True confession. I’m almost fifty years old and I have never voted in my life.

I probably can’t fully justify it, but in a nutshell the truth is that I have never seen a candidate for a political office that I trusted enough, even in a lesser of evils way, to affirm with a vote.

But unless something changes, come 2012, I will be voting for the first time because for the first time there is a candidate running for office that I feel good about voting for.

If you’ve been reading along here at all, it should be obvious that there is a lot in Ron Paul’s economic platform that I fervently agree with. But to be clear, there are things that he says that make me cringe. There are other areas of his platform that I firmly disagree with. Those disagreements I can live with.

What I can’t live with is another in an endless line of assholes who has never produced a straight answer to a simple question in his life; whose convictions bend like grass in the wind; who says whatever, whenever in order to garner votes; whose allegiance is for sale to the highest bidder; whose first and last thought is for their personal gain while they mouth the platitudes of “public service”.

Ron Paul is the only politician that I have seen who has never compromised his principles for political expedience. His voting record is clear and always 100% perfectly aligned with what he says. He has been walking his talk in congress for 35 years. I believe with no doubt at all that he is his own man, ideologically clean, unbeholden to special interests.

I may disagree with some of his beliefs, but I trust him. At this stage that is far more important to me, and I think more important to the nation, than someone whose platform I agree with completely.

It’s time for trust and integrity in government.

Ron Paul 2012.

Comments

Many people tell us how we should do what we do.

Some are right.

Comments

There are so many players and so many moving parts in the financial/economic/monetary crisis that the world is currently experiencing, and so many “experts”, each with their own bias, babbling their book with overly obtuse language designed to obscure the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about and especially (like everyone else) no idea what is going to happen next, that the whole mess seems extremely complicated.

But it’s not really.

To be sure, the world and the world’s interlinked economies are a complex system and thus immune to any kind of simple explanation or analysis. But the issue that is really ailing us is fairly simple.

Here is a quote from a recent essay by Jeffrey Snider of Atlantic Capital Management that sums it up:

What is really happening across the world is the peeling back of the façade of the last few decades of monetarism. The banking system, per se, is not the problem. The problem is that the world has too many existing claims on its created productive assets and the perceptions of the world's ability to create additional productive assets.

That is the root of the ongoing financial crisis in a nutshell. Colloquially translated, he’s saying there is too much debt. But the nuance of identifying the real issue as too many existing claims on the world’s productive (i.e. wealth creating) assets is a much more accurate way of saying it. 

And to put the cherry on top of this simple diagnosis of what is wrong, the current uncertainty in financial markets essentially comes down to one question: will the gap that Snider identifies between the productive wealth in the world and the number of claims on that wealth be primarily reconciled by slashing the claims [DEFLATION] or by increasing the global money supply so drastically that the claims will be nominally satisfied, but in currency that has lost most of its value [HYPERINFLATION]?

Complex system. Simple issue.

Comments

stupid |ˈst(y)o͞opid| adjective
lacking intelligence or common sense:

The United States consumes about 70 billion barrels of oil per year.

The heavily government-subsidized industry of farming corn to produce ethanol for liquid fuel is currently using more than HALF of the corn produced annually in the U.S. to produce approximately 1 billion barrels per year. And each barrel of ethanol contains less energy equivalent than a barrel of petroleum.

So half of our annual production of corn, itself an extraordinarily petroleum-use-intensive crop, instead of being eaten for food, is being used to produce less than 1/70th of our annual consumption of oil energy.

I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why exactly we are doing this. Hint: “government-subsidized” is a good place to start.

Comments