high price, except for posturing and more posturing.
Of course eventually, someone with an idea will come up with a new method of energy production, or we will destro ourselves in a n attempt to control what we need for our own end.
There are far too many humans on this planet, using way too much of the available resources left. Either we come back to common sense and start controlling our populations, producing a much more efficient rapid transit system, and one other thing, start to consider the use of nuclear power to meet our energy needs.
The development of alternative sources of energy is just in its infancy, and will eventually take off given time and technological development, but not in the next 5 years and until then, this energy shortfall may well cause an economic depression the likes of which will make the so called dirty 30′s a picnic, comparred to what may come……

at Yahoo! Answers: Question in regards to the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 and is, therefore, a creature of Congress. The President of the United States nominates members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, subject to confirmation by the Senate. However, the Federal Reserve is basically free to pursue monetary policy independent of Congress or the President. Should the Federal Reserve remain independent of the President and Congress or should the President and Congress control monetary policy? Why?

I wrote this answer, but by the time I’d finished the Q had been withdrawn.  No problem, I’d rather have it here on morality101 anyway.

Our problems with the Federal Reserve stem from, perhaps from it’s very existence, but certainly from it’s freedom to manipulate the money supply at will.

Over the last couple of years prior, in an effort to slow down inflation, the Fed caused interest rates to rise.  Among other effects, those naive souls who had taken Adjustable Rate Mortgages found their payments rising beyond their means, which caused foreclosures to increase perhaps six-fold, which resulted in mortgage bankers losing liquidity (e.g. Bear-Sterns, there will be more), which resulted in too many homes on the market, which resulted in falling home prices and the virtual shutdown of the construction industry.  All these were factors in resulting in yet another recession.

So during 2008, the Fed switched gears and lowered the discount rate several times, which bailed out illiquid mortgage bankers, which increased available mortgage money, which is enabling home buyers to purchase homes (foreclosed or otherwise) at better prices with lower loan rates again.

The whole game is predictable.  One needs understand only the very basics of economics (supply and demand applies) in order to predict the future maneuvers of the Fed.  I

In due course, the Fed will cycle us back to even greater inflation.  Inflation WILL be greater because of the rapidly increasing national debt, caused by the politicians voting for war, socialist schemes, subsidies, “stimulus” etc etc ad nauseum.  All are  passed by our politicians despite not having the money to pay for them.  Thus the congress routinely raises the national debt limit so they can borrow the funds, the Fed makes the bookkeeping entries creating more “money” (federal reserve NOTES), and like magic, it’s all a done deal.  Reason enough not to give politicians control of monetary policy, right?

Nothing in all this should be construed as my justifying the continuing existence of the Fed.  If, for the time being at least,  the Fed continues, then congress must cause the Fed to cease  manipulation of the money supply and forbid expansion of the money supply in beyond indexes of population, income, GDP and/or such other indexes as may are appropriate.  Perhaps we will rediscover that applied economics actually has some value in our world for this indexing chore.  Natural market forces will provide the monetary stability which has been absent from the beginning of the Fed.

There are many proponents for going back to the gold standard, but I’m not convinced that is necessary.  You may want to check out as a free-market alternative to the dollar – the Valun.

A question posted at Yahoo! Answers:

Is the USA the capital of greed?
“I can not believe anyone need as much $ as our CEOs.”

My response (slightly edited):

Since when is it about “need”?  I had hoped to see total demise of Karl Marx and Keynes. Googling [USA "capital of greed"] brought only about 20 returns, none stating the USA, a couple of pointers for each of New York, Las Vegas, and London, and one muddled article which I think meant to accuse Australia.So the answer to your question is “NO”. However, it appears you were trying to make some issue about “greed”. I’ve heard such jabber too often, which is my reason for taking this on.

So Googling [definition greed] returned an amazing 405,000 entries; the best (to me) appearing within the first 50 was
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no set definition of greed. From economists to ecologists, from pundit to pop culture, greed means different things. …”. In other entries “excessive” appeared regularly. Excessive would be merely a matter of opinion.

It seems a good bet whatever CEO you had in mind does not opine that his gains are excessive. If his company is among the many grossing a billion per year, a CEO earning a million is receiving only 0.1 percent of that gross. Not much for having total responsibility for the huge tasks of production, accounting, marketing, R&D, thousands of workers and staff…. A company of such size needs the best CEO it can buy, but must bid against all other companies to get that best CEO, who must compete against other candidates for that position. Once again the law of supply and demand applies.

So these CEO’s must be the very best they can be. It’s not about greed, it’s about value. There’s nothing stopping you from striving for the same, so what’s the problem?

My http://morality101.net and it’s blogger might give you some good insight into all this. It’s all about the moral basis necessary to your rights and freedom; greed is nowhere in that scenario.