Muchacho Polaco

I don’t normally read the newspaper, but given that it has been delivered to my hotel room every morning for the last week, I’ve taken the opportunity to glance through it each morning.

I also do not normally watch television (we do not get cable and really don’t get much by way of local channels), so I have had the opportunity to watch the network news each evening. Like the newspaper, I find the network reports mostly depressing. The Democratic Convention has consumed most of the programs I’ve had the chance to watch and it is of very little interest to me. The USA Today is not much better, but there were a number of articles I found particularly interesting (and disturbing) yesterday.

USA Today, Wednesday, August 27^th, 2008

“US wholesale inflation surged in July at the fastest year-over-year pace in nearly 27 years.”

Highest wholesale inflation pace in 27 years? I’m surprised this actually made the news; apparently I need to read the paper more often. Perhaps if people are aware of just how bad the situation is, they might start asking why inflation is such a problem.

“..rising bank failures are eating into the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, which reimburses depositors. In the second quarter, its balance fell to $45.2 billion, down 14% from the first quarter. To boost fund assets, the FDIC said it’s considering raising banks premiums for deposit insurance, with troubled banks paying more because of the higher risk of failure.”

I can only imagine what increasing premiums for failing banks is going to do for those failing banks – but then, what else is the FDIC supposed to do. Why not have the Federal government bail them out? That way we could continue socializing the losses, but maintain privatization of the gains! I could get a second job to help out.

“The credit crisis took a heavier toll on banks in the second quarter of the year: the number of troubled banks rose 30%, to 117, the highest in 5 years, from 90 in the first quarter, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said.”

The article later went on to say that roughly 8% of the troubled banks on that list end up folding. That’s a lot of lost savings – fractional reserve banking at its finest.

“The oldest baby boomers are turning 62 this year, making them eligible for Social Security, about half, or 1.6 million, are expected to file for Social Security as soon as they qualify…”

I’ve pointed this out before – the BBs constitute a liability more than 5 times our National deficit. We cannot currently pay the interest on our debt. How do we pay the interest on a debt 5 times what we currently owe? That would amount to over a $500,000 contribution for every household in the Nation.

It would be interesting if these topics were discussed by the current political candidates.

Below is a response to Matt’s blog entry of 08/21/08
_____________________________________

Matt, I agree with your assessment regarding Obama, assuming the change would be politically ideal (which begs the question). However, he’s proven invaluable to a neo-con like McCain. After all, if McCain gets elected, it’s because he’s perceived as somehow a ‘lesser evil’ (however that is supposed to be measured), not because he’s actually qualified to do the job. Sadly, this is how we got here today – incessant ideological compromises (strategic ‘lesser evil’ votes). Obviously this nation will continue on the same downward spiral when the best we can hope for is a ‘lesser evil’. I firmly believe if one were to scrutinize McCain’s political policy (rarely does one actually bother to do this – the sloganeering is typically sufficient), one would conclude that it hardly would make any economic difference should McCain or Obama get elected. I do think the Hitler/Stalin dichotomy is quite accurate as a reflection of the type of massive government increase we can expect from each party (with their differences reflected in various plans for massive spending through military advancement and socialization).

Ron Paul has argued, as supported by the CIA and the 9/11 Commission’s report, that 9/11 was simply the result of an American foreign policy of empire-building and foreign occupation. Do you really think occupying the Arabian Peninsula would have no such retaliatory consequences? I can confidently assume what Americans would do should Iran or China install military bases in North America (and history tells us what happens if someone tries to occupy an island off shore!). Why don’t terrorists attack China and their godless anti-Islamic views? I think it obvious it has nothing to do with Western or anti-Islamic ideology.

Ron Paul is frequently erroneously accused of being an isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don’t accuse China as being isolationist, despite their similar foreign policy. On the contrary, refusal to trade with nations like Cuba is an excellent example of a policy of isolationism. The antithesis of empire-building is not isolationism.

Of course Dr. Paul won’t win this election – he couldn’t even win the Republican primaries. The Media did everything in their power to ensure that would never happen. And of course, the Media determines which candidate has a ‘real’ chance at election. I suspect if Ron Paul got the same media exposure as McCain or Obama, things would be quite different in regard to election probabilities. That coupled with the stultifying ignorance of the publicly-educated masses, ensures ‘lesser evils’ are the very best this Nation could ever hope for. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I doubt the average citizen is concerned about the activities of the Fed (or the problems of fiat currency), non-congressionally authorized declarations of war and acts of aggression, or our national debt and the amount we borrow from China daily to cover the interest on that debt. My guess is the voting populace is presently preoccupied with their own debt resulting from their perceived importance of obtaining things they don’t need, to impress people they don’t know, with money they don’t have. Why would they expect their government’s monetary policy to be any different?

Whether we have a President Obama or McCain – one thing is guaranteed, we will continue to have a governmental policy of plunder! The baby boomer generation has now begun to enter into retirement laying the way for a 50 trillion dollar liability in social security and other federal handouts. We’re borrowing nearly 4 billon daily to cover interest on a 10 trillion dollar debt, who do you think is going to cover interest on a debt 5-10 times that amount?

You would think it a tad important that each of these candidates would be addressing these issues and outlining strategies to deal with the inevitable recession, the current housing bubble, the rapid deflation of our currency, and the plethora of other economic issues that bring our country to the edge of collapse. But those are issues apparently not worthy of discussion. Obama wants to institute socialized health care (who’s going to pay for that??), McCain wants to continue our military efforts in the Middle East (surely to include Iran in the near future), as well as our continued occupation of over 120 nations, but like Obama, he doesn’t care to explain who is going to foot the bill. Our current ‘war on terror’ (which lacks Constitutionally-required Congressional approval) will cost approximately 3 trillion dollars (with ancillary costs), or roughly $50,000 per household! Yet McCain has publicly advised his willingness to stay in Iraq another 100 years if necessary! But why stop there? Why not add to the economic burden by granting 11 million criminals (who are in this country illegally) amnesty so we can promptly get them on welfare and other federal benefits that come by forced redistribution of wealth. I suppose we can have the Fed continue to print the currency necessary to cover these acts of brilliance – we’d at least have the added advantage of no longer needing to buy essential items like toilet paper (using paper currency would be a cheaper alternative!)