About Me

Name: Forgive My...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Being Realistic

I realize that many here at Townhall are Republican first and Conservative second (I got mostly criticism for refusing to hold my nose for McCain.) 

I get a lot of flak for being a no-compromise Conservative who doesn't think "realistically".  According to them, I'm responsible for Obama being in the White House.  It's ok.  I understand the "united we stand, divided we fall" principle.  But I don't put tradition into that mix as a trump card.  Some things you don't want to change, like meatloaf-Thursday.  But some things can change like when Tevia allowed Tseitel to arrange her own marriage.

And on that note I'd like to say, - first to Conservatives who no longer compromise their votes (hold their noses), and second to Republicans (pardon all the generalities), I'd like to point out that, as much as the left are denouncing and ridiculing Tea Parties and the rest of conservative America, they are truly hoping we get enough traction for a third party to split the Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't encourage anyone to stay Republican and have to put up with Michael Steele scolding you for having been "unrealistic".  No, I would say the opposite, if we can not (near completely) gut the Republican party and replace them with candidates who will begin rolling back the socialist and pseudo-socialist policies of the last century, then we should replace the actual party itself.

It's the damn Ross Perot effect that has me worried.  Conservatives cast the most votes in 1992, but the liberals won office because 20% of the total vote went to Ross Perot.  I know there are some who'll say we should just stick to the Republican party and just spice it up a bit.  Hire a promoter, put on a hat, change the lighting, maybe sing a few more patriotic songs.  That's what they are planning to do already.  Frankly, as a Conservative it insults the hell out of me.  Well, I'd rather give blood through my tongue.  If so many believe we should be "realistic" and keep the party strong, the answer from Republicans to Conservatives should not go "compromise, compromise, yeaaaaah compromise!"  No, it should be "help us clean house here."

The Republican Platform should be rewritten.  It should not consist of fourty-four pages of "We believe", "We affirm", "We recognize", because when the day is done and Conservatives say to Republicans that they didn't stay true to what they believe, they sound like liberals and give a bunch of excuses for why everything has been COMPROMISED.  Instead, it should read "We the Republicans will seal the border.  We the Republicans will abolish the nanny state.  We the Republicans will institute a fair tax by 2014."  Etc.  That is what the Contract With America was, only on a much lighter scale.  That's a major cause for the Republican win in 1994.

Just thinking in my "unrealistic" terms, because I'm, well, Conservative, I will zealously hold to my principles and vote my principles when the time comes.  If leftists win the next election, Republicans can blame me again, or they can blame themselves.  Either way I don't really  care.  But I'm laying out for everyone what to expect from me.  Either the Republican party gets gutted and their platform is founded on real conservative values and promises, or I go to another party that does.

If Republicans want my votes, they had better be "realistic".




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Understanding Suicide Economics

Because there are many who still don't understand suicide economics:

Ronald Reagan said in 1981 that "A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high." That means that the debt that has just been created would be equal to a stack of thousand-dollar bills reaching 737 miles high.

Keynesian economics. Fiat money. Future-value loans and debt. An economy that is largely based on a numbers-game cannot be maintained indefinitely. Why not? Here it is, as simply put as possible:

A home is valued at $60,000 based on population, buying and selling, local income, etc. but the value of the home is said to be $100,000 because it has been artificially inflated. Along with all the other homes, this numbers game increases the profits of those in the sales process when they cash-out, or buy and sell quickly.

Then to push this game even further, the homeowner is given a loan at 125% of its value. That's $125,000 for a home that is worth $60,000 in the true scheme of things. Over the course of the loan, the homeowner would pay $270,000. The more often homes are sold, the more often the numbers are fudged and the value goes up even more. If an economic situation causes people to stop buying and selling homes, the values stop increasing. Greater economic problems cause values to go down. The greater the problem, the greater the decrease in values and the burden on the homeowner to make payments.  And when value is artificially inflated, these value drops tend toward those actual values very quickly.

But the homeowner is hoping the home will be worth more than that in the future, so he can sell or refinance and maybe make a profit in the future-inflated-value of his home. This is the simplified future-values game.

Now to a bigger picture. The lender immediately sells the loan he just made along with hundreds of other loans, to another company that is also banking on the future-value of the loan. This future-values game is called "securitizing".

If one homeowner loses his ability to pay his mortgage, the purchaser of the loan forecloses, sells the house and takes a loss on their investment.

Keynsian economics (our government's economic policy) says that that foreclosure is ok because the majority of loans can be kept afloat. By a moderate but steady inflation of the costs in all markets, there is an increase in everyone's salaries, and thus the economy is adjusted to follow this numbers-game and support the increases and losses. The actual value of the home may be $70,000 next year. And this boosts the ability to increase the fudged loan value to $130,000. More people are made wealthy in these games. And they'll continue to be played just as long as we are willing to ignore the truth of the numbers with regard to the value of the products they are based on. And we are on a path to play this game just as long as some retain the power to play with the numbers.

But what if something causes many people to lose their ability to pay their mortgages? Many companies taking many losses can cause investors to try to sell their stock in those companies before they lose too much. This crisis is called "a run". If people run, others tend to do the same in other places, and when many people pull their investments out of companies, the companies must pay them. The objective of companies is to make money, not give it away. If companies give away too much money, they fail and then their people lose their jobs.

An even bigger picture. Government, though not empowered by the Constitution, has been addressing these crisis with a new numbers game. A new future-value game is created to cover the crisis that was created by a future-values game. Money is simply printed and given to support the system. This is largely done, not to keep homeowners afloat, but to keep investors investing. Because, if investors stop investing, the economy stops growing. If the economy stops growing, what people produce with their hands goes strait to their mouths. People don't buy iPods or new cars, and the people who make those things lose their jobs. When people lose their jobs, taxes don't get paid, and without taxes the military doesn't defend, bridges aren't built, roads fall to ruin. The economy (the money we make and spend or invest) stagnates or goes backwards.

The goal in this new game of course is to sooth investors into ignoring any future problems that might occur in the numbers game, and rely on the next numbers game to fix things. But with every numbers game, the risk of our economy going backwards and the irreversibility of this increases toward inevitability.

A problem with fiat money (money based on the value of nothing but hope) is what it does when it is put together with commodity money (money based on something tangible). Diamonds are worth lots of money. We'd all love to have lots of diamonds! But if suddenly ten pounds of diamonds were discovered buried on each persons' property, the value of diamonds would drop to 1/10,000th their value. And by value, I mean, how much of something a diamond will buy. Because everyone now has lots of diamonds, the value goes down, or rather, the prices of all things would go up. Massive inflation.

Imagine if every adult in America were to win a million dollars in the lottery. If you owned a saloon, how much would you charge for a beer? Four dollars? Not likely. You would charge $75 dollars for a beer because everyone can afford it. And the keg you tap to pour the beer would no longer cost you $110, it would now cost $7,500.

Having a $10,000 diamond would now mean nothing, because a loaf of bread now costs $5,000. This is the simplified explanation of the process behind the steady increased costs we see every day in all the products we buy.

The money that is printed and given to mortgage lenders by the government, is a loan to the government from the Federal Reserve (money printers, bank controllers, government partners). And because this is just a game, there is no intention of ever paying it back. But just like the homeowner's mortgage, these loans are up for sale. Now just imagine if these printed-money-loans were purchased by someone that has animosity for America. Say China, for example. These loans that China buys are in the form of Treasury Notes or Bonds. And China would have purchased these loans based on their future-value. You can buy a $25 bond for $18, and then in several years you give it back to the government and they give you $25. If $18 dollars today buys a DVD, inflation makes a DVD in several years cost $30. If the $25 I get can't even buy a DVD, I may have increased my investment from $18 to $25, but the value of that $25 is now less than the $18 used to be.

As I said, putting just-printed money into the economy drops the value of all the money. And if, like the investors, China sees the value of their investments dropping rapidly, at some point they are going to avoid a loss, and pull out their money. If they pull out their money, that means they have to get paid. Government would print more money and we would all have to pretend even more, that our money is not worth less.

If our money becomes worth less and less, soon it will become worthless. And that means China's money becomes worth more and more here in the US. That means that China could, if they wanted to, buy American land and companies at very cheap prices.

Now stick with me on this. If China owns our debt, and can suddenly demand to redeem their money, thereby dropping the value of our money and increasing the value of theirs, they could conceivably, in deliberate fashion, weaken our economy and buy up enough property and companies to take control of America. Actually, they are buying these things right now. But the game players are not really talking about it.

At present, that stack of thousand-dollar bills reaching 737 miles high is what we are pretending doesn't exist. And we have been getting away with ignoring it for quite some time. But we are now in a crisis, and this numbers game is being played with, let's say, tremendous enthusiasm. The game is kept going with even more pretense. These and other factors that are holding this game together are beginning to swing wildly. In the last six months, in their attempt to get their money before it is lost, investors have been selling their stocks. Like the depreciated bond, but now instantly, the value of the stocks people buy in companies has gone down. This is a loss of the value of our money that equals a 201 mile high stack of thousand-dollar bills. And during this present crisis, with hope to make a quick profit in the downturn, investors caused a jump of more than 10% in the whole market value 4 times. That has happened only 4 times in history. Once before the 90s recession and 3 times before the Great Depression. The economy is rocking like a cheap swing set that is overloaded with fat grown-ups, and they are making the legs come off the ground. If the timing of events become anymore synchronized, it's going to flip over. This game is dangerous.

This explanation is overly simplified. And it does not address the concerns that the fiat money used by government to artificially support failing corporations, comes with government control strings. What exactly is it called when together the government, banks, and corporations control the economy? Hmmm?

What is actually happening in our economy is not something that is openly discussed by those who play these numbers-games. Perhaps they don't want everyone to think about it.

Eliphas Levi profoundly wrote in the 1860s:

"The masses are not in need of absolute truths; were it otherwise, progress would be arrested and life would cease in humanity; ... The masses know it full well, and so they quickly desert their doctors and seek out charlatans and quacks. Some ... too often resemble the children playing at charades, who quickly turn out those who know the answer already, lest the game should be spoiled ... ."

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »