Kohtz.org
I just found John Stossel's new blog, John Stossel's Take. He was over at ABC, but recently moved to Fox as he felt it was a better fit with his beliefs. I really enjoy his posts, so I'm glad it's now back up somewhere.
The Government has been borrowing money like crazy, and what they don't borrow the Federal Reserve has been creating with the printing press. And not just a little, but unprecedented amounts. We're finally starting to see the results of this in oil prices.
"Inflation fears drive dollar dip" - Washington Post
Oil rose primarily for financial reasons, analysts said, not supply issues. Indeed, because oil is priced in dollars, Europe has seen little to no increase in oil prices in euros.
Oil is priced in dollars. This means that oil suppliers get paid in dollars. Since there are so many dollars out there and so much debt, they don't trust the dollar will maintain its value. In fact, the dollars value is at an all time low. So in order to buy the same amount of oil as before, suppliers want more dollars. Because the Europeans aren't creating money or going into debt at anywhere close to the rate we are, their currency has more value. The price of oil has stayed the same for them.
Unfortunately, an increase in energy prices will only be the beginning. Our entire economy is based on oil. When the price of oil goes up, the price of shipping goes up. When the price of shipping goes up, the price of food prices go up. Soon everything is going up except your pay check. That's usually the last thing to reflect inflation and why inflation is so devastating, especially to the poor and retired. Retirement savings can become worthless in a hurry.
So what can you do about it? Complain to your Senator or Representative. Make them feel the heat! You can also support groups like Audit the Fed or donate money to candidates like Peter Schiff and Rand Paul who understand the economy, even if they aren't from your state.
"Students Rely on Federal Loans to Pay Rising Tuition" - WSJ
More college students are relying on federal student loans instead of increasingly scarce private ones as tuition costs continue to rise, new data indicate.According to reports issued Tuesday by the College Board, the volume of private student loans -- those not made or guaranteed by the government -- fell by 52% in the 2008-09 school year as recession-battered lenders tightened credit standards or abandoned what had been one of the fastest-growing sectors of the financial-aid market.
The reason there are so few loans for college students is because college tuition has become so expensive. It's extremely risky for colleges to loan money to students because they may never be able to pay the loans back Banks can't exactly repossess the education either, so there is little collateral to secure the loan. So the government comes to the rescue and promises to pay if the student can't. This is fine, except it just makes the tuition problem worse. There is no need for universities to lower their tuition if anyone can get a loan for any amount. This is why even though every sector of the economy is feeling pressure to lower prices, college tuition keeps going up. They have no incentive to lower their prices if they can pass any cost on to the student.
It's also unlikely that the government will do anything to stop this upward spiral because college hides unemployment. The more people who go back to school, the lower the unemployment numbers. Never mind the fact that these people are simply going deeper into debt and will still be hard pressed to find a job when they're done.
The eventual outcome - provided it happens before our currency collapses under the weight of all our debt - is that a college education will become a right and should be paid for by the government. You know, because the government has such a surplus of money these days and people can't function without the almighty government.
I was reading the following article and recalled another one recently that suggested a reason for the low interest rates that helped fueled the housing bubble.
Money from countries with trade surpluses like China has flowed into the United States, a factor thought to have contributed to the low interest rates that helped feed the U.S. housing bubble.- Bernanke urges US to cut budget deficit
I don't understand why reporters are saying this. The Federal Reserve sets interest rates! They are at near zero percent right now, not because of China or any other country, but because of the Federal Reserve! The Federal Reserve played a major role in the housing bubble. How can they not understand this basic fact of our economy?
The author, Jeannine Aversa, even mentions the manipulation of interest rates by the Fed in the very same article, "Bernanke and his colleagues last month held a key bank lending rate at an all-time low near zero and pledged to hold it there for an 'extended period.'" UUUUHG!!
In the Simpson's Episode, "The Front", Bart and Lisa are writing episodes of Itchy and Scratchy in Grampa Simpson's name, who has been getting paid for the episodes. When Bart and Lisa explain what they did, the dialog went like this...
Lisa: "Didn't you wonder why you were getting checks for doing nothing?"
Grampa: "I figured, 'cuz the Democrats were in power again."
This headline reminded me of that episode. It's funny because it's true. :)
Another nerd post that I think could help people. If you're using the Google Maps API, there is a good chance you'll use the getLocations() method of the Geocoding Object. In doing so, your results will be returned as a JSON object. To get information from this object can be somewhat difficult. For example, the PostalCodeNumber can sometimes be found in AdministrativeArea.SubAdministrativeArea.Locality, but in some instances there won't be a SubAdministrativeArea so looking there may not always produce results. Sometimes, the method may not return the PostalCodeNumber value at all. So, to make life simple, I've come up with this recursive function that will search the object for what you are looking for. If it doesn't find it, it will return false.
The argument "place" is the return value from Google, and the argument "lookingFor" is the string value of what you are looking for such as "PostalCodeNumber" or "SubAdministrativeAreaName." Enjoy.
function getPlaceValue(place, lookingFor) {
var obj = place;
for(prop in obj) {
if (prop == lookingFor) {
return obj[prop];
break;
}
else if (typeof(obj[prop]) == "object") {
return getPlaceValue(obj[prop], lookingFor);
}
}
return false;
}
New York is forcing it's health care employees to get flu shots. If they don't, they're out the door.
Dr. Gus Birkhead, New York's deputy health commissioner, says the state has never gotten even 40 percent of its health care workers immunized against flu -- despite what he calls "year-in, year-out" campaigns to persuade them to get flu shots. So two years ago, officials began thinking about a different approach.- N.Y. Mandates Flu Shots For Health Care Workers"I think it was really sitting around each year reviewing what had happened and all of our efforts, and then being disappointed by the end result," he says. "We began to come around to this idea that some kind of a requirement was going to be needed."
The majority of health care workers in the United States don't get flu vaccinations. Maybe because they see first hand the risks and benefits associated with the shots and deem the risk not worth the benefit. Maybe they are unable to see any benefit at all. So it's disturbing when administrators and bureaucrats, people who don't see the day to day results, decide that it should be a requirement. It's especially disturbing when when it's the government making the decision.
To be fair, there really isn't a difference between a private employer forcing you to inject a new and untested vaccine into your system verses the government. The point is that nobody should be able to force you to taking a vaccine in order to continue employment. That's what freedom is, the right to choose for yourself. But the government's role in our lives was meant to be limited. It was meant to protect our freedom, not take it away.
This flu is no more deadly then any other flu, but it gives administrators, bureaucrats and the CDC purpose. It lets them justify their existence and the money they spend, and it probably makes a small percentage of people very rich. Flu vaccines weren't much of a profit center a few years ago. A lot of companies made vaccines, but were thinking about getting rid of them. How convenient that something like the Swine Flu came along. You don't hear stories about struggling flu vaccine making pharmaceutical companies any more.
It's just very disturbing to hear Dr. Gus Birkhead talk about his program. I think his attitude is becoming more and more prevalent, and exemplifies the period of history we now live in. He's and his colleges are here to help. They have been trying to help for years and they are fed up. So from now on it doesn't matter if you want help or not, it will be forced upon you. This is socialism. Doing things for the "greater good" at the expense of the individual. Take your medicine, be it a vaccine or a bailout. The privileged few know best.
UPDATE: Just saw this article, which is relevant to my post. Does the Vaccine Matter?
The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine "mismatches" occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge.
This morning I read the following quote in one of my books about the U.S.-Mexican war of 1846 where we took Texas from Mexico. Thomas Corwin, a Senator from Ohio who opposed the war said in a speech to congress, "If I were a Mexican I would tell you, 'Have you not room in your own country to bury your dead men? If you come into mine we will greet you with bloody hands, and welcome you to hospitable graves.'" It's a powerful statement, one that conveys both the violence and senselessness of war.
Ironically, the first thing I read this morning was, "Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan." Not much has changed in 160 years, except for the fact that we no longer take the land for our own, we just spend blood and money like it is. I wonder what Alfred Nobel would think about his prize for the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." I'm curious how the Nobel Committee will react.
I just heard President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations. I can't help but wonder though if this was awarded to him not for his efforts toward peace, but simply because he's not Bush.
My sister who lives in Switzerland said she was glad when Obama won because she didn't have to listen to people tell her how much they hated Bush when they found out she was American. I really don't understand what Obama has done towards peace besides not being Bush. He hasn't even been in office for a year.
If you take a quick look at what he has done, you'll find that the war in Iraq continues, expansion of the war in Afghanistan by as much as 40,000 troops is under consideration, and solely under his administration (not a continuation of something Bush did), he has expanded our military presence in Colombia and South America. What has he really done to promote peace?
Seriously, leave a comment. I'd like to know.
With all the big banks getting bailout money, they have been doing quite well. Unfortunately it has come at the expense of the little banks. After all, the big banks can borrow directly from the Federal Reserve at a near zero percent interest rates. It's free money, it's not theirs, and if they lose it they know they will get bailed out. When you're risking someone else's money (no risk), you can offer whatever kind of deal you want. Little banks can't do that because they know they won't be bailed out. As a result, they offer fewer loans, but they still have to compete. This means they have to lower their lending standards, loan money at the same rate, and if a few too many defaults happen they go under. They are at a big disadvantage and are losing. As proof of this, the three biggest mortgage lenders -- Wells Fargo, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase now account for almost 52% of new home mortgages in the first half of 2009, compared with only a 37% share in 2007 (according to the article below).
So to try and keep the little guys from dying off, the government has decided to give them money as well. See Fannie, Freddie Aid Mortgage Banks: Report.
Fannie Mae (FNM Quote)and Freddie Mac (FRE Quote) are in the process of introducing a program that will help independent mortgage banks acquire short-term credit for financing home loans and also reduce risks these banks are exposed to, a report says.[ . . . ]
The objective of the program appears to be aimed at supporting independent mortgage banks which have either gone out of business or are losing market share to better-capitalized firms over the past two years.
This is a perfect example of what happens when you mess with the free market. It creates a giant web of unintended consequences. Because of their arrogance, the people in power think they can fix these problems through more market manipulation. Unfortunately for them and us, the market always wins.
The Federal Reserve has already socialized failure for the large banks, spreading the losses to tax payers while letting the banks reward themselves with money they make off their free loans. The great bank welfare program of the early 21st century is having consequences that are a little too obvious and visible (small banks die, large banks make billions) for them. In order to keep up the appearance of competition, their solution is to give risk free money to all banks, all in the name of helping the consumer. It's good work if you can get it.
The end result will ultimately be a faster transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the top 5-10%. It happens through higher taxes in part, but mostly it occurs from inflation. The money being given to these banks is created by the Federal Reserve. Every dollar created makes our existing dollars worth less. Eventually, people won't want our money anymore (see Inflation On The Way). If they do do accept it, they'll want a lot more of it.
Gold price hits record high on 'plan' to ditch dollar
This is certainly not good news for the United States.
"The dollar weakness appears to be related to ... (reported) secret talks about oil being priced in a basket of currencies including gold rather than the dollar, which has added to concerns about the future role of the dollar in international financial markets."
If countries start to abandon the dollar, watch for inflation to go through the roof.
UPDATE: I didn't really have time to write what I wanted to yesterday, I've been very busy. I'm still busy, but what the heck. This article is basically a sign of things to come - people, companies, and countries losing faith in the value of the dollar. When people buy oil with dollars, the oil producing country gets paid in dollars. As the dollar continues its decline in value, the dollars they hold become worth less meaning they want less of our currency, and more of other currencies which may include gold. As the dollar continues its decline, in order to get people to accept it, we'll have to offer them more. The more money we create, the bigger this problem becomes. Thus, inflation.
John Stewart interviewed Ron Paul the other day. He recommended reading the book saying it was "really thought-provoking," as well as "really well-written" and "clearly from the heart."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Ron Paul | ||||
| ||||
Lawmakers would curb Federal Reserve's power, not expand it
"The Fed is running into unprecedented opposition on Capitol Hill," he said.Critics have complained that the Fed faltered on all fronts leading up to the crisis. Years of low interest rates helped fuel the housing bubble, and lax oversight of financial institutions allowed consumers and banks to engage in increasingly risky behavior.
"If you look at the record here of the failure of the regulatory bodies . . . all roads seem to lead to the Federal Reserve," said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.).
The Fed is being hit from both sides of the ideological spectrum.
See, sometimes I post good news. :)
I'm hearing it every day on the radio now, economists say the recession is almost over. Third quarter or forth, we'll have positive growth. Positive GDP. NPR is having a segment later where an "expert" is going to explain how you can have economic growth and growth in unemployment at the same time. It seems counter-intuitive to most people. But why wait for NPR, I've got a pretty simple explanation.
GDP = C + I + E + G
That is the formula for GDP or Gross Domestic Product, the numbers people use to tell if our economy is growing or shrinking. Here is what the variables mean: (C)onsumer Spending + (I)nvestment made by industry + (E)xcess of Exports over Imports + (G)overnment Spending.
So lets take a look at these numbers. We all know that consumer spending is way down. Americans are saving more now then we ever have, trying to pay off all of our debt. Consumer spending is a positive part of the equation, but it's a small number. This is actually a good thing - about the only good thing in GDP (experts may disagree).
What about investment made by industry? Take a look at our biggest industry, car manufacturing. Without the governments "cash for clunkers" program, demand is still falling. With the program, demand spiked (which might help GDP in the 3rd quarter) but is now sharply lower then before. There are no new cars left, and no new customers either. As for the rest of the industry, numbers out yesterday indicated that manufacturing activity actually fell in September.
As far as exports over imports, that has been a negative in this equation for a decade or two.
The only part of the equation that is left is government spending. Now this is positive growth if ever I've seen it! Wars, social programs, bailouts, nationalization of corporations, corporate welfare, stimulus programs, unemployment benefits, recovery.gov... spending is through the roof! Unfortunately, the government is spending money it doesn't have on things it shouldn't be spending it on. It is taking money from private citizens and giving it to owners of large banks and corporations. Since it is spending money it will never have, it has to print money. It is inflating the economy, which is wealth distribution in where purchasing power is taken the poor and middle class and given to the wealthy. This is not real economic growth and will not help GDP numbers in the future.
The fact that GDP might rise in the near future is absolutely no reason to be happy. In fact, it's reason for concern. We need a new measure for the economy, something that counts Government Spending as a negative, not a positive. Of course take everything that I'm saying with a grain of salt, I'm no expert.
UPDATE: Conner says "it's like you want the US to die economically." This isn't true. I want the United States to be the greatest nation on earth! I live here after all. What I want is people to realize that the government's actions are not helping us at all. In fact, they are making things much worse. Instead of getting out of the way of a real recovery, they are constantly messing with the markets. Their meddling keeps the unsustainable service economy propped up and prevents us from returning to a manufacturing based economy. Unemployment will continue to grow until we start making things again, instead of borrowing and spending.
I just read a post that said Chrysler has about one more year left before they are bankrupt again. Let them fail! Let Ford, who people still respect and buy products from, buy up any assets or technology they can get from Chrysler at as low of prices as they can. That will make them more competitive. They will be able to hire more people! Let a new car company that doesn't have the burden of so much debt buy some of their assets. Or make all that manufacturing equipment available to some company who needs new equipment, but can't afford it right now, at a very reasonable price. The government will have delayed this vital piece of recovery by two years!
Recovery is a painful process but necessary. Also, boom and bust cycles don't have to happen. I want a real recovery and a return to sound monetary policy so we can return to a prosperous people and a prosperous nation.
Sept. US auto sales fall amid clunkers letdown
The September slump for car and truck makers follows a heady summer. Automakers got a big lift in July and August from clunkers, which spurred sales of nearly 700,000 new vehicles. The government program's big discounts lured in many customers who otherwise would have waited until later in the year to walk into dealerships.Now automakers are starting to feel the effect. GM's sales plunged 45 percent to 155,679 vehicles in September, compared with a year earlier. Chrysler sold only 62,197 vehicles last month, down 42 percent.
You can prime the pump as much as you want, but you're not going to get any water if the well is dry.