Goodbye, Sweet Pea

Just over six years ago, my wife came to me and said she wanted to adopt her best friend's dog – a Rottweiler named Sasha. I told her “no way.” I didn't like rotties, because just one year before I was pinned back-first to a wall by one that tried to bite me. I fought it off with my keys, and I thought that actually owning one would at least be a challenge. My wife accepted my answer, and walked away with little more than a gentle plead. But then about a week later her friend showed up with the dog in tow. I'm glad she did. I was wrong.

The last six years with Sasha have been full of doggie tales. Some fun. Some horrible. Most just moderately entertaining. But all of them have been great learning experiences. She turned out to be probably the most loving pet I've ever known. She would lie on the floor and watch me move from room to room. I couldn't be out of her sight for more than a few minutes before she had to join me in whatever I was doing. She didn't care what was going on. She just wanted to be with me. Her favorite thing to do was a full body flop into my lap, where she would lay there and paw and stare at me lovingly. On occasion, it was “belly-bellies.” I think all dogs love those. It was that kind of activity, day-in and day-out, for years, that changed my mind about the breed. They exude adoration. Now I'm a fan of rotties. I like them for all of their problems and attributes. And she had lots of both.

For all of her difficulties; the tumors, two knee replacements, bad eyes, real bad gas, and two bladder stones that required special food; she also had some very good traits. She always showed a genuine affection for all humans; a love for, and desire to protect, any animal or person that was obviously a baby; an incredible amount of loyalty and obedience, and the desire to be with the pack at all times. She was never aloof. With all of the time and energy I spent with her, in training and in socializing, at the doctor's office, at the park, or just playing or walking around, I know my life is far richer for having her than not. I've even watched jealously on more than one occasion as others with more than one rottie walked by. She and they made me wish I had more.

But I say that with a little bit of guilt, because there were times when I wanted to do something other than wait hand-and-foot on my ailing dog. I can remember many mornings when she didn't want to get out of bed, and I would say, “Sasha, GET UP. GO OUTSIDE. LET'S GO.” Most days I had to carry her up and down the stairs. At the very end I had to carry her right out to the spot where she would always pee, and then straight back to bed as well. But her passing has left me with the understanding that taking care of her wasn't my burden; it was my privilege. Most rotties live to be only about nine or ten years old. Sasha was over twelve. That means I did my job well.

What I focused on most over the last several weeks of her illness, was her tumor-addled paw and her ears. They were the softest ears I've ever felt. I twirled them constantly. If I ever needed to feel better, all I needed to do was touch her ears. And she loved it. She would always beg for more. But her paw worried me. The tumor continued to grow, and it was nearly all I could do to focus on staving off infection. Her ears, her tumors. I miss them all.

It was her ears I was twirling while looking into her eyes as the doctor inserted the needle into her arm. I kept telling her “you're such a good girl.” “We love you, sweetheart.” I felt compelled to make her feel comfortable, no matter how horrible I felt. And I think I did. But I believe one of the most hollow feelings in life is taking the life of another who trusts you so implicitly. How amazing is it that I profess my love for someone while simultaneously taking her life. Only the heartless could feel it acceptable.

But it had to be done. So the day before yesterday, she went to sleep for the last time. I then took her and one of our other two pups out to a shady tree they all seem to enjoy. And there I buried her under it. But as I filled the hole, I didn't feel relief. Not for her, or for me. I felt disgusted. I feel as though her life were cut short, even while I feel as though she were holding on just for us.

Ironically, the last thing to be covered by soil was her beautiful left ear. It put a sunken, memorable end to a life that I think should have lasted longer. I still can't believe that it was so dirty. I wanted to pull it out and pet it again. But I think I'll have to wait a long time for that.

So, for now. Goodbye, Sweet Pea. We love you. You've been such a good girl.

Don't Believe Everything You're Told

I found this story on a Yahoo Finance page the other day. It's called “The Worst Predictions About 2008.” Normally I don't care to put up just one link of a page that I would otherwise just email to my friends and family. But these predictions are so bad, they deserve to be posted. Among the worst are why Barack Obama can't win; “Bear Stearns is not in trouble;” and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are “fundamentally sound.” What makes these more staggering is who said it.

Merry Christmas Everyone

And a happy and much more prosperous New Year.

No Taxation Without Representation

Wars we don't want; pork spending as if it's necessary; lobbyists writing laws for lawmakers; and taxpayer bailout dollars disappearing into nowhere. I don't even have to touch on the electoral college; the appointment of a Kennedy with no experience, or the possible sale of a Senate seat in Illinois. I have no idea how anyone can read a story like this one, and still believe that our government actually represents the people.

A Good Ben Stein Article

I like Ben Stein. I think he gets his economics views correct most of the time. I don't agree with him on many things - even in this article. And I've been disappointed by his commentaries several times. One of them being “Re-inflate the Economy Now.” I think my jaw nearly hit the floor with that one. But in this article, he gets a number of things right. He says “Bye-Bye, Buy and Hold.” He's bearish on Paulson and Bernanke, and rightfully so. And he believes we have placed too much trust in government. Now there I couldn't agree more.

Speaking of disagreeing... I find it strange that someone could say we're placing too much trust in government, and then call for the government to re-inflate the economy now a bit perplexing. But to each his own.

Fear Can Be Logical

I've heard so many people say that the market is a rational place to put your money, only to be confounded later when there is some unbelievable run on stocks in either the positive or negative direction. They seem to be left wondering how such a thing could happen. I think I can clear this up a little. It's just perception.

On an individual level, it's perfectly rational to place your extra money in the markets in the hope that it will increase in value. That's rational. It's also rational to withdraw your money the moment you see it reduced in value. You don't want to lose your cash. You're trying to get more. So on a micro level, you're doing exactly what is correct for you, although most technical analysts will say that pulling your money away due to your fear is an emotion, and emotions aren't rational. Which isn't always true. What could be more rational than walking away from a scenario in which you genuinely believe you could lose part of your livelihood?

But on a macro level that kind of activity looks really bad. On good news of mediocre companies doing something well, a stock can climb to many times its legitimate worth. We then say it's “overvalued.” But I have to ask... Overvalued according to whom? The disinterested person doing the valuing, or the individual making a fortune? The reverse is also true for “undervalued” stocks. Here is our subjectivism.

On a macro level, these wild swings appear to have no reality-based explanation. From a distance it looks as though there are millions of people running into and out of stocks in haphazard fashion, like a group of mindless lemmings, one following the other for no particular reason. We think they are thinking: “He's going that way, so I'll go that way.” But it just isn't that simple.

On the other hand, what successful investors and analysts tell us to do is put aside our emotions, let our portfolios weather the storms, and ignore the reversals, flat spots and runs in favor of a more nebulous, and as yet, unrealized, unforeseeable long term goal. Now here is where we become irrational. This is essentially hope. Watching total strangers take money out of our pockets, and doing nothing to prevent it goes against all rationality. The most logical thing an individual can do is take immediate action to stem such activities. But we're told not to do that. We're told to let it ride, and that this is the most logical thing we can do. It may, in fact, be the method of operation of the more successful investors. But they are remaining illogical in the face of an extraordinary amount of information to the contrary. If we could know factually where the tops and bottoms were going to be, we could simply make decisions about when to enter and exit. We could eliminate guessing and hope. Now that would be logical.

What I'm trying to say is that what most people believe about the market is that individuals trading there are doing so irrationally, while the market itself works in a totally rational fashion. But that's not exactly correct. The market as a whole only appears to be irrational, because of our perceptions about “heard” responses to good or bad news. And that is also subjective.

At some point in the future, I would like to see the field of technical analysis incorporate the price of fear into a formula. For now it's only wishful thinking. But maybe with such a formula, we can one day put a premium on fear, and reduce it to little more than a blip on our screens.

But for now, I have here a jpeg of my trading screen. You can see the overall effect of bad news. The news that the company might have to go through an "organized" bankruptcy. GM went down significantly. First the quickest, most savvy investors sold (1). Then a few deal seekers moved in (2). Then the rest of the buying public sold (3). I get to see this sort of thing all the time. I actually made a little on this stock. I had enough logical fear to get out before the big dip.

Here is an interesting blog, showing that GM is now worth less than Gamestop.

Roaches Scatter When Lights Turn On

Former NASDAQ Chairman Bernie Madoff has proven that market corrections are still good.

In an incredible display of total disregard for the money and lives of honest people, Mr. Madoff appears to have pulled off the largest ponzi scam in history. According to some preliminary lists, the fraud includes congressmen, A-list celebrities, high profile mutual funds and banks, charities, and a number of other well known individuals and businesses that are now scrambling to find out how much they've lost, and how they can minimize the damages. He was finally caught by the massive turnaround in the economy, when new money and new participants became more difficult to find. In this new, and tougher, marketplace most of his investors were trying to withdraw funds, rather than add to existing investments. Mr. Madoff, who founded Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, appears to have run the scheme for years without incident. So far the estimated total for the scam is around 50 billion dollars. But FBI officials are still sorting out the details of how the ponzi network was organized.

Going back to a man I quoted just a short time ago who wrote at length about market corrections:

“It destroys essentially those companies and industries that live a parasitic existence at the expense of the rest of the economy, and which owe their existence to our present fiat money system.”
- JÖRG GUIDO HÜLSMANN

I think we can say with certainty, that Mr. Madoff was in fact leading a “parasitic existence at the expense of the rest of the economy.” We could say the same thing about Freddie and Fannie, the auto industry, and parts of the banking sector – especially now that they're being propped up. Exposing these goings on is just one more reason to love market corrections. Corrections are good, not bad.

You can find, and download free of charge, HÜLSMANN'S entire essay entitled "Deflation and Liberty" here.

It's All Been Done

Tired of getting surprised by bad economic news? You should be. But it's not necessary. As author Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. explains, our television and radio reporters are stunned to see what's going on in the marketplace. They give us their information as if no one could have possibly predicted what our government and marketplace would be doing right now. But that's simply wrong. The long term, and even some of the day-to-day trends, of our current market conditions fit a “textbook” model of the Austrian Economics Business Cycle. So if you're tired of feeling let down every day, and you want to understand how long this business cycle will last, then try reading his article above, and check out the mises.org website for more.

Instinctively Heroic

Just recently I touched on evolution a little bit. About one day later, I had the privilege of seeing this video on television. The main driving force behind evolution is self preservation. Food, water, shelter, flight from possible injury or death. Then there are other needs. Procreation, defense of territory, the needs of family. Dogs, though, we should place in a slightly different category from the just “evolving” label. I believe that no other animal on earth has been genetically manipulated by humans more than Canis Familiaris. Dogs have been bred to selflessly serve humans. To take our commands and obey them. This video, though, should make a person stop and think a little about evolution. It made me wonder if a higher kind of consciousness (or breeding) had temporarily overcome basic instinct. These street pups aren't stupid. They know that in order to survive they need to stay away from cars. So this dog has placed secondary evolutionary drive (needs of family) ahead of primary evolutionary drive (self preservation). That's the very definition of self-sacrifice. And that just doesn't seem very instinctive. It seems, well, bred. If dogs are man's best friends, then clearly, this video shows that they are also dog's best friends. I'm absolutely proud to have three of them.

Economy Perspective

We don't need any more proof that we're in a BIG bear market. We see it every day. The TV, the radio, the newspapers. All of them tell us about the abundance of hardships in every corner of the economy. But sometimes a simple chart is all you need to put the gravity of the situation into real perspective. WARNING. If you don't like gravity... go away.

Spores, spores, spores

I nearly always get strange looks whenever I share my enthusiasm for hunting and growing mushrooms. (No, I don't eat “magic” 'shrooms.) I've always considered them a tragically underutilized source of food and medicine. In this video, mycologist, and another one of my favorite authors, Paul Staments, offers excellent evidence of why mushrooms could very well save the planet.

He touches on subjects like: they consume oil; they produce great antibiotics; they reduce carbon dioxide; they're the world's best immune system boosters; they can permanently repel insects from your home; they have the potential to produce new fuels. I'm sure you will be fascinated by this presentation. He received a standing ovation. So maybe I'm not so strange after all. The presentation is just over 15 minutes long.

Personality Typer

I took a cue from Gregory Mankiw, and put into “The Typealyzer” my blog address. Here's, supposedly, my personality type from their personality/blogger site profiler. Funny. I don't have any argument.

The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especially attuned to difficult, creative and intellectual challenges, and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications. They enjoy working with complex things, using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people who need some time to understand what they are talking about.

On a separate page, they said this:

The Mechanics

The independent and problem-solving type. They are especially attuned to the demands of the moment, and are masters of responding to challenges that arise spontaneously. They generally prefer to think things out for themselves and often avoid inter-personal conflicts. The Mechanics enjoy working together with other independent and highly skilled people, and often like to seek fun and action both in their work and personal life. They enjoy adventure and risk, such as driving race cars or working as policemen and firefighters.

Funny. I can't argue with that either. Except for the "conflicts" part.

Die, Keynesianism, Die!

For some reason, John Maynard Keynes and his largely disproven economic ideas about government involvement in an economy, “full employment,” and government's ability to “create jobs,” just refuses to go away. Some of the arguments against Keynes are:

1. Government doesn't create jobs. It only takes money, in the form of taxes, from one part of the economy and redistributes it to another part of the economy. This is called a spending multiplier. Its ratio is 1:1. In other words, one dollar gets produced in the economy for every dollar government takes out of the economy. Again, in other words, the pie doesn't get any bigger. It just gets distorted.

2. Government, and its concomitant bureaucracy, has been proven to be one of the least efficient methods of job production. It's much less efficient than the private sector.

3. Government job “creation,” in areas like public works, can only go on for as long as government continues to spend in those areas.

4. Keynesianism failed during Roosevelt's time in office.

5. It failed during the Hoover administration.

6. It failed during President Carter's fight with stagflation during the '70's.

7. And it failed more recently in Japan, during the 1990's, when the Japanese government spent a fortune trying to force their country out of a moribund economy. It cost them a fortune, and it didn't work. It was a hugely expensive mistake. The '90's are now referred to as "The Lost Decade."

Yet what does the president elect want to do to pep up the U.S. economy? Spend, spend, spend – exactly the opposite of what the country really needs. It's the very same mistake that has been made already, all over the world. When will our politicians learn?

"The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs," by Daniel J. Mitchell.

"Obama Offers First Look at Massive Plan To Create Jobs," from The Washington Post.

Stop Rewarding Business Failures

Should the American people bail out the big three? Absolutely not. And there are plenty of very good reasons for this. The bailout is now hovering between 40 and 50 billion dollars, which isn't going to be nearly enough for the Detroit behemoths. But the money seems almost guaranteed now – once the CEO's of the big three decided to show up in fuel efficient cars to please the U.S. congress. But that's what they have to do, when they come with hats in hands. After years of paying for massive legacy programs; overpaying their employees with wages, vacations, health care, etc.; selling cars the American people demand less of every year; and a laundry list of other costly problems, they are now, not surprisingly, going bankrupt. But something else is also not surprising. Their competitors are still profitable – even in this economy.

Take a look at the labor cost differences between the companies here.

Writer Daniel Ikensen and USA Today both talk about the “nausea-inducing jobs bank scam.”

Gary Burtless talks about bad modeling, gas-guzzling decisions, and the high cost of unproductive labor.

In “Don't Bail Out The Big Three,” writer Bill Steigerwald goes through a quick question and answer session on some of the most popular and pressing questions.

This auto blog talks about Toyota's expectations for a drop in profit, right, profit, in 2008.

Here's more and more Toyota profit news.

Don't Confuse Cause For Cure

Here Murray Rothbard explains what actually causes economic depressions and recessions, and brings to light why Karl Marx still has such a profound effect on modern economic thought.

Opportunity Costs - Politician Style

I'm still laughing hysterically at our government “reformers'” attempts to save us from ourselves. I'm now more convinced than ever that their “reforms” and “rescues” will ultimately cost us more than had they just left everything alone.

In “Anatomy of a Breakdown,” writer Michael Flynn explains that the cause of the crisis came not from deregulation, but rather from government meddling on behalf of the poor, whom they determined needed “affordable housing.” In the 1970's, we called it “The Community Reinvestment Act.” Today, we simply call it Freddie and Fannie.

Here are a few more headlines from this past week. We can expect to see a lot more of these in the coming years.

"Obama wants auto industry reformer"

"The Big Three Have a Plan: Ask for Even More Bailout Money"

"TARP Trouble: GAO Report Rips Internal Controls, Bank Monitoring"

Atheist Logic

I've been thinking about atheism over the last few days, after watching some videos on the web of the most prominent atheists in the world. And I've noticed a strange double standard. Atheists have chosen not to believe in GOD for at least one of the same reasons that believers have chosen to believe – a lack of evidence – faith.

Aside from the standard arguments of: there cannot be a man with scepter in hand lording over all of us as if we're puppets (ego, free will); there's no harm done in not believing, because it doesn't make you any less human (secular humanist); the world would be better off without religion (anti-religion); all that we see is a process of evolution, not creation (evolutionist); the Bible is folk lore, fable or modern popular delusion that changes slightly over time (nonsense), there is one argument that I hear repeated quite often with the atheists: “There's no proof” (scientific, or reason).

The two that make the most sense, of course, are the scientific arguments. The evolutionist will tell you that humans came from apes, who in turn came from the fishes in the ocean. Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. But the theory of evolution in and of itself doesn't eliminate the idea of a universal creator. Nor does science in its entirety, for that matter. It's simply a process that we are in the process of understanding. So far, all we have to study is what's here on planet earth. And given the size of the universe, we simply don't have enough information to decide one way or the other. Either about apes, or about the originating galactic “primordial ooze.” We still don't have even so much as a scale upon which to put into perspective the size of the universe. The size of a galaxy – yes. The distance between galaxies – yes. But not the entire known and still as yet unknown universe. We have no reference whatsoever for such grand distances. There's also something about the evolutionary time tables the evolutionists don't want you to know. They're full of holes. They have massive gaps during which no one understands what happened. The best we can do is make an educated guess. And in some cases, the outcome of these gaps is a profound jump in evolutionary standards. So I hope that no reasonable person has made up his or her mind about the existence of GOD based upon the evolution evidence, and lack of evolution evidence, that we have here on earth. That's horribly near-sighted, because there's so much more of the universe to study. So, for now, the size of our universe and the breadth of our future knowledge are beyond our comprehension. It might be best to just say we don't get it yet. But not so for the atheists.

So, the only rational argument I keep coming back to is: “There's no proof.” That's logical. And correct. There isn't. But this argument isn't scientifically responsible. Our scientists will be the first to tell us that “absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.” So atheists, many of whom claim to have very logical and scientific minds, are in essence, making up their minds that there cannot be a GOD, because of a lack of evidence – which isn't scientific. The most rational, responsible and scientific conclusion, ultimately, would be the one of the agnostics: Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know.

At the very least that position would keep a person's mind open, rather than shutting it down. Science is, after all, the process of inquiry. But, alas, this isn't the case for the atheists.

Ironically, it's also the identical rationale for the believers in GOD. They have decided to believe in spite of a lack of evidence. They believe that believing is better than not believing. But they're not using a science-based argument to help them make up their minds. They don't ask for proof. They have simply used the very essence of faith. So at least we can say that their final conclusion to believe is consistent with how they've made up their minds. Again, not so for the atheists, several of which I've watched belittle believers for using their same methodology.

Now don't take too much personal offense. I'm only beating up the atheists a little. They're used to it. Ultimately, I could care less what people believe, so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me – something else the faithful and the atheists have in common in my experience. I'm just looking for consistency. And, in my humble opinion, atheists have some extra steps to take to remain logically consistent. The faithful, not so much. And I've often wondered about some other things.

Questions atheists should answer (not for me, for themselves):

Evolution implies intention. It's not sexual reproduction for the sake of propagating a species, but a specific direction. Intention toward something. A destination, if you will. How does evolution know which way to go? Doesn't evolution, in and of itself, imply a very specific brand of consciousness? Where does that come from?

According to modern evolutionary theory, evolution takes place in incremental steps over millions of years, and many generations. But according to modern medicine, we currently use less than 10 percent of our brains. How is it possible that we have developed 90 percent of something that appears to serve us no purpose? How can evolution rectify such a dilemma?

A single-celled organism that has no brain and no central nervous system also has the ability to understand when it's being attacked by another, and has the knowledge and ability to respond by defending itself. This implies external consciousness and knowledge of self. How is this possible without a brain or nervous system? Where does the consciousness come from? Is it “cellular” consciousness? And how can knowledge be applied without a brain?

Also, if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, what happens to the energy, which is in and of itself matter (E=MC2), located in our bodies? Where does it go? For that matter (pardon the pun) where did it come from?

In reference to the last question, there is another instance of energy disappearing. How can a black hole (also still theory) simply consume matter? Again, if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, where does it go? If there is, as our scientific community tells us, a “point of infinite implosion,” shouldn't there be, according to our own scientific laws, also a point of infinite explosion? Where is it? Where does the matter go?

The point I'm trying to make in the above two examples, is that there must be a place where the matter comes out, in one form or another. We don't know where that is, but we now take it for granted (faith, if you will) that it simply goes away. And that's not consistent – yet – with our scientific laws. I suppose to some the argument of basic matter coming and going seems irrelevant. We will probably find the answers soon enough. But to remain logically consistent in one's atheistic, scientific belief system, one must have evidence before one changes his or her mind. But basing a belief system on faith in science theory is just as logically irresponsible as faith in any other endeavor. Theorists are often very, very wrong.

Do you believe in the big bang? If not, your logic might be consistent. If so, there are other questions that need to be answered.

What existed before the big bang? What did the Big Bang explode into? It can't be "nothing." Empty space, mostly empty space, is what we have after the big bang. So a "nothing" argument isn't logical. And a “something” argument implies that (our) space itself has an edge (an end of our measurable time), and that there is something else beyond that edge (albeit mainly empty), which is, for our purposes, time independent. This also implies another dimension to our current reality that we have no knowledge about – a time independent reality – which itself implies another possible existence that we don't understand. So what did the Big Bang explode into?

Though we don't have any actual evidence of a galactic primordial ooze, our scientists accept, largely with total disregard to other theories (Steven Hawking has a good one), that everything in the universe came from such a primordial ooze. They claim that, given the current expansion rate of the universe, we must have this most primitive thing in our past. But observation of expansion now only means that we're expanding now. It doesn't necessarily mean that we've always been expanding from a central point in spacetime – especially since we have nothing more than theory on which to base our opinions.

In reference to the above statements, today science readily accepts the “primordial ooze” idea. The theory (yes, theory) posits that everything in existence today came from a point in our distant past that is smaller than the head of a pin – in fact, far, far smaller than the head of a pin. Given that we believe there are hundreds of billions, or possibly hundreds of trillions, of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars (the Milky Way alone has 200 to 400 billion), and hundreds of billions of planets (how many zeros is that?) within each galaxy, does this amount of mass squeezed into such a small space appear to be sound scientific logic? Or does it seem more logically plausible that all the mass in our universe came from another place?

And one last, slightly philosophical, question.

If the painting does not paint itself, the poem does not write itself, nor the sculpture carve itself, how did the universe create itself?

Boy, am I glad I got that out of my head. Maybe now I can concentrate on something worthwhile.

Bailout Now Tops 8.5 Trillion

Growing, growing, gone
The healthy economy as we once knew it has now been eighty-sixed in favor of the massive TARP bailout, and all of its equally expensive pals. It seems our government and the media just can't stand only 94 percent of the American population working, only 94 percent of American households still solvent, and a much needed credit market correction. Our bubble has finally burst. One would think that since our elected leaders had for years warned us about the ills of “easy credit,” that a simple, albeit large, banking and credit industry correction would be welcome. But now they've changed their minds. “We need to free up the credit markets,” we hear. Every day there are more cries of “it's a crisis;” “do something.” So the once evil and toxic “easy credit” has now become their much sought cure.

Please. Anything.
Well, they did something. They have now agreed to back up 8.5 trillion dollars worth of bad debt, or about 60 percent of the entire GDP of the United States ('07), and hand it all over to the largest industries in the country. Can you say “transfer of wealth” boys and girls? I think you can. But we have to ask...Why are they doing this? My answer? Votes and fear.

Credit Crisis?
Although it may be a little more difficult for you to get a home loan, it's not impossible. You can still get these loans, though your down payment will have to be larger, and your credit history will need to be healthy. Ironically this is exactly what the banking sector required from all of its loan customers, before the government began pushing its home-as-American-birthright agenda through Freddie and Fannie. Strange isn't it? Historically, our situation was exactly what we're looking for today. Higher credit requirements. Less regulation. Less risk. Healthy banking industry. Who knew? Well...we did. But the Washington insiders didn't.

Auto loans are even better. Automakers are desperate to sell cars right now. No money down deals are advertised daily. So no credit crisis there.

Credit cards? Yes, we have more credit cards in the U.S. than we have people, but we've chosen not to use them in favor of...gasp, savings! Thrift, economy and savings, oh my! This is supposed to be bad?

Votes And Fear
They're saying that they're afraid if they don't move rapidly to get the (credit) markets moving again that there will be layoffs, a spike in unemployment, and those will lead to a dissatisfied electorate. And when the next round of elections takes place, all of the dissatisfied peoples will be revealed. But ultimately they're only guessing about the magnitude of future unemployment. They have no empirical evidence upon which to place their fears. We are in totally uncharted waters.

So in their infinite wisdom of how to correct an “out of control,” uh, free marketplace, they've done something hideous. They've distorted more than half of the economy. They've twisted our productive effort up to the top of the corporate ladder. They've created the largest corporate welfare program this country has ever seen. I have to wonder how many in the working/voting classes see this as equally dissatisfying. But their fear is an emotion, and not logical, after all. They just want to protect their future votes. And do something.

Follow My Lead
So again, the American people are left to pay for the emotions of fear-filled bureaucrats. They've placed an 8 trillion dollar bet on our future. And their jobs. Our elected leaders are telling us to do as they do. Use your credit. They're hoping that if they spend 8 trillion now, that we will produce more than 8 trillion later.

Honestly, though, I have my doubts. Chase Bank just burned through its first 25 billion dollar TARP payment (which they used to buy new assets). Now it's back for another 20 billion, and over 300 billion in loan guarantees – which they've been given. The auto industry guarantees doubled from 25 to 50 billion. All of it without a plan. It's only a matter of time before we see more of this behavior from other TARP-filled corporations.

So use your cards, people. Use your cards. The government wants to stimulate the economy and take credit for its new, larger welfare program. They just neglected to tell us what kind of welfare.

And one parting question...does any of this seem like a "representative" government to you?

Here are a couple of sites dedicated to tracking how much the bailout is costing us.
http://www.breakthebailout.com/node/3
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/tracking-the-bailout/

Here is a site that compiles a lot of information on the bailout and all of its minutiae.

Here is some good Citigroup info.

Here is the Citigroup bailout in detail.

This is a “Bailout Reader” page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlcOJz9vb_E