Posts Tagged ‘finance’

buckle up.

Monday, October 6th, 2008

I remembered reading this transcript back in May before I moved back up here to Searcy, when I was still just a fledgling conspiracy theorist:

Here’s the thing I want you to watch for. I want you to watch for a sudden fall in the price of oil. If you see oil spike downward to about $70 a barrel, $80 a barrel, if it goes from $110 to $80 a barrel, look out. It’s counterintuitive but you have to remember that the price of oil is based on futures and so what could possibly happen, a bad sign. If it drifts back down slowly over a period of time, that’s good. But if it suddenly drops down, what that means is that the conventional wisdom for the people who buy oil futures, these are the big — you know, there’s a lot of money. These people who are buying oil futures, what they’re saying is the economy around the world is going to slow down so much that people won’t be able to drive or fly as much as they have had to. They won’t be able to afford the oil or the gasoline or the diesel. So demand will go way, way down for oil. That’s what they will be betting on.

If you read the whole transcript, there’s further exposition. I don’t necessarily agree that we need to be hoarding food and gasoline like Glenn Beck does, but let me just ask you this — anyone noticed a severe reduction in gas prices lately? How about the fact that oil, which passed the $100/barrel mark a long time back is now, all of the sudden, under $90/barrel?

Interesting.

a world without debt

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

matrix system failure

I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world without you — a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries — a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.Neo

If you’ve managed to stick with me thus far, congratulations. I expect this will be my last big “economy lecture” for some time. If you’re just tuning in, I suggest reading my previous posts on this subject. At the very least, please do yourself a favor and watch Money as Debt. The key is that you understand how money is created in the U.S. and how the fractional reserve lending system works. I will continue under the assumption that you have a grasp of those concepts. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them in the comments and I will address them.

After I condemned the bailout as a disastrous plan and flooded Facebook with Ron Paul videos, many of my intelligent friends asked me some important questions:

Matthew: “Do you think that shrinking credit is not a problem? … it is likely that most of you were only able to go to college b/c of the system of subsidized loans. Do you now oppose the existence of that system? I mean, do you realize that if the credit market fails, then one casualty might be school loans? … Do you think that an ad hoc bailout with little benefit to taxpayers is a better alternative to a systemic bailout where taxpayers may benefit?”

Daniel M: “Where do you go from here? Do we allow the stock market to continue to rise a little and then fall into a deeper downward spiral until most Americans have lost all of their savings, thereby depleting the economy even more? What is the solution? … I am not sure how the free market can make a course correction when it seems to be in a gradual (but ever growing) tailspin … credit is needed to buy these necessities of life … Lending/borrowing is a necessary part of our market economy.”

Daniel L: “I know that borrowing/lending is a necessary evil. The big issue isn’t as much the borrowing/lending itself, but the overuse/abuse of it. If this were something that could be fixed, it would’ve been already. I think we’ve gotten ourselves to the point where we have to “hit rock bottom” to reset this scenario.”

Jeana: “if everyone just stops freaking out, won’t the economy and market just gradually balance itself back out?”

Bryan: “who does this most directly affect? the constituents who are opposing this bill shout “WALL STREET,” thinking that these executives with their golden parachutes are the ones who will bear the brunt of this fall. they couldn’t be more wrong … the people who will pay for this will be baby boomers … now, at 65 years of age, they can either sell their homes (at record low home values) or find a new job.”

“and remember: this isn’t just US citizens we’re talking about. because of Ron Paul’s beloved Free Trade, the countries of the world are all tied up in this mess together.”

“on merely a tidbit of news that congress might actually reach an agreement before the apocalypse, the stock market rallied significantly. yes, $700B adds to our $10T national debt … i’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it’s better than a world-wide financial meltdown where my 401K becomes worth nothing at all.”

Philip: “In free market enterprise, folks have to be able to borrow money. What’s the alternative?”

The fact is undeniable… we live in an economy that is addicted to credit. Daniel was right; small businesses can hardly start up without either selling stock (borrowing from individuals) or getting a bank loan (borrowing from a corporation). You cannot purchase a house without credit. You need a loan. You cannot go to school without credit. You need a loan. Worse than that, you can’t obtain credit for those things or even rent a car unless you establish credit with something smaller.

Because we use fractional reserve lending, the banking industry literally can create unlimited amounts of credit, as long as those loans are mostly paid back. (It is mathematically impossible for all debt to be repaid; the amount of debt exceeds the money supply, and new money can only be created with more debt.) When loans are not paid back, it limits their ability to create money. Usually, interest from the rest of the loans being paid covers the loss, and they still earn a nice profit. When lots of loans default simultaneously, we run into the problem known as a credit crunch, and that is what we’re seeing today. When you have an economy addicted to credit and the source begins to dry up, there are withdrawals. When you take drugs away from an addict, they often feel as though they will die if they can’t have more. We are terrified that if our credit source dries up, our economy will die. While it is true that the loss of easy credit will cause us pain and discomfort, it will not kill us. More of the drug — more easy credit and inflation — will eventually do so.

The Federal Reserve and the government have been using credit to prop up this system for a long time. However, even they recognize that too much credit in the system will increase inflation beyond the point where people will continue to accept paper money as payment for anything. Hence, they have resorted to obtaining funds in a different way; not through taxing the American people, but through borrowing from the governments of other countries. We provide them with IOUs, and they provide us with oil, food, electronics, or whatever else we wish to buy. Those IOUs are denominated in U.S. dollars, and that is what constitutes the national debt you always hear about on the news. Most of it is currently held by Japan and China. This increasingly large bailout package will be paid for by borrowing even more from other countries.

Somehow, people forget that the consequences of debt are extrapolated even for a huge account like ours. However, there is no such thing as Chapter 13 on a national scale where we get to start over and keep our home. When a government goes bankrupt, other nations will simply stop lending it money. When our credit becomes so poor that other governments will no longer lend to us, an even greater consequence will accompany that move. They will no longer accept our dollars at all.

“We’ve had a huge debt for a long time,” some will undoubtedly argue. They’d be right. Why is our credit so good with other nations, exactly? There are several reasons, including our military influence. More important than that though is an agreement we struck up with world governments in 1941, near the end of World War II, called the Bretton Woods system. The world governments agreed to use the U.S. Dollar as the reserve currency, thereby guaranteeing that most trade would rely on our dollar. In return, we promised to allow foreign asset holders to convert their dollars into gold on demand at a fixed rate. This worked out very well until our dollar began to lose value due to our over-extension of credit. Many asset holders began to demand their dollars in gold, and we had what amounted to a run on the U.S. Treasury stores. In 1971, Richard Nixon disallowed this conversion to gold, thereby ending the Bretton Woods agreements and ensuring that the dollar was not backed by anything of inherent value. He staged this suspension as temporary, but it has not been lifted to this day, nearly 40 years later. Since then, the dollar has continued to lose value, despite Nixon’s promises. Because the system was already in place, other governments continued to use the dollar even without gold backing. That practice is coming to a close. Once we create enough money through credit extension that these foreign governments no longer see value in our huge debt to them, they will stop lending and begin to demand repayment.

Because of the bad debts in the system, many banks may no longer extend credit and some have faced runs on their deposit stores. The proposed bailout would authorize more borrowing for the purpose of extending more credit, which will further inflate our money supply. This will lead to other nations refusing to accept dollars as payment and refusing to lend to us any more. When that happens, our currency will be valueless, since most of the actual resources and goods in this country are coming from outside. Imagine what happens when China stops sending us all the cheap goods we buy from them. Can you think of many clothes, toys, household items, or nearly anything that is not made in China? And what happens when Japan and Korea cease sending us their vehicles and electronics? Now you can see the problem. Few real goods inside our nation and a huge monetary supply will translate into a worthless dollar, even within our own boarders. The greatest fears expressed above about the lack of credit will come to pass in a much harsher way if we consent to inflate the money supply as this bill requests. It will delay the current crisis for a short time, and then bring about an even more serious crisis from which there will be no quick escape.

One option at that point would be to accept a long-lasting depression in which America must begin to produce its own goods and services and severely reduce our standard of living. That could cause civil unrest and political radicalism, or it could pass peacefully, assuming other nations leave us alone during this time. There is no way to predict those factors. Another would be to look at a completely new currency system and attempt to start over at the bottom of the chain. If you think that unlikely, perhaps you should google the word, “Amero.”

Many of you have asked for alternatives. I would like to propose one here. Let us examine what would happen if we just allowed the unstable banks to fail and did not inject our system with additional credit. Banks would fail, yes. There would be a recession, yes. That is what we are already seeing now. People would not be able to get loans, and the assets (houses, cars, etc.) would have to be liquidated in some manner. They might be sold at a low price, destroyed, or used by the government to aid the poor and those on welfare. Either way, the banks lose out and many go out of business. Some jobs would disappear, while others would be created. Many more people would work in factories, industry, and farming. Less people would retire early. Less would go to college. More would sell their big screen televisions and pay off their debts so that they could begin saving for the future. Folks, someone has to do these jobs. We need clothing, food, and textiles. Long have we enjoyed other nations doing that for us while we borrowed from them to pay for it. That cannot last, nor should it. The people in charge of those countries sell their citizens into slavery for their own gain, and we are the buyers. Do you doubt the leaders of our own nation would do the same when it’s time to turn the tables? They are doing so already, and this bailout is merely moving that process along.

No one wants to face a serious recession, but the good news is that it wouldn’t last that long. After the government finally stopped attempting to spend more money to make jobs through projects like FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority, the Great Depression ended within a year. Our own recession would not be so severe nor last so long if we allowed the market to correct itself now. So many are worried about the stock market and their 401K plans, but such changes are also temporary. Once companies have actual capital and are not experiencing major debt, they will be free to increase in value and once again, and investors will lend their money with confidence. Even after the House blocked the last bill, the market dropped less than 800 points. In percentage terms, this does not even make the top ten list of worst adjustments. The numerical figure is misleading because it has been inflated along with the monetary supply. The sky will not fall without this bailout.

Finally, for those willing to hear it, I’d like to propose a second option. Once this correction takes place (it will eventually, with or without the bailout), why would we want to become slaves to the bank again? Why should those who simply manage money be master over those who produce the goods and services that make our country wealthy? Do you really want to re-enter massive debt for a few comforts? Whether we are called slaves or not, we remain under the control of lenders until our debt is repaid. When you consider that they lend without even having the money to give us in the first place, this is even more sickening.

The first step toward freedom is to sever our relationship with central banks and fractional reserve lending. In our case, that means dismantling the Federal Reserve. They are not elected, they have no oversight, nothing stops them from creating unlimited credit, and they have vast wealth gained simply by manipulating symbols of value and enslaving others in debt. I cannot support that, and I doubt anyone would wish to do so. At this level of freedom, debt would still exist, but lenders could only lend money if they actually had it on deposit to lend. In this way, they risk their own assets first and then those of depositors if someone should default. They are thus encouraged to make responsible loans and to work with debtors to salvage the debt if there are problems in repayment.

The second step would be to abolish interest on loans, known by many people as usury. Most world religions condemned usury, some even ascribing the death penalty for those who took interest. What if private corporations, friends, or even the government, lent out money without interest? For one thing, far fewer loans would be held, and less people would be in debt, forced to use their income to pay back a lender. This is a good thing. Second, loans would not be given for frivolous entertainment or wasteful spending. Accountability keeps people out of debt. Of course the new American dream is to make lots of money and to “let your money work for you.” We need to re-examine whether this is even ethical.

The final step would be to do away with debt altogether, relying on the good will of people and the protection of the government to help care for the poor. In this way, no one is ever in debt, and hard work is rewarded.

The very rich will usually reject this proposition; it is not in their interest. The bankers and certainly the Federal Reserve owners will reject it. It relieves them of control and power.

A world without debt may not be likely, but we can certainly avoid allowing our lending institutions to control us and to lend out money that does not exist. With a vote on this bill planned for today, we are able to tell them how this will begin. We are also able to remain in our current position and march toward economic chaos.

Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

Clinton on Economics, Part Two

Wednesday, October 1st, 2008

In part one, we discussed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s initial plan to bail out failing banks, former President Bill Clinton’s suggestion to place a moratorium on foreclosures until they can be manually reviewed, and finally, what foreclosure really means for banks and for the economy. Now, let’s watch the second half of Clinton’s interview:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Clinton Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

This section of the interview is occupied with the upcoming election rather than the financial crisis at hand. Nonetheless, I’d like to focus on a couple of statements before we move on. Clinton pointed out that many voters will support the candidate with whom they most identify. Staunch supporters are not really the audience here, but rather those who are either not committed or not voting at all. He was so right when he said that those people will “love” Obama if they think he loves them. I could write a sermon here, but I’ll save it for Sunday. Suffice it to say that Clinton has successfully described what motivates most humans to love, including Christians (and it’s not necessarily a bad thing).

Around the 2:00 mark, Stewart pointed out that our nation is divided culturally, with the “left demonizing the right for being narrow-minded and the right demonizing the left for elitism.” I’m seeing a fair amount of this, to some degree or another, even among the religious blogging community. You’ve got Obama viewed as a socialist and a proponent of abortion from the right, and McCain viewed as a harbinger of totalitarianism and a warmonger from the left. My only point here is that Stewart is right: we are a severely divided nation, ideologically. Unfortunately, neither of these candidates is addressing the important issues when it comes to power structures in our nation and fiscal policy. All the left/right debate is serving as a supreme distraction from these essential problems.

Last time, I promised we’d discuss how Congress is involved with the bailout situation. If you’ve been reading this blog recently, then you know that a bailout bill was negotiated between the Democrats and the Republicans and placed before the House of Representatives for a vote. It was expected, at least by President Bush, that this measure would pass. Amazingly, it ended up being blocked by a narrow margin. At this point a modified bill is being presented to the Senate for a vote today. At the moment, it seems the biggest change is to increase the FDIC insurance from $100K to $250K. I can’t seem to figure out what difference that makes in terms of the bill itself. I might be wrong, but do any of you have over $100K stored in a bank account somewhere that you’re really concerned about? I certainly don’t. No, friends, this is just smoke and mirrors — a sad attempt to divert attention from the American public’s massive opposition to this bill.

Just so we understand the role of Congress here, all they are doing is determining whether the U.S. Government will take financial responsibility for defaulted or risky debt in order to allow commercial banks to lend us more money. What Congress is unable to do, at the moment, is to keep the Federal Reserve from pumping more credit into the system on their own through pure inflation and international borrowing. Indeed, they have already done so to the tune of $630 billion and continue to do so on a regular basis. Let’s remember, the Federal Reserve IS NOT a branch of the U.S. Government, and they have no oversight whatsoever in terms of their own activities. The only reason Congress is voting is to determine whether these private banks that comprise the Federal Reserve will be on their own on this one, or whether Uncle Sam will underwrite the bill.

President Bush is convinced of the necessity for strong government intervention to “save” our ailing economy and the banks that are failing as a result. He was none too happy when the bailout bill failed in the House on Monday. It is my personal opinion that the Federal Reserve and those who benefit from it have fed him the notion that our economy will fail without this measure. They might even believe it themselves. Obviously, stock market investors do, because the NASDAQ dropped over 700 points in a single day as a result. That is the largest numerical drop (though not the largest percentage drop by a long shot). Even now, with the Senate poised to vote on a version of this bill today, informal polls are not indicating strong support by the public:

As you may have discerned by now, I disagree strongly that government intervention is necessary or wise in this case. Many intelligent friends (and others around the country) have been asking what we do in lieu of this bill, and how we can survive if something is not done. Most people recognize that there is a problem, but few know what we can do to ameliorate it. Even now, with the Senate poised to vote on a version of this bill today, informal polls are not indicating strong support by the public.

fox pollcnn poll

I am prepared to propose an alternative solution, and I plan to have it up later on today. Stay tuned, and as always, I’m looking forward to your comments and questions.

Bush’s thoughts on the legislative process

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

I couldn’t believe it when I heard this:

It matters little what path a bill takes to become law; what matters, is that we get a law.

I can’t believe we’ve been so silly as to subscribe to a legislative process… after all, it is complicated — and it can be contentious! Maybe we should just have a king instead. Then we could avoid this complicated process and bypass voting altogether!

Well done, Congress.

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

This is the letter of thanks I sent to my Congressman, Jeff Miller for voting against the recent financial bailout bill. If your House representative voted against this bill and you agreed, please write or call them and let them know you stand by them. Those who voted against this bill are going to be feeling particularly vulnerable right now because of the market’s reaction. Make no mistake, there is nothing we can do to avoid some level of recession at this point. However, the vote today prevented us from exacerbating the situation, and I was pleasantly surprised. Who knew you could get fired up about Congress?

Congressman Miller,

THANK YOU!!! I just want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the stand you made today with your constituents. You made the right call. I believe what you have done today prevented us from throwing gasoline on an already burning building. Please continue to stand your ground if this bill is recycled in some other form, and I will continue to support you however I can. Thank you again!

Sincerely,

Lloyd Taylor