Deregulation Caused the Housing Crisis

I suppose it is the very nature of complexity that clarity is lost. So here is a clear defense against charges that deregulation was the cause of the housing crisis.  

There are two possible causes of the housing crisis. It could be the failure of regulation, and by extension, the free market philosophy of less regulation and red tape. It also could be the interference of government in the free market system.

Here is the case against the "deregulation is the cause" case. 

Producing ethanol is more efficient than gasoline...debunked...

One of the problems with the ethanol industry is their reliance on fallacious arguments to make their case. This doesn't help with the long term viability of the industry.

In one of the more frustrating arguments, ethanol proponents argue that producing gasoline is actually less efficient than producing ethanol. This is ludicrous on its face.

Here is a typical argument that producing ethanol is more efficient than gasoline. Minnesota department of Agriculture propagates this fallacy here.

To produce 1 btu of energy in ethanol, (1.67 btu returned to 1 btu used), it would take .6 btu's to produce 1btu of ethanol. This system has a 40% efficiency rating.

To produce 1 btu of energy of gasoline from crude, it takes .2 btu of energy, for an 80% efficiency.

But the Argonne National Laboratory is cited to show false scientific data as shown here. They show that ethanol has a 1.67% return on energy used, and that oil has a .8% net energy return. These numbers are inaccurate because they show two different statistics. It is true that producing gasoline from oil is an 80% efficient process. However, the 1:1.67 return is a measure of energy used versus energy returned. Oil, therefore, would be 1:4 return (based on returning .8 btus on a .2 btu investment). This is a very large difference.

For ethanol to be taken seriously, the arguments for its use must be accurate.

Thoughts on Racial Profiling

Read this article

Imagine if we knew the general look of a terrorist, and didn't focus our resources properly to go after a terrorist.

For the people who believe profiling is wrong, you have blood on your hands. 

If you are a Middle Eastern man in your middle teens to late 40's, you have the same look as a terrorist. You should be mad as hell the people that look like you are willing to blow up planes in the name of Allah, not at the rest of us who recognize the look of a terrorist.

Deal with it.

These Trying Times

Some see the world in stark contrasts of black and white, good vs. evil and right vs. wrong. In politics, we call these people idealists. There are those that see the world in neither black or white, but in shades of gray. These people are called pragmatists.

One side claims the other lives without moral clarity, while the other side finds man's reliance on faith and moral certainty appalling and unrealistic.

In these trying economic and political times, the world in which we live seems less certain and pragmatism appears to have gained the upper hand. The global economic and financial system which we have relied upon is broken. The world we live in is at war. Entire industries have been nationalized.  The economic theory of mortgaged consumerism has provided the greatest progress the world has ever seen, lasted less than forty years, but has proven to be a colossal failure as it has left the world on the brink of bankruptcy. 

The next great debate America will face is as old as the world in which we live. Will we cast aside the progress of Western Civilization as laid out in the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution in this new challenge and turn toward the siren song of Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin and the Communist Manifesto? Or will we recognize the catastrophic conclusion of a collective society best described by Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

It is difficult to see the answer, as we discover the depths of fraud on Wall Street, the incompetence of our government, and the reliance on mortgaged consumerism of every industry in the Western world. But the answer to our economic turmoil is as simple as it ever has been.

Every person, acting on their own behalf, must live within a set of boundaries determined to provide for themselves. Embrace freedom, and accept the responsibility associated with it. It is the moral duty of every capable citizen to provide for themselves and to save for the future. 

It is time for idealism to triumph over pragmatism, as pragmatism leads to compromising one's soul and one's future.

Any other system does not work.

Attention Reporters: Questions for Politicians

1. What do you suspect will the FY 2009 federal budget deficit be? How much will we add to the national debt? Why are those numbers different?

2. Who buys our debt if there are no buyers? How much debt has the Federal Reserve bought? 

Do we pay the Federal Reserve interest when they buy Treasury Securities?

3. In theory, who would spend more money in Washington, a conservative Republican, or a liberal Democrat? If Blue Dog Democrats agree there must be less spending in Washington, wouldn't they continually be opposed to Democrat Chairmen and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?

4. Aren't you worried about our dollar becoming worthless (inflation) and extremely high interest rates (cost to borrow) if we borrow $2.5 trillion in one year?

5. Aren't you scared that you don't know what you are doing in Washington? Do you ever look over at Maxine Waters and think to yourself, "God Help Us?"

6. Is America still the richest country in the world?

7. Since you have been elected, what warnings did you give to predict this economic crisis?

8. When did you first learn about a mortgage backed security and a credit default swap? When was the first time you used "tranche" in a sentence. Was it before or after you learned the word "gravitas?"

9. Who do you rely on for comfort when you vote to spend money we don't have?

10. Are we selling gold on the open market to raise money to pay off our debts and to buy large blocks of oil at todays prices?

A New Treason Policy

The freedom of speech should be trumped by the crime of treason.

Despite the economic crisis, the largest issue facing our country is terrorism. We have spent billions of dollars extra to protect our country in order to protect the "freedoms" of those that support terrorists by patting down Grandma Anderson and Grampa Olson at the airport. Barrack Obama is afraid to use the words "war on terror" for fear of offending some people. 

Many refuse to name the real assailants as the threat. They refuse to call this a war between Islamic fundamentalism and western secular societies. More people refuse to call this what it really is, a battle between the Muslim world versus the non-Muslim world. This fear of offending is costing our country billions of dollars by targeting those that don't have anything to do with Muslim extremism. Sure, there are some domestic groups that plan destruction, but this is not the war on terror of which we speak.

It should be the duty of all Muslim people to denounce Muslim extremism all over the world. Their leaders should be working with the leaders of all Western countries, and enlisting their members in the military to fight against this extremism. There should be large battalions of American Muslims fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq against their "brothers and sisters in Allah" conducting suicide bombings in the name of their religion.

But I don't hear about any mass volunteers from the Muslim community. I only see the fear of Muslims in France and Holland, and around the world. I only see appeasement. I only see capitulation on our side to take special care to make sure we don't offend Muslims in any way.

But make no mistake about it. President Bush was right by saying you are either "for us or against us." You are either sympathetic to Muslim terrorists or you are against them. There is no room for gray area.

When it comes to dissent in our country, should we really be concerned about freedom of speech, if the speech would lead to the defeat of our country?

For example. If a Muslim group financially supports Al Qaeda, or an individual Muslim church talks about the the good things Al Qaeda is doing. To me, this is treason, and these people should at least be deported and stripped of their citizenship, and at most, be severely punished to the full extent of the Constitution--death.

People who sympathize with those people who are tried and punished, should also be punished. 

The people of this country will need to unite against terrorism and no longer appease Muslim sympathizers.

Eight Kids Paid for by Government?

We've heard the story about the mom who had octuplets. The real story could be there is a government program to pay for this.

Here is a quote from a story about the in vitro fertilization where the children weigh between 1.8 pounds and 3 pounds each. 

"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."

Whether our government is paying for this procedure, or an insurance company is, the cost to society is too much. This needs to end.

Here is the link for the rest of the story...