Extle.com - Economic and Political Analysis

$350 Billion doled out via 2-Page Application! The US Government at its finest.

2009-02-11T21:59:00.008-05:00

Dear Readers -

Please follow the link below, it will take you to the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP") Application. This application is 2 pages in length, and took me less than 5 minutes to fill out myself. This is how your money is being handed out, apparently!

US Treasury - TARP Application

Nuts? Ya. I never saw anything more ridiculous in my life.

Even a Nigerian scam requires more information than is requested on this application! I just applied for a mortgage, that took me hours to complete which represents an amount equal to 0.00000000005% of the total.

Unbelievable!

A Cautionary Note about the New President

2009-01-19T20:25:00.002-05:00

We're all too happy to see a change over in Washington, particularly in the White House. One must realize that sometimes our jubilation is short lived and we realize that our choice has become a mistake.

If history is any guide, it serves to show that there has never been a President, at least in the past 50 years, who really changed the Political map in America. The formula which allows them to become elected is followed by both major parties - this formula pigeonholes their ability to make policy decisions that brings about real change. Particularly in first term Presidents, the idea is to tiptoe through various issues of the day and postpone them until after the second term in order to safeguard their stay in power.

And then there are those Presidents who have laid out their platform and followed a course that's entirely different. Do not forget that in 2000, George Bush's foreign policy was one of humility and peace:

All these promises were for naught, and his principles went out of the window come September 11th. As if it was all perfectly choreographed, plans to invade the world were suddenly brought to the forefront and ramrodded through a Congress and a people who were obedient and acquiescent under the circumstances.

The same may very well apply with Obama. He may not want to leave Iraq as soon as he promised. He may entangle us in Afghanistan indefinitely as he suggested. He's certainly going to spend our tax dollars freehandedly. Therefore, to me, I may end up with the worst case scenario - a quagmired foreign policy that does not result in world peace and an out of control government which is trying to spend its way out of an economic problem. He's already disappointed many with his selections - people from the past who will likely commit to the same old ways things are done. Nevertheless, perhaps indeed we will see something different from him. Perhaps he will balance our Foreign Policy. Perhaps he will see the dangers of the skyrocketing National debt.

Come Tuesday, it's nice to see that things are changing. But I certainly hope it is for the better.

International Affairs & Extle.com

2009-01-12T19:12:00.002-05:00

At Extle.com, we have primarily focused on economic issues as it relates to libertarian principles. However, recent events have underscored the importance of also discussing foreign affairs and the stand Libertarians take as it relates to such events.

As Libertarians, which represent the core essence of the founding principles of the country, we approach such issues with trepidation. In any event, the loss of human life concerns us the most, regardless of political persuasion, race or religion. We are blind to "who is right" and "who is wrong" in any given situation. What matters to us is human suffering. As such, the role of the United States is to remain neutral and suggest that cooler heads prevail in areas of conflict. It is to encourage the cessation of hostilities and not takes sides and assign blame in the public sphere.

The United State's foreign policy has entangled itself in numerous foreign conflicts and has drawn and generated increased hatred against our country. Such policies have contributed to a more insecure homeland.

With particular reference to the situation of Gaza. The United States, via the Presidency, has taken a side in the conflict and has tacitly encouraged the continued bombardment of a captive population. Such encouragement has led to the deaths of over 800 civilians. The munitions being used in the territory is also troubling. The folks at Extle.com are opposed to the use of White Phosphorus munitions, particularly in its current application in close proximity to civilian installations. The burns produced by such munitions can be widespread, extremely horrific and painful.

The United States should heed the call of our founding fathers and avoid "entangling alliances" which compromises our own security. The United States should affirm itself as a balanced superpower that can function as a mediator to the benefit of all within the region. The new administration has the ability of setting a new example in foreign affairs, and fundamentally change the course and our moral standing.

A Quantitative Headache

2008-12-16T19:16:00.002-05:00

I've never been so shocked by the actions of the Federal Reserve. On one hand, the Fed is trying to get people to spend more money in order to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, the Government is taking actions to cause prices to rapidly increase. Essentially, this economy is a sinking boat - in an attempt to save the ship, more holes are being drilled into the hull.

The problem with declining prices ("deflation") is a dilemma that causes great harm to the financial institutions, however, on the other hand is beneficial to consumers. If commodity prices decline, loans which were based upon higher prices lose their collateral and will cause borrowers to default on their obligations. Such is the case in the housing market - a decline in housing prices has affected loans that were previously issued at higher underlying prices.

The Government does not want to see further deflation as it threatens the banking establishment. They're making wild decisions in an effort to stop it - including buying up these mortgages with newly printed money. When you make more money, prices of everything in theory should increase. By buying bad mortgage portfolios off of the very institutions that issued these bad loans, it frees them up to reissue more. Unfortunately, these banks have learned a hard lesson and have ceased loaning.

Nevertheless, when you flood the economy with dollars, their will come a time when inflation will get out of control and our currency will lose its worth. The idea of quantitative easing is being floated - translation: printing money and circulating it around in an effort to induce inflation and cause economic activity which would set new pricing equilibriums.

Rather than allowing the market to correct itself - resulting in lower prices in the short term for us poor consumers like you and I, the government wants to jack prices back up. The current course will set us up for high Oil prices, high food prices and high real estate prices once again.

The whole precipitator of our current economic situation was the excessive credit issued to the markets which resulted in unnatural demand in the real estate market. When people could no longer afford these mortgages because they lose their job - they lost their job because no one could afford to buy the product or services they offer because they too are paying large sums of money to maintain their excessive house.

The bottom line is, we need prices to decline to whatever the market would sustain and remain at this level in order to encourage buying and establish equilibrium. The government shouldn't devalue your dollars by printing money freely. The people most effected by this are those which live within their means and do not borrow unnecessarily - Me.

I said it before and I said it again, the best thing the Government could do is nothing. But nothing is something I don't expect the Government to do.

All Market Theories are now toast

2008-11-20T21:01:00.006-05:00

Everything theory you every learned about how markets operate - ex. Portfolio theory - just throw it out in the garbage and set the can on fire.

Nothing right now is operating based on these 'tested' market theories. The last 10 years worth of gains in the markets have been eviscerated in the past 4 months.

They always say "Past performance does not guarantee future results." We have all become the proverbial Turkey on a Turkey Farm. For a thousand days in a Turkey's life, the Turkey is kept well fed by the farmer and is looked after by him. If you asked that Turkey what the next day will bring, the turkey will tell you that tomorrow will be like any other day. He's not going to expect the farmer who fed him well and took care of him for his entire life to off his head.

Markets are supposed to act rationally. Bullshit. Markets are behavioral, and people aren't rational. We had irrational exuberance at one time and now we have irrational pessimism. Markets are a collection of financial transactions of a common unit of trade that are transacted by people like you and me. When one person sells, someone else needs to buy. If one individual gets jittery and dumps a lot of shares, everyone else starts questioning it. The price may tick slightly downwards - "what information does that person have that we don't?" Others may become paranoid and follow suit. Some others may say, "these guys are nuts" and buy. Others will think to themselves, "ok the stock went up a little, time for me to bail now." The stock drops, some people may decide that "oh my gosh, I better cut my losses now" or "this drop is temporary, better pick up some bargains now." And so the stock swings wildly. In this market, there's a lot of this activity going on - trading based on a collection of individual whims - and it results in unprecedented volatility. Right now paranoia is winning - a lot of people couldn't handle the uncertainty and decided to bail on a whole slew of equities.

One golden rule I follow is that stocks can generally lose value faster than it can make it up. So trading on a day to day basis is generally not advised - you have to wait quite a while before you get a shot at making money. Not only that, you expose yourself to a time period of extreme volatility which the stock can lose value faster than it can make it up.

Another golden rule of mine - equities which do not pay a dividend are worthless (about 90% of firms). At some point, that company's business will cycle and it will lose enterprise value. It would have never provided you with any sort of return - in fact, all you got in exchange for your hard earned dollars is a piece of paper saying that you own a part of XYZ company that provides you with no value until you sell it to some other unfortunate individual.

I'm quite sure that the market is going to make up its losses in the next couple of years, but these kinds of events will occur and they will wipe out larges sums in portfolio values at some point in your life - whether it's 10, 20, 30 + years - we're going to face another one of these "unprecedented" events. All it takes is one catastrophic collapse in the market and your toast. And given your time frame, there's plenty of opportunities for this to occur.

After stock values recover (if they do*) and I get to the point where everything is break even or slightly higher, I'm bailing on everything equity based and no longer investing in this phantom market. Basing your retirement on a market based upon people's whims is not a strategy and it is not option.

*There have been cases in history which entire markets have collapsed and never recovered.

Change has not come...

2008-11-08T11:16:00.004-05:00

Earlier this week, I decided at the last minute to vote for Barack Obama. Up until then I was going to vote for a third party candidate as McCain was surely out of the question - a maniac who was on a warpath with Russia is not someone who I'm keen on putting in the White House. His ding-dong choice for a running mate also sealed the deal.

The world seemed to think that Obama was going to lead to change, and so I voted for him.

I erred.

So far, I have learned that he is back tracking on many of his campaign pledges and taken several moves that have shocked and pissed me off completely.

1. He appoints as his Chief of Staff a man who served in a Foreign Military, the Israeli Military. This set me over the edge, the Iraq war was pushed for by the Israeli lobby in the US, Israel provided some of the bogus intelligence that led to the war. Rahm Emmanuel, furthermore, voted for the Iraq War resolution that Barack Obama voted against - the very one he made a cornerstone of his campaign.
2. He's going back on his pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq. What's the point of a campaign pledge if you don't make it happen?
3. He indicates that he wants to push yet another "Economic Stimulus" package. As if it isn't evident enough how the first economic stimulus ended up being a dismal failure, he now wants to spend more money in the futile belief that were going to someone jumpstart the economy. The economy is on its way back, you just have to leave it alone - prices are correcting, the cost of living has gone down - pretty soon things will reach bottom and we'll be headed back up. No government intervention is necessary.
4. The same faces of the past are coming back. His expected appointees are all former administration officials. Where's the change if the same people are going to be in charge?
5. He's already taken a hard-line stance on Iran, parrotting a popular line from the Bush Administration. Where's the diplomacy he talked about? Lord knows this was one of the few reasons I voted for him.

This was the reason why I supported Ron Paul - dimes to donuts you'd expect that man to implement what he believed in. Everyone else was pandering.

Economic Idiots

2008-10-09T20:44:00.008-04:00

Probably the dumbest, most stupidest thing ever committed by a sitting president occured a couple weeks ago by, who other than George W. Bush.

Essentially, Bush sounded the alarm and scared the shit out of Americans and businesses regarding the economy. It wasn't that bad! Recessions are behavioral in nature - the reason why we have a credit crisis is because no one is willing to lend due to the uncertainty - add to that greater uncertainty when the President acknowledges that there's some sort of crisis. Stupid! It just added to it.

No less stupid is the fact that Paulson and Bernanke scared the hell out of Americans with their dire warnings about the fate of the economy. They shoved down everyone's throat this $700 Billion package and gave themselves superhuman powers: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency. Are you fucking kidding me? Talk about absolute power - why don't we just put the crown on their heads?

The supposed cure that they set forth actually did much more damage than doing nothing. They should've kept their mouths shut and let the economy slowly roll into recession as it would have done regardless! Nay - we need to do something! The government essentially sent the a signal to the market that things were unneasy and that the markets should trust the Government to fix everything back up to the way it used to be. I don't think so!

Recessions are good. The correct for the market's excesses. We are effected by these market excesses every day - just look at Oil. Why do you think its slipped so far in such a short time? It was a market that was heavily manipulated by financial players - they used leverage (which conincidentally is no longer easily available) to jack the hell out of the price to an ungodly figure. Just to give you an idea - Oil prices peaked at the sky high price of $140/bbl. Wholesale gasoline prices rose to a peak level of $3.40/gal (no taxes included) which translates into the high prices we saw not too long ago of $4.30/gal at the pump. Do you know that the wholesale price of gasoline today is now $1.95/gal? Pretty soon we'll see gas fall under $3 at the pump! How fantastic is that?

Home prices are ridiculous. Give me a break - in order to afford a home on Long Island, half your monthly paycheck will have to go to pay your mortgage. This leaves little discretionary income for other types of economic activity - including shopping and leisure. That is ridiculous. That's not a balanced economy.

When the prices of fuel fall back down to a reasonable, appropriate level and housing costs correct itself - when people start anew, we'll have a better more vibrant economy. For god sake, all our supposed growth that we experienced in the past years was a result of housing - essentially, all our monies were being siphoned to financial institutions and real estate companies.

The bailout package is an attempt to keep housing prices high. Keep all those mortgage portfolios valued at the high prices they're at. Not going to work folks. We just wasted $700 Billion for nothing - giving financial institutions even more money. They're not compelled to loan out money now anyway. So we're still in the suppossed "Credit Crisis."

So we're facing the same consequences, with or without the Bailout package. I say bring on the recession and lets get it over with. We'll be all the better!

Opposing the Trillion Dollar Bailout - A Call to Action

2008-09-24T20:52:00.005-04:00

The fate of our nation's economy rests in the hands of those who don't understand it, and those who think they can control it. It is in my sincere belief that the safest thing to do is nothing at all. Attempting to manipulate the market in this way is downright dangerous. It's a desperate act to reinject liquidity in the market in a futile effort to inflate an already deflating bubble.

Please contact your congressperson and voice your opposition - people like you and me stand to lose the most. Do so here: Write Your Congressperson

Here's the letter I sent to my local Congressperson:

Dear Congresswoman McCarthy -

I am writing you to voice my strong opposition to the bailout being proposed. I just want to make clear to you whats at stake here - and what Ben Bernanke and Secretary Paulson are trying to do since they speak in code few can understand.

An attempt is being made to keep house prices at their current level in order to avert further foreclosures. To do this, Mr. Bernanke plans on purchasing mortgages from banks - and in return providing them with cash to loan out - again. The added liquidity unnaturally fuels demand for housing if banks were to extend credit to new homeowners. Essentially, the cause of the crisis - a lax extension of credit - is being put forward as the cure.

It's not going to work, and it puts the nations taxpayers at risk. What it does do is defer the problem to a later date. There's no solution other than allowing the market to correct itself and acheive equilibrium.

For persons such as myself, I stand the most to lose. No only does it perpetuate the problem of the high cost of living and homeownership, but it steals from my taxpayer dollars to fund those who took out mortgages and couldn't afford them. I am left both subsidizing those who overextended themselves and unable to afford a home of my own. All the while, the people who extended the credit wontonly (and benefited from the bonuses thereto) walk away scott free. In addition, the money does not necessarily come from Taxpayer dolllars - the money is simply created out of thin air - or "borrowed" from the nations' treasury. The result is an increase in monetary supply and devaluation in the US Dollar. This represents a hidden tax on the American people - it's inflation and it will cost us more money to buy the things we live on.

I urge you not to listen to the rhetoric, and let the market take its course and private industry to sort out their own problems.

Thank you.

Here's $700 Billion, Go Play

2008-09-22T22:21:00.004-04:00

I've never feared the government more than I do now. The actions undertaken by Congress and the Federal Reserve threaten the underpinning of the US Dollar - it's a fraud.

We all come to know of the difficulties the subprime mortgage crisis has brought upon us. In a nutshell - Banks lost money because they handed out money to unqualified people and unnaturally lifted the demand on housing. When the money ran out, coupled with home defaults and subsequent loss of equity, Banks were not able to lend any more (or as much). So since they gave out too many loans in an effort to make as much money as possible, we find ourselves in the situation today.

So what's being proposed? A $700 Billion Taxpayer bailout? What people don't realize is where the $700 Billion comes from. No - the taxpayers don't have $700 Billion to spare, so its not coming from your income taxes - that's already spoken for - it funds various unnecessary departments in Washington, the war in Iraq, propping up foreign governments, etc. No, the $700 Billion simply will be created by the Federal Reserve. Yes, you heard it right - the money did not exist before, so they're simply going to create it out of thin air. The idea is that the Fed creates the money, gives it to the banks in exchange for the mortgage assets - and the Fed then attempts to sell off these mortgage assets to retire its newly created money or "return to the treasury."

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson

Essentially, to solve all our problems - The government is going to give money to banks to go loan out and get themselves into trouble all over again. The Cause is being offered up as the cure... In an attempt to retain current home values, money is being injected to artificially stimulate demand. A drop in home prices would further threaten to destablize the system - if people default in mass and banks are left to dry (which already is happening) - it leads to an economic death spiral.

McCain forces my hand - Obama is it..

2008-08-29T22:38:00.004-04:00

I've previously indicated my discontent with both candidates for distinct reasons. Today, McCain has forced my hand - I'm going to vote for Obama.

Not only does McCain have a wild maverick foreign policy which has the potential to trigger a new cold war, but he also admittedly has no clue when it comes to the economy - a scary combination.

My decision on who to vote for was going to be based upon McCain's VP choice - If he chose Romney, I would have had to think long and hard. Out of all the candidates, Romney was one of the few non-career politicians. And I don't like career politicians - for their entire life they've lived on the state and have no real world experience in my opinion. Romney actually contributed to the economy - he had experience running corporations throughout his life. In today's economic climate, this kind of background is an asset.

Instead, McCain chose some little known woman from Alaska who has 5 kids - 4 of whom are young, with little relevant experience - she was a sportscaster, and held various governmental jobs. She hasn't been governor for more than 2 years. How can we elect McCain - who is old and may very well leave the presidency to a woman who has such feeble experience? Scary. His idea was to seize on discontented Clinton supporters - a feeble attempt to garner their votes simply because a woman is on the ticket. Instead of choosing the man who was right for the job - he chose the person that was wrong.

Obama said a couple things the other day that resonnated with me - tax reductions. That's what I had been fearing the most - tax increases in a weak economy inline with tax and spend policy of the democrats. It appears that he has shifted away from this ideology and seems to suggest a balance - one personal responsibility, lower taxes, and encouraging individuals to contribute to the economy, with the Government there to help when needed. Of course, I believe that the Government should have minimal involvement, but thats satisfactory for now.

The US-Russia Foreign Policy Quandry

2008-08-14T21:03:00.005-04:00

When Russia invaded Georgia, the U.S. had a difficult time trying to characterize their objection. They were down this road not too long ago - when they wanted to invade Iraq and only a handful of nations would go along. They listened to no one.

Today, Democrats and Republicans (no difference) have expressed their 'outrage' over Russia's actions. I heard a wide array of statements that were borderline hypocritical including, but not limited to, the following:

"The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone."

- US Ambassador to UN Zalmay Khalilzad - Emphasis added on the "in Europe" part. Apparently, the Middle East is still fair game...

“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

- John McCain

"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

- Condoleeza Rice

I'm not going to insult the intelligence of those who read this blog by further explaining the apparent hypocrisy of these statements.

I'd like to make a couple of points here - there is a damn good reason why the international community is not rushing to the defense of Georgia as quickly as you'd expect - they fired the first shots! South Ossetia has been demanding independence, and Georgia saw an opportunity to try to take back the breakaway region. They did so by force, killing scores of civilians prior to the intervention of Russia. Why did Russia intervene? 90% of South Ossetia's inhabitants are Russian citizens - and the Russian constitution calls for the defense of Russians wherever they reside. Therefore, they are following their constitution (which, by the way, is something that the current US government fails to do). It is for this reason, and for the fact that Georgia attacked the Russian peace keepers who were there.

Another point I'd like to make - the US Government keeps saying that Georgia is a country with democratically elected leaders. But what if the people of a certain region do not agree with the leadership and these leaders don't represent their interests? Democracy is deficient in these areas - right now, there resides an individual in the White House who does not represent me - right here in the U.S. In my opinion, he has no legitimacy. In South Ossetia, the whole region has made a collective decision that Mikheil Saakashvilli does not represent them nor does anyone in the Georgian government. And they are demanding their independence and welcome the Russian intervention. Don't forget the words of our own Declaration of Independence before you pass judgement on this matter -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The FreeCreditReport.com Commercials piss me off....

2008-08-11T20:27:00.002-04:00

I'm getting annoyed at these Freecreditreport.com commercials. They're ridiculous and make no sense.

Take for instance, the commercial in which a teenager isn't able to buy a car because of credit issues, and settles on a dilapidated hatchback. If that's all the cash he had on hand, then its a damn good thing he didn't take out a loan anyway.

Then there's the commercial where a guy is forced to work as a bar entertainer/guitarist (?) because of poor credit. Having good credit does not increase your cash flow, nor preclude you from a good paying job - it's just a mechanism which enables you to overextending yourself. This commercial insinuates that its healthy to wontonly take out loans to fulfill an extravagant lifestyle, and that without credit somehow you are poorer.....?????

And then, the one that pisses me off the most - the one in which the lead character sings about marrying his 'dream girl.' Essentially, he claims that because his now wife's credit was bad they could not get a loan on a house or otherwise and was forced to live in the basement of her parent's house. And the kicker is that he says that if he had known - he would have rather remained single. This argument does not hold water - what about your own credit, jackass? You must of f-ed up too!

Essentially, what these commercials portray is that sad state of society - the excessive overextension of credit and American's inability to survive without it. I don't know about you, but I right now have 0 debt - no student loans, no car payment. That's my cash management strategy.

Support the Syria Diplomacy and Economic Opportunity Act

2008-07-20T19:16:00.003-04:00

I have written my representatitive in support of the institution of the "Syria Diplomacy and Economic Opportunity Act." I have drafted this resolution in support of a new form of form of foreign policy - one that is not manifested by either democrats or republicans as evidenced in their support of such resolutions denouncing the actions of foreign nations in which the US' interests are neither threatened nor involved, and show a complete lack of diplomacy and common understanding. Sanctions and other economic restrictions implemented on foreign nations seldom result in the desired aim of such measures. The following is an excerpt of my message to the Representative who represents the district in which I reside:

I would like to discuss with you the introduction of the following bill to the House of Representatives. I believe that its time for the United States to conduct its affairs with foreign nations in a manner that will foster the development of mutual interests and compel those nations on quickly solve any and all problems that may arise as a result. Sanctions and other forms of economic deprivation have been counterproductive in producing the results sought by the stated aims of these measures. I also fundamentally believe that the institution of free trade and diplomacy will help foreign nations move in the desired direction we seek. Through the unfettered free exchange of ideas and commerce coupled with requisite diplomacy results in the foundation for liberty to foster in such countries.

Attached is a resolution for the first country I would like the United States to consider lifting all sanctions and trade restrictions, and reestablish full diplomatic relations with.

I urge you to join me in advancing this resolution through congress. Please write your local representative in support of this measure and attach the bill's text.

You may do so here.

Thank you.

_________________________

The Syria Diplomacy and Economic Opportunity Act

WHEREAS, congress passed on December 12, 2003 an act entitled "Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003'' herein referred to as the “act”;

WHEREAS, a stated aim of the act is to halt the “Syrian occupation of Lebanon”;

WHEREAS, Syria has withdrawn all forces from Lebanon in compliance with UN Resolutions and the conditions of the act;

WHEREAS, the Lebanese people have formed and elected a government of national unity;

WHEREAS, Syria is in indirect talks for peace with the State of Israel;

WHEREAs, Syria has in the past cooperated with the United States on security matters post 9-11, and has welcomed and received members of the House of Representatives, and United States Senators;

WHEREAS, the deprivation of economic opportunities and institution of sanctions instituted by Congress and the Presidents past and present has never lead to the desired change sought by such resolutions and orders and has been counterproductive to these ends;

WHEREAS, greater economic opportunities reduce the incentive for individuals to engage in terrorist causes;

WHEREAS, enhanced economic relations and diplomacy reduces hostilities and aligns the interests of foreign nations with that of our own;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED, THE FOLLOWING:

1. The “Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act of 2003” is repealed in its entirety
2. Congress directs the president to cause the Department of State to remove Syria from the list of State Sponsors of Terror
3. Congress directs the president to repeal all executive orders prohibiting free trade with Syria, including, but not limited to EO 13338, EO 13399, and EO 13460
4. Congress directs the president to reestablish full diplomatic relations with Syria, and restore a US ambassador to Syria.

Why I would eliminate the FDA - An example on how the Government can kill you

2008-07-18T21:59:00.006-04:00

Time and time again I have professed my solemn belief that certain government agencies can be abolished wholesale for the simple reason that they are counter productive and a waste of taxpayer money. The many people I have shared my beliefs with could not even fathom how I could hold such philosophies. Government agencies are apparently 'necessary' and without them we'd 'die.'

One particular agency I would wholeheartedly abolish outright without any remorse whatsoever is the FDA.

"Are you nuts???"

No, I'm not. Time and time again I've come across articles which are solid proof on how the FDA's very existence can kill you.

As many of you know, the FDA has set up an elaborate process in order to obtain approval for a drug. Typically, only large drug companies with vast resources are able to afford to undertake such a process. In addition, the FDA seems to hold favoritism to more well known drug CO's, thus interfering with the free market. If a new drug threatens the market share of an existing drug company of it's market share, dimes to donuts you can bet your rear end that they will try to lobby, and do whatever they can to squash the innovation of such companies.

Not many people understand the power of the free market, they fear that it will just go completely "out of control" and that greed will drive everything to the detriment of mankind. In the short term, yes - there may be abuses. But long term, the free market corrects whatever problem exists and fills in the void Government left. Companies are focused on their long term sustainability, and therefore, would not take temporary short cuts for temporary gain. On the contrary, the Government's involvement usually is the one to encourage this through legislation or regulation of some sort. As is the case with the current "credit crisis" and abuses in the mortgage market - of course, when you take the power away from the market to regulate its own interest rates and underlying value of the currency, this debacle is the result.

I came across the following article: Family Sues to Get Experimental Drug

The article is about a family who has a son with a fatal form of Muscular Dystrophy. The bottom line is, the boy is going to die left alone. Only one drug is available to combat his illness, however, the drug company is refusing to provide the family with access to the drug. Why? Because it will interfere with the FDA's process to certify the drug. This is the boy's last hope to survive, but the Government has written his death certificate.

The Food and Drug Administration has agreed to fast-track PTC124, but a best-case scenario would be approval in 2011, Finkel said.

By the time the FDA gets around to giving approval to this drug, many people will have died. The family physician is more then willing to administer the drug, but the Government stands flat in their face.

It's time for Americans to wake up, and take back from the Government the liberties which were entrusted to us by the founders of this country, and the Constitution of the United States. The decision to chose our own fate should rest in our own hands, and our hands alone.

The more I hear about Obama, the less I like him, and I'm no fan of McCain either

2008-06-28T11:32:00.003-04:00

If Obama kept his mouth shut, I probably would've voted for him. However, the more I hear about his policies and ideas the more it scares the daylights out of me. His ideas reflect the notion that the Government knows better on how to manage your affairs than you yourself do. Who exactly is the Government? An elite few who's job it is - is to apportion your tax dollars in new and ever expanding ways? Their job is to spend your money for you. And they do this on a full time basis.

At a time when the nation's economy is at a standstill, I hear that Obama wants to tax the rich and $250,000/yr is apparently the dividing line. At a time when businesses are struggling to make ends meet, the Government is essentially saying "give me more." Have you ever heard of a plan that fixes the scarcity of an item by taking more of it? So imagine you are a small business owner, a productive member of society creating jobs for others - namely the middle class, and suddenly this omnipotent force says "OK, last year I took 26% of your profits, this year I want 40%" - end of discussion. Whenever any entity takes money forcibily from individuals regardless of economic status or background, its called stealing.

At a time when the nation's energy prices are sky high, I hear far out solutions on how to fix the problem. As an energy consultant, I know what's real and what isn't. There is no short term solution, but we can't deliver efficiency overnight either. Americans simply need access to lower cost fuel if we are going to maintain our standard of living and economic prosperity. What Obama said this weekend regarding his plan was alarming - he's against nuclear power, he's against off shore drilling, and he's for subsidizing these boutique renewable energy technologies in the hopes it decreases consumption. I am firmly against subisidizing any industry. It distorts and destabilizes the free market. High fuel prices should be providing enough incentive for these firms to research and sell their technology without the govenrment getting involved. However, every time the government indicates that they may provide them with a windfall of taxpayer money - they are incentivized to delay their product entry and "research" until such time they receive this appopriation of OUR money. I am against the McCain $300 Million prize for a battery - and I'm against the Obama plan to shower "clean green" renewable energy firms with money while the American people continue to suffer through these high oil prices.
We need to start drilling for Oil. We need to do so now. Yes, it may take 5 or so years, but in 5 or so years if we don't start we'll be saying the same thing! Nuclear power is also no longer an option, its an absolute must. In countries such as France, 75% of their electricity is generated by Nukes - a clean technology that has no emissions. Building more nuclear plants is a good way to offset Oil consumption, the technology is here and its ready now, and we need to get as many online as possible. Obama, siding with the yahoos, is against this.

McCain's foreign policy will not help oil prices either. McCain's caustic "don't talk to nobody" cowboy diplomacy will only lead to further political instability and cause showdowns with countries such as Iran. McCain has also indicated his distaste for Russia - and he called Putin an evil man on many occassions, which may ignite a new cold war era and a new competition for world resources. With Russia's economy booming, and the influx of oil revenues, opening a new war front will only further threaten our economy, peace, and prosperity. Obama's foreign policy may help calm market jitters, but his other policies do nothing to add to the supply side of the equation.

My Plan to Return to the Moon, and I will be the first to go

2008-06-23T23:30:00.002-04:00

I think its time we make our way back to the moon. Its shameful that Mankind has achieved this feat prior to my coming into this world, and hasn't been able to repeat it in my lifetime.

It doesn't need to cost billions of dollars to do so. We can do it - we have the technology.

My Plan to Return to the Moon:
1. The vehicle which will be used to transport humans to and fro the Moon shall be a single reusable vehicle based in part on the current space shuttle design.
2. The vehicle will initially be attached to a large hydrogen dirigible which will raise it to over 100K Feet*
3. The vehicle will be released upon which 2 expendable and detachable rocket boosters attached on pylons under the aircraft’s wings will propel the aircraft initially forward and then up to achieve escape velocity*
4. The vehicle will orbit the earth several times to achieve speed prior to the main rocket engine firing to escape earth orbit. The main rocket engine is located in the aft rear of the vehicle.**
5. The vehicle will make its way to the moon. For space control, the vehicle will sport standard control thrusters.
6. Upon approaching the moon, the vehicle will be captured by the moon’s gravity entering lunar orbit.
7. The vehicle will fire retro rockets for the descent to landing. The vehicle will make an aircraft style landing on the moon’s surface at minimum forward velocity at a flat location on the lunar surface.
8. The vehicle will have compartments to release astronauts to the lunar surface and return aboard the vehicle.
9. When the time comes for earth return, the vehicle will have an engine on the underside of the vehicle to propel it away from the lunar surface.
10. The main rocket engine will fire to propel the vehicle around and out of the lunar orbit towards earth.
11. The vehicle will return to earth in a similar fashion to that of the shuttle – it will reenter the earth’s atmosphere and glide to a landing.

*If this dirigible idea turns out to be unfeasible, the vehicle may be launched into orbit utilizing conventional means. Steps 2 and 3 are replaced with this method.
**If vehicle payload capacity is an issue, where upon the requisite fuel necessary to send humans to the moon and back cannot be carried aboard the vehicle, and in lieu of carrying the service module, a separate payload launched from Russia via traditional means may provide such service. The module will be docked with the shuttle vehicle and provide the vehicle with the rocket power necessary to make its way to the moon. The payload will orbit the moon after the vehicle undocks for landing. The module will remain in orbit until such time the vehicle wishes to return to earth. Whereupon a docking with the module will be accomplished and the module will propel the vehicle towards earth.

Another crazy, low cost plan to go to the moon using existing space technology:

We already have a space shuttle. All we need to do is carry within its payload a lunar lander, and to propel it towards the moon after it achieves earth orbit. A secondary launch may transport another main fuel tank to reattach to the space shuttle for the purposes of providing enough fuel to it's on board rocket motors to take it to the moon.

After this insane post, I think I may return back to the ideas of government policy.

The Role of Government - Part III

2008-06-15T11:30:00.004-04:00

Based upon my last post, I'd like to announce the budgetary line items I would cut back on to shore up the Federal Budget:

I'm not going to touch the "Mandatory Spending" category of the Federal Budget, although I'm strongly against the Government managing our retirement plan and forcing us to opt in. I believe that individuals such as myself, who already contribute the maximum amount to their respective 401k plans, could better plan for our own individual retirements than the government - I believe that the government should allow us to opt out of their plan and allow ourselves to divert those monies to a retirement plan of our choosing, if any at all. The money that the Government collects to plan for your retirement actually may end up making your latter years less comfortable - you may be able to afford to buy a house now if you had access to such monies which would help alleviate the financial difficulties encountered in your latter years of life. The bottom line is, Government should have never established such a disastrous monstrosity of a program which occupies 30% of the federal budget.

Department of Defense - http://www.defenselink.mil/ - it's no secret that this line item contains a lot of "Pork." The DoD is buying and researching various weapons that are not defensive in nature. Approximately 50% of this budget could be trimmed.

Global War on Terror - the stated purpose of the "Global War on Terror" is to somehow convince "evildoers" and terrorist groups around the world to end their aggression through our own violent military action. I would immediately withdraw forces and reduce all expenditures associated with this budgetary item.

Health and Human Services - www.hhs.gov - The HHS is "United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves." I don't want to come off as a Scrooge here, but here in lies a lot of pork. First off, it doesn't provide any value to individuals such as myself. However, I don't mind helping the poor - even though in this case it's is forced charity through our tax dollars a la Robin Hood. One particular department which would face my cross hairs would be the FDA. This useless organizations recklessly delays the entry of life saving drugs by subjecting pharmaceutical companies to go through an expensive period of trial and testing that smaller drug companies can seldom afford. This organization actually plays into the hands of larger drug companies that can afford to undertake such testing, and they usually are able to pass through drugs quickly while smaller companies face an uphill battle. The FDA needlessly curtails a Doctor's ability to prescribe medication that could be life saving.

Department of Education - www.ed.gov - I would immediately shutter this useless department. The DoE provides little if any value to Americans. The State provides us with all the access to education that we need and currently use, the Federal Government doesn't have to get involved. I'd rather spend my tax dollars towards State based programs where I can immediately benefit from.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development - www.hud.gov - I can't even figure out what these guys do, but it's clearly useless. We don't need a government agency managing housing and loans to Americans. The free market should handle loans, and the state, if necessary, should handle their own housing initiatives.

Energy - www.doe.gov - we don't need an obscure government agency trying to ensure America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy." I wonder what a day in the life of an employee in this Government agency looks like?

Department of Agriculture - www.usda.gov - There's a lot of uselessness in this department. Even though I'd argue for the complete shuttering of the agency, I'd lose the argument on some of the food inspection functions they fulfill. But as far as some of the other departments that fall under this banner go, they can be completely eliminated. "Agricultural Marketing Service, Center for Nutrition and Policy, Rural Development" can get the boot.

$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

There would be no "Discretionary Spending" if I was in charge, period. Just the name of these two budgetary line items indicates its laden with lard, and can completely be trimmed. Various ridiculous government funding is funneled through this line item, including the following:

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.

More examples are available here: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008
The bottom line is, people know better than government how to spend their money. Congress is spending money that's not theirs to spend. People need to understand that the nation's tax revenue system isn't some kind of free money slush fund that can be freely spent, it's your money - they shoudl treat it as such.

The Role of Government - Part II

2008-06-10T23:43:00.003-04:00

Now that we know how to role of government was outlined in the Constitution, we turn our attention to the role that Government is fulfiling today. It appears that the role of Government has metamorphosized into a larger command structure who's goal it is apparently to manage, and provide for an increasing number of services and responsibilities on behalf of the people.

The Federal Government, as envisioned by the framers of the constitution, was intended to be weak. There was no intent for it to enter into the realm of civil law nor service. States were responsible for providing for their constituents in most respects, and the government was to ensure mutual cooperation and free commerce between member states. The State currently provides for most of the services we benefit from - including education, roadways, santiation, security (police), and in some cases utilities (water and electricity). As individuals, we usually receive very little direct value from the Federal government - other than assurances that we are being kept "safe" as a result of federal action. A question arises as to why is it that most of our tax dollars we shell out goes to this federal government? What exactly are we paying for? My NYS Tax rate is around 6% while my federal tax rate is 22%. And yet, I receive everything I could possibly need from New York. What value is the federal government providing me? What am I paying for? An analysis of the Federal Budget gives the individual a glimpse of what the Role of Government has become:

2008 United States Federal Budget

Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%)*
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Department of Justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
*Percentages in parenthesis indicate budget growth over previous year.

The Role of Government - Part I

2008-06-09T22:00:00.004-04:00

The question of the role of government always bothers me. What is the role of government? What is its functional purpose? The framers of the U.S. Constitution saw it quite simply and clearly laid out what role the Government ought to fulfill. It's clearly laid out in the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To form a More Perfect Union

The goal of forming a more perfect union arises from the need to collect the various independent states that form present day America to better serve our common interests. The idea is to recognize that individual states have their certain rights in legislating domestic law, and the role of the central government is to serve as an overseer of intra-state relations and not as a micro-management mechanism.

Establish Justice

Any modern nation needs a justice system that will recognize the private property rights of individuals, and to protect them from harm that others may cause. Regardless of the nature of the people, inequities occur where a court will need to step in to balance and make even any claim that a party has upon the other. It is for the purpose that no person may retain more rights than others in trade and commerce that this judicial system was established to level the playing field for all participants.

Ensure Domestic Tranquility

One of the more controversial parts of the constitution is that which empowers the government to ensure domestic tranquility - which includes addressing rebellions and other forms of unrest that a federal government may deem a threat. The general idea is to respond to any issue which may affect the general welfare of the people.

Provide for the common defence

No state alone could have withstood attack from overseas by foreign navies and invading forces. Therefore, the collective interests of states are pooled to form a national army to address foreign threats - for defensive purposes only.

Promote the general Welfare

The culmination of all the precedent purposes of government is for the sole purpose of serving the people, their general welfare.

[to] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

The central idea of this new American government, as the framers see it, is to allow the people to be free and pursue their interests as the deem fit, and not to have any central authority having dominion over your personal affairs.

However, what we have instead... is a government which seeks to administer our daily lives through never ending complex legislation which regulate all aspects of our life and commerce, further expanding both its stranglehold and power with every bill it signs into law. Every week, as new laws are passed, liberties are robbed from the people. These laws on the surface appear to limit a form of malpractice that the elite few have deemed in their view must be ceased. With every new law, comes the increased cost of administration of such law. The administration of which comes from the fruit of the labor of the people. Therefore, the government today lays claim on both our liberty and labor with every passage of law.

Extle.com Note from the Editor

2008-06-07T13:13:00.002-04:00

I'd like to apologize for the last two blog posts. They have been deleted and stricken from the record. They represented a abberation from the true goal of Extle.com - a focus on policy and not people. From now forward, we will attempt to avoid the weeds of politics and discuss whatever's right, rational and represents the ideas in which this country was founded - freedom and liberty.

Therefore, Extle.com will now focus it's efforts solely on the discussion of Libertarian ideals and how they would shape governmental policy.

Thank you.

Who ordered the media blackout?

2008-05-25T20:02:00.005-04:00

I have a question that has bugged me for awhile: who exactly ordered the Ron Paul media blackout? One infuriating occasion which brought out its' obvious existence was a little paid attention to segment in one of the final presidential debates - it was on CNN. Anderson Cooper, the moderator, essentially silenced Ron Paul and changed the question without allowing him to contribute to the debate - and took up more time trying to make sure he didn't say anything than it would've taken to allow Ron Paul to speak. Nevertheless, he did get 8 minutes to speak out of a 2 hour debate - which if you divided by the four participants should've been 30 minutes.

So who ordered the Media Blackout? Still unknown. Certain interests were threatened by his ideas - which involved removing their ability to effectively lobby congress to spend money on their behalf and lessening the government's ability to further regulate business - which removes their ability to legislate monopolies or other self interests. Here's a very interestingshort piece on how the media blackout effected Ron Paul and some statistics on his popularity in comparison to other presidential candidates:

Oil barrels through record prices

2008-05-09T23:20:00.004-04:00

Note: I'm not going to be posting long blogs from now on, just going to get straight to the point - that's the new format

People keep complaining about record Oil prices - the pain at the pump. The question many people ask is whether the prices are sustainable.

Irregardless of the record demand from Overseas, high prices have had a direct impact on demand. Gas stations have shut down outright. Less cars are on the road - there's no doubt about it.

Innovation will spring from these prices, and will help further curtail the demand for fuel in the future. Clearly, the days in which every other car on the road is an SUV is over. There's a glut of these vehicles on the market - and no one's buying them.

In addition, utilities have started to plan for new nuclear units. People have to drop their reservations about the technology, its safe and it's extremely cheap to operate on a kWh basis - to build, however, it costs 3x that of a Coal fired plant. Alternative fuel sources are also now being used, with increased reliance on Coal and Natural Gas (NG has spiked as a result).

But back to the issue of Nuclear Energy - if we were to take into account the ill fated Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island that was shuttered immediately after achieving commercial operation, you would find that it would have provided 1,000 MW of Capacity - 20% of Long Island Peak Demand, and 40% of its average electricity usage. This 1,000 MW unit would have saved at minimum 14 Million barrels of oil on an equivalent BTU basis, and thus far would have saved 287 Million barrels of oil to date. If you were to multiply that times the current oil prices you'd find that the plant would've saved $1.7 Billion this year alone in fuel costs. The case for nuclear is becoming increasingly clear.

Will Oil remain at these prices? There's a strong possibility. The only way to reduce the price of oil is to restore value to the US Currency. As I've illustrated in previous posts, it has slid almost 45% in value from 2003 when compared to other foreign currencies. While Europe may have seen Oil Prices increase 200%, we've seen them go up 350%. If our currency has higher purchasing power, the increased prices are essentially offset to other foreign countries - so instead of seeing Gas prices at $4, they should be at $2.70 a gallon if our currency had held its value.

My Blogging Absence

2008-05-03T00:41:00.006-04:00

I haven't posted in a while, but that's not for a lack of material. There are plenty of issues to comment on. However, I've been too damn disappointed at my lack of ability to effectuate any positive change. A couple of blog posts aren't going to do jack shit honestly. But If I were to write something at this point, I probably would comment on one of the following issues:

-Currency Exchange Markets and the Falling (flailing?) Dollar
-Federal Reserve Policy and Interest Rates
-Taxpayer Bailouts and Congressional Malfeasance
-Bush's Iran War Plans (coming soon)
-Oil and Energy Prices (forecast)
-The Double Standard of Liberal Democrats on the China/Tibet Issue
-Hillary Clinton's underhanded tactics
-The influence of the Zionist Lobby in news media (and it's effect on the Presidential Primaries..Obama? Nooo)
-Freedom's Foreign Policy
-What the Syrian Nuclear Reactor really was

How about I stop there for now.

And we were RIGHT

2008-03-17T20:01:00.003-04:00

Ridiculed. Mocked. Laughed at. Completely discounted.

Thats who we were.

We were thought of as "fringe," a bunch of "fanatics," and repeatedly admonished to join the main stream.

We declared, "Nay, we shall not, for we shall represent the truth and what is right." And you debated us, and declared us delusional.

Ladies and Gentleman,

When I declared months ago that the economy will tank, and the destruction of our currency was to catch up to us, and that our problems today were the result of a fallacious federal reserve system - I was greeted with mockery and ridicule.

Fast forward to today, we now have one of the most well known investment banks in the world completely evaporate within a 24-hr time period. Why? The Federal Reserve System. Easy Money. "Here, go lend out as much as you can." So the Federal Reserve has every interest to see that this institution stays afloat, its deeply entrenched in the system that simply wont last. So when these institutions lend out to the wazoo - and leverage themselves so highly that when those who took out loans begin to default in large numbers - their cash position evaporates overnight - their assets become of unknown value - their whole business is in chaos. This, my friends, is the bubble bursting loud and clear. And their not alone.

In the next few weeks, the Federal Reserve will attempt to inject Billions of dollars to keep these institutions afloat - providing them with the necessary cash to keep them in operation - to prolong the problem and thus cause a bigger problem I declared earlier, that we need a recession and that the market needs to correct. When the Federal Reserve facilitates extravagance, they need to reap what the sow.

Friends - the Federal Reserve in the next few weeks will make a series of disastrous decisions. If you think things are bad, "you ain't seen nothing yet." Similar to a gambler who bets more and more money in order to recover losses that have already occurred, the Federal Reserve will continue to inject more and more money in an attempt to restore the economy and "get the ball rolling." Unfortunately, this will not work. Our dollar will continue to lose value and the result will be hyperinflation. YES - We will see gas prices of $6 on the current path. The cost of basic goods will sky rocket - we won't be able to import anything from overseas and the entire world economy will come to an absolute standstill.

The only way to restore order in this chaos is to reform the federal reserve. Honestly, the cannot be allowed to continue monetary injections in the economy. As they do this, our dollars are worth progressively less and the world loses confidence in our currency. When the dollar is worth nothing, our country will undoubtedly collapse.

We cannot bail out the interests of a few at the expense of the rest. The Federal Reserve is trying to step in where it can do very little - it wasn't supposed to control the levers of the market to begin with. It is not smarter than the market forces. It can not keep up with today's dynamically changing environment.

So you saw Bear Stearns today seemingly get sold for a song - a measily $2 per share when it was previously worth over $130 many months ago. This fall from grace is not going to be unique - in the next few weeks we will see Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs all fall in some way or another. When a CEO declares just days before the collapse that there's "No Liquidity crisis" and 48-hours later there is - you don't know who you can believe.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have professed my profound belief that we need to return to the Free Markets and remove unnecessary governmental control and intervention in the capital markets. That we need a sound and secure monetary system that preserves the wealth of the masses and ensures its fair distribution. That labor ought to be rewarded and not taxed. And I told you all who to support and for those very reasons. Irregardless, the only way to resurrect ourselves is to move our country towards these ideals. I urge you to join our cause.

Evaluating Ralph Nader's Candidacy

2008-02-24T14:37:00.003-05:00

In the year 2000, I supported Ralph Nader's run for president. I didn't like either of the candidates back then - neither Bush nor Gore. Bush, at the time, didn't seem like he was up to the job although some of his ideas which he advocated did resonate with me - no nation building, a humble foreign policy, tax cuts, etc. Gore seemed like a good fellow, but I felt it was time for change. I was also disillusioned with his choice of running mate - Lieberman - a hawk on Middle East policy who still stands by the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq.

Ralph Nader seemed to represent some semblance of change. He advocated a foreign policy I agreed with. However, at the time I was still in school and did not face the greater realities of our society.

His policies at first glance seem to have a socialist tone - stand up to the corporate interests and represent the working class. The problem with this is that it resonates well with the lower income individuals and certain intellectuals who share this viewpoint. Primarily, the makeup of this group identifies themselves as either a Democrat or Independent. What troubles me is that his candidacy essentially may solidify a McCain presidency as it will siphon votes away from those who don't fully support Barack Obama for whatever reason, but surely wouldn't vote for McCain. Yet those same people would prefer Obama over McCain.

So on Nader's recently launched website, I left him a blog comment asking him to clarify his positions. Not much information regarding where he stands is on there, perhaps because its still nascent and not many people know about it yet. I'm looking forward to his reply to my comment, however, I'm doubtful he'll actually take the time out to respond:

____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Nader,

I need more information regarding your policies to decide whether I would support you or not.

What are your economic policies? Do you solely advocate for the working class? Do your policies encourage the growth of businesses? What do you think the role of the US Government should be in directing the economy? What about the Federal Reserve, what level of control do you think they should exert over the economy? What about monetary policy? Should we continue to use a currency that is not backed by anything, and do you think that is sustainable? What would you do about the value of the US Dollar? As you are likely aware, it has been falling and for the first time in many years it is now weaker than the Canadian dollar.

Do you believe in the Free Market? Or do you believe that the Government should continuously regulate industry? If the role of the Government is to regulate industry, how do we prevent the conflict of interest that has as a result occurred – private and corporate interests lobbying government to steer legislation in a fashion that would help certain companies, and possibly hinder others?

With regards to energy, can you elaborate on why don’t you support Nuclear Power? Understanding that there is an issue with regards to waste storage, wouldn’t it reduce our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gases? Rather than count it out, shouldn’t we look for ways to deal with the waste instead?

What about tax policy. Would you look for ways to reduce the overall income tax burden on society? Or are you looking to redistribute wealth through a further tiered income tax system (income tax that gets progressively higher with income)? Would you focus your efforts on paying down, or reducing the national debt? Do you advocate tax increase or decrease? And if this varies by income level, can you define them?

I understand that you support a national health care plan similar to that of the Canadians'. Would this plan eliminate private health insurance? If so, what would be the effect on the quality of health care? Would Doctors’ earnings be regulated by the Government as a result? If not, would the resulting system develop into two tiers of care – Government and Private? What is the estimated cost of such a national health care plan, and can the US taxpayers afford it? Would taxes have to rise as a result?

What do you think the role of Government ought to be in an individual’s life? Is it to take care of people from cradle to grave?

What is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Do you think people need to sacrifice liberty for security? Would you modify any part of the US Constitution? Are you a constitutionalist?

I agree with you 100% on your foreign policy, so I have no questions there. However, I’m not sure about policies regarding the economy, taxes, health care, and energy. I’m looking forward to a substantive response.