I’m not taking that as a vote of confidence in the Wall Street Bailout Financial Market Rescue Bill signed a week ago.
More on the Stock Market last week
ADDED:
This “legendary investor” on CNBC says, “The way to solve this problem is to let people go bankrupt.”
Don’t miss the video, “All of this pumping of money into the system is not going to save it. You see what the market is saying… The market hates it.”
ADDED LATER:
I bet some on Wall Street are worried that once the credit freeze is over and mortgage-based assets are priced more or less correctly that we’ll all find out that a lot of companies are, in fact, insolvent.
If after passing a $700 billion rescue package, the market falls 20%, you have a big problem. You could easily interpret that to mean the market is saying the $700 billion rescue package made things worse, not better.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Brian 10.11.08 at 2:57 pm
I am getting a little tired of hearing Jim Rogers as the patron saint of libertarians and as a supposed expert on what should or shouldn’t be done to fix this economic crisis. The guy has no credibility in my book. He has made his billions and feels nothing for anyone else. He is anti-American and left this country for greener pastures in Singapore. At least Warren Buffet tries to be part of the solution, in his own capitalist way.
I have put together this very simplified analysis of why intervention matters:
If A = Assets at the macro economy level and C = Currency or money supply used to purchase those assets at par value, then at a given point in time, A = C (to keep this simple, we need to ignore leakage of A and C outside the borders of our economy, which happens when we import oil, for example; it does present some big problems over time). The reason A = C in closed economic system, is that C is and always has been a proxy for A. This is true for our entire economy. All the Assets in America should equal all the Currency or Money Supply as most broadly defined (again, ignoring external influences).
When there is a big loss of confidence in the economic system and A is bid down by buyers, let’s say to 1/2 or original value, then to stay balanced the equation must be A/2 = C/2. So, without any direct effort from the Government (Treasury or Fed) to restrict C or money supply, by increasing interest rates for example, C is greatly contracted just by the decline of Asset values.
How to get A moving back in the right direction (assuming one thinks growth is a good thing)? The equation gives us the answer: expand C. If we want to get all the way back to where we were (and maybe we shouldn’t all at once, but slowly over time), then we would multiply C/2*2 = C = A. By doubling the money supply, we would get A back to its original level.
There is a simple reason why so many pundits and even economists, get this wrong. It is because during normal times of economic growth (our normal condition 95% of the time), “A” does not contract, but continues to expand. When A is expanding, then any artificial increases in C will create inflation.
But, if A increases by 10% over a period of 2 or 3 years due to normal productive economic growth through population increase and economic productivity improvements, then we could say that A*1.1 = C*1.1 (C must keep pace with A or it will end up being restrictive and hold back economic growth). But if “C” is increased to aggressively, perhaps to 1.2, then the value of “A” will have to catch up to balance the equation. We call this inflation.
An inflationary spiral, like in the 1970s, occurs when A and C interact and cause an acceleration or snowballing effect as the idea of inflation is incorporated into the bidding process for “A” (inflationary expectations). C increases ahead of A, causing A to catch up with C, but maybe overshoots, which causes more expansion of C, and so on. In this circumstance, the appropriate Central Banking response is to hold C back by increasing interest rates or buying back Treasury bonds/ bills to reduce money supply (see Volcker in 1980-82 for an example).
But this clearly is not our situation today. We need to exand money supply, print money and bid up assets in the process (perhaps by Treasury buying them directly), so we can stop the downward spiral of today. Hopefully, this is the action we will see from the G7 central banks over the weekend or early next week.
John Wake - Real Estate 10.11.08 at 7:05 pm
Brian,
So you’ve heard of that guy?
I like to hear different opinions and he is one good talker.
Brian 10.12.08 at 8:00 am
Here are some other quotes from the Rogers interview: “The way to solve this problem is to let people go bankrupt,” Rogers said.
“Then you will hit bottom and then you start over. The (very few) people who are sound will take over the assets from the people who aren’t sound and we will start over (hmmm…sounds like more wealth polarization to me, hardly a solution). This is the way the world has worked for a few thousand years.” (yes, with World Wars to fix the resulting inequities)
John, this is my problem with Rogers and all the other Libertarians, or Laissez Faire people out there, he believes that if you are a billionaire like him, than all is good, and to H..ll with everyone else who is just trying to get ahead. (BTW…wasn’t it Hoover’s Laissez Faire policies that got us the Great Depression?)
I think I am a typical middle class person, working hard to make a living and save for a retirement (which at 51, is coming much faster than I want). I am not a Greedy Wall Street Capitalist like Rogers, who made his money managing a hedge fund, the Quantum Fund, with another rich hypocrite, George Soros. I bought my home with 20% down 16 years ago, I have two kids to put through college, etc. I am just an average American.
All that I have saved and invested for is being attacked by those who think I should just be allowed to go bankrupt, which I will if the market drops to 1000 and I lose my job when unemployment hits 25% and then my house when I can’t make my mortgage payments. How many are already worse off than me and will go down before me? How much will it ultimately cost to fix all the problems resulting from economic disaster?
Maybe some out there, like KS and CBass (and many others I encounter on various blogs), think this is as it should be. Like Jim Rogers, they don’t want to see government involved in our economy for any reason, but think that the Market should just take care of (terminate) people like me and the majority of Americans.
I hope all those against some type of action to stabilize the economy have a home in Singapore, or plenty of gold coins and a couple of guns to defend themselves after the collapse of our economic system.
Concerned Citizen 10.13.08 at 2:44 am
You can’t ignore external influences; they are a big part of this problem. Your model for economics works well enough in a closed economy, but we’re far from that. It would be one thing if they expanded the money supply and we had production and manufacturing to fall back on. But we don’t make anything here any longer. Everything is imported, nothing is exported. That has to be taken into consideration.
For the extra money the Fed creates to be sound, it has to come from some place. But there are no sound ways of creating it at this point; they can’t tax us for it, we can’t get loans for it, we aren’t exporting anything… so they’ll have to “print” it. The Fed doesn’t feel like there is any negative consequence to arbitrarily expanding the supply of money. That’s just not true. We’re going to get hit hard with inflation, there’s no way around it. And if our dollar starts to really fall in value, it’s going to get even worse when all those countries holding our dollars pour them back into our country.
The market needs to stabilize and there is no way for it too if the Fed keep throwing bad debt after bad debt. Bubbles have to burst. The collapse of our economic system is a result in tampering with the supply of money and interest rates. What the Fed is doing now, aggressively devaluing our dollar, is way worse than a rescission if they “did nothing”.
Brian McMorris 10.13.08 at 6:21 am
Dear Concerned:
Let me answer several statements:
1. “Everything is imported, nothing is exported”
That is just plain untrue. We do run a negative balance of trade, but most of that is because we import so much energy ($700B on balance, see Boone Pickens for a solution to that problem). We export all types of products and services. I know, because I am in that business. But most of what we export is higher value. It is true, we do not export labor intensive products. That is left to low-cost labor nations, as it should be (see Adam Smth’s Invisible Hand)
2. “For the extra money the Fed creates to be sound, it has to come from some place”
Money creation is the same as you going to the bank to take a loan. Our national assets are collateral for any money we print as a nation. As long as our own “debt-equity” ratio stays reasonable, we will do fine. Currently, our ratio is less than 5%, which is historically in line. Our national debt will continue to grow as our national equity grows, as it should. If eliminate our national financial leverage, trust me, it will do great damage to the economy.
3. “market needs to stabilize and there is no way for it too if the Fed keep throwing bad debt after bad debt”
This market instability was a result of private actions, not so much government (starting with people buying homes they couldn’t afford). The global (not national) banking system thought it could diversify away risk by parsing debt instruments like mortgages. Maybe in theory this would work, but too much leverage was applied (30X and 40X in some cases), so it all unraveled. The governments’ mistake (note the plural, as this was a global banking mistake) was not adequately regulating bank leverage caused by the creation of all these new inherently leveraged debt securities. The blowup has nothing to do with monetary policy, other than that post 9/11 low interest rates encouraged borrowing by the private sector.
Brian McMorris 10.13.08 at 6:38 am
Forgot the last point:
4. “What the Fed is doing now, aggressively devaluing our dollar, is way worse than a rescission if they “did nothing”
If the Fed is currently “devaluing our dollar” then why is it strengthening? There is a common misconception that American government borrowing is inherently devaluing of the dollar. It is not.
Borrowing can be positive. Do you own stocks of any companies that borrow money? Most often, companies that do no borrowing get punished in the market for not optimizing investor return by use of a little leverage.
Do you own a home? Did you take out a mortgage? If so, do you think you are a responsible borrower? Do you have a good credit rating?
Devaluation is a function of counterparty confidence in the currency. We can run budget deficits (use a little leverage in our national economy) without any harm, as long as the deficit is responsibly managed.
Other nations, our trade counterparties, decide if we are being responsible with our borrowed money. If they deem we are, they accept dollars in return for trade, which strengthens the dollar. If our counterparties think we are being irresponsible and their dollars will be worth less, they might want yen or gold instead, that would devalue the dollar.
It is possible that our government could jack taxes aggressively to eliminate our deficit, thereby crushing the current economy and future growth prospects. By taking this action and undermining the collateral that backs the dollar (our aggregate national assets), our trade counterparties might reject the dollar, thereby causing it to plummet in value. So, devaluation and “printing money” are not directly linked at all.
Peter Fork 10.13.08 at 7:35 am
I agree with Brian on two points:
1- The American Economy is a lot less dependent on other countries than the rest of the OECD countries. Compare Germany or Canada for example, whose imports and exports are around 30% of their GDP, with the US who is around 13%. The US problems are the double deficits caused by tax cuts, the “war on terror” and energy policies (price of importing energy).
2- The inflation is not a problem right now, because people have too much debt and just lost 20-40% of their homes and retirement value. Inflation in the US is not possible at this point.
I don’t have a great idea to solve this mess, but I think something extreme will have to be done. The fall in house prices have made this country essentially bankrupt. In a couple of months we may have 50% of all homes worth less than the mortgage+refinancing loans they are supposed to back.
Remember in 2000, when the government was running a 230G$ surplus and was talking about paying off all public debt by 2015?
We could have really used that lockbox.
Peter Fork 10.13.08 at 7:42 am
Last point: It’s interesting to compare the US now and Canada in 1992. At that time, Canada was running a large government deficit and was in a deep recession (with more than 15% unemployment in some provinces). They passed a law saying the government wasn’t allowed to run a deficit anymore. The country is doing fine now, 15 years later, and got to keep its healthcare system and all that.
Concerned Citizen 10.13.08 at 9:20 am
Brian,
1. Some examples of what we export would be great. Let me remind you we were once the great exporter. Our goods were of quality and affordability. How did we become a world super power? It certainly wasn’t through investing in domestic real estate, the stock market, exporting of higher value”.
Asian countries are now in the same position we were in the earlier part of this century. Consuming is not wealth, production is.
2. Our national assets being what? Worthless loans? Consumption of foreign goods?
3. The market instability is a result of the Fed holding the funds rate artificially low and the increase in money supply that ensued. It happened in the 90s with the dot com stocks, it happened in the earlier part of this year in real estate. Fiddling with the interest rates that banks base their overnight lending rates to other banks, along with other money expansion techniques, is what causes these bubbles. The extra money trickles down through the economy, business and markets over expand, and in this case of real estate over expand way too much.
The problem then is that this expansion was built in part on an interest rate that did not reflect the market value, as the value was set by the Fed. The risky lending is a symptom of bad monetary policy, not the cause.
The blowup has everything to do with monetary policy. Pre 911 and post. Boom/bust cycles are woven into Keynesian economics. The Fed’s stimulation of the economy after 911 was exactly what we didn’t need. People’s reaction was to stop overspending and save, a very necessary part of the cycle. But instead we were coerced into additional spending and living beyond our means.
4. It won’t for long, once other countries holding our dollars realize we can’t pay back our loans.
Right, borrowing can be positive if done in a responsible manner.
Peter,
How are you defining inflation? Because depending on your definition we may or may not be experiencing inflation now. I subscribe to the Austrian economic theory of inflation:
“Austrian economists maintain that inflation is always and everywhere simply an increase of the money supply (i.e. units of currency or means of exchange), which in turn leads to a higher nominal price level, as the real value of each monetary unit is eroded, loses purchasing power and thus buys fewer assets and goods and services.”
The more money in the economy the less the money is worth. Let me say the opposite, the less of something there is in circulation, the more it is worth. In an attempt to keep the dollar valuable, they are constantly expanding the supply of it, which works for a little while, but ultimately devalues it. So yes, inflation is not only possible, but very likely in our situation.
Brian McMorris 10.13.08 at 10:17 pm
Concerned Citizen:
Rather than asking me for examples, you should make the effort to get the facts yourself before bandying about nonsense like: “Let me remind you we were once the great exporter”. Sure, after WW2 when we were the only economy left intact, we were able to dominate in exporting.
Here is the information you seek. It is from the Census Bureau. It shows we are exporting all types of products. Check out pages 11-14:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2007pr/final_revisions/07final.pdf
The Asian countries are much larger than ours by population and will someday eclipse our economy because of their size. There is nothing we can or should do about that. Pining for the days of American dominance is fruitless. Be happy our Asian friends are adopting capitalism and will pull their own weight on the global scene.
2. “Our national assets being what? Worthless loans? Consumption of foreign goods?” Why make sarcastic statements? It makes everything else you write seem stupid. We still have the world’s Reserve Currency which is proven by a strengthening dollar. Obviously, the rest of the world appreciates our national assets, even if you don’t.
Brian McMorris 10.13.08 at 10:22 pm
Peter,
The reason for Canada’s turnaround is pretty straight forward: they possess a tremendous amount of natural resources which have been highly valued during the global expansion. Their oil and minearl exports are the reason for their strengthening currency and their budget imbalance . There is no other reason.
As recently as 1999 the Canadian dollar was valued at 60% of the American dollar. This was 7 years after the edict you cite. So, the edict had no effect. High energy prices get all the credit.
Peter Fork 10.14.08 at 8:14 am
Brian,
Canada stopped running deficits in 1997, when oil was 20$ a barrel. It posted a surplus in 1999, when oil was 10$ a barrel. Metals and other resources were at historic lows at the time.
I don’t think natural resources helped them balance their budget at the time. Huge cuts in spending and GST (the Canadian sales tax) did it.
Cbass 10.14.08 at 12:10 pm
Brian,
Contrary to what you may think I do not wish ill will or financial devastation on you or on anyone else for that matter. I really don’t get your point of view on the Government intervention though. You say you want Gov to step in so the market does not tank because people will lose money. But the stock market is not supposed to be guaranteed! This is not an FDIC backed savings account or a Gov bond or something. It is an investment that has risks (which means people can and do lose money). So if the market wants to go to 1K then so be it, I will be dropping every dollar I can in the markets at that point and I believe many other investors will be doing the same. Also so much money can be had on the short side of things as well. This is not the end of the world as Bush, Paulson, Bernanke and the others have made it out to be and completely contradicts a “free market” in the first place. Regulation is one thing but complete manipulation is another. This Government manipulation of the markets can serve no good purpose in the long run.
Another point, this worldwide Government manipulation of markets will not work anyway. It is too late and the wheels are already in motion or they fell of the bus (I am not sure yet). I have taken many informal (I stress INFORMAL here!) polls at work and with friends and not one person told me they plan to spend more this X-mas than the last. In addition most of them are saying they are trying to pay down debt or saving for fear of economic hard times. This holiday sales season will be one of the worst in recent history and many retail stores will go under. If stocks manage to climb back by the end of the year they are just going to get hammered again come January when retail sales are reported. The jig is up man! In addition to that, does anyone really believe the banks are going to lend to consumers like they have been after all of this turmoil? No, they are not idiots even though they did do some stupid things over the past 5+ years. So what will Big Brother do in Spring, bail out all the retailers because Joe Six Pack did not buy enough Chinese made products? Then what? Will we bailout the Chinese cause they don’t have the resources to buy our debt so we can take loans out to buy there products? I know I am exaggerating here to make a point but you get my drift.
I gather from your post that you’re well educated in economics and have a vested interest in the markets. I will tell you straight up that I am not well versed in economics and my investment is relative as I have 30+ years to retirement. I do however think I have a very keen eye for obvious market trends and awareness of the US consumer. As well stated in a movie I once saw “I am not a smart man but I know what love is.”
MPS 10.14.08 at 2:49 pm
A true free market would be like playing monopoly. Somebody would eventually win and then the game would be over. How much regualtion/intervention is the only reasonable topic of debate. McMorris is right. At this point the government must clearly take a temporary greater role. They can’t stop the downturn but they can prevent immediate disaster. Without their intervention people would soon start behaving like the banks are now. Everyone would be hording their cash. By this I mean, a run on the banks, a worldwide run on the banks. This could lead to chaos and wars. It’s true, we export. We export plenty. Our big problem is that we out grew/ran out of our own oil. Now we import too much oil while increasing the demand for it by exporting jobs which promotes a global economy. We should have shored up our own energy supply first. Now we must play catch up. Second problem is the growing inequality of wealth (the economy is becoming more and more like the game of monopoly). Those that have it easily make it. Those without are finding it increaslingly difficult to move up and many find themselves slipping downward. It’s clearly time to reverse that trend. The tax system must return to progressive. But for now, the government must bandaid the impending disaster. Of course there is a limit to how much they can borrow too, especially with forecasts of an ecnomic downturn. But this bail out money will be well borrowed, considering what the consequences of no intervention would be. I just hope they get it right. My fear is that it won’t be enough and will end up money squandered.
Brian McMorris 10.14.08 at 9:19 pm
Thanks MPS. You nailed it and captured my ideas / feelings exactly.
Brian McMorris 10.14.08 at 9:33 pm
CBass, no, I am not offended by your comments. You are very reasoned in your opinions and I appreciate your perspective. But it is obviously a perspective shaped by someone with little at risk.
You are right, the stock market offers no guarantees. I am invested with knowledge of that. Still, I would always argue for some amount of regulation and control. As an engineer, I believe in control systems. In industrial processes, control is a good thing. A “free market” in the control world means out of control processes that can blow up. There is no need for a process to blow if there is a good way for it to be controlled.
I think the government should have a role in regulating a process spinning out of control. That is where we differ. But still I respect your opinions.
Cbass 10.15.08 at 7:38 am
MPS,
I don’t argue that some form of regulation is necessary. I don’t think what the Gov is doing is regulation however. If you can explain how a 250 Billion Dollar Manipulation of the banking sector is a form of regulation Im all ears! Sounds more like stacking the deck. Your Monopoly analogy is a bit overstated, but in reality we do have winners and losers. That is the part of the game, we could play socialismopoly instead?
Brian,
As you stated I don’t have a big stake in the game. But the flip side of that coin is maybe your decisions and feelings are based on your skin in the game?
MPS 10.15.08 at 11:41 am
My monopoly analogy is exactly what would happen if we had a true free market. But we don’t. We have laws against monopolies. Like you, I don’t have any skin in the game. But I don’t want chaos either. Like I said, this “bail out” is really just total disaster prevention. There would be a global run on the banks if they didn’t intervine. The only people who would like that are called anarchists. I’m pretty convinced that wars would follow. It’s the better of two evils, do nothing, or step in. Don’t worry, house prices will still plumet. The “Market” is still at work. I think they will still let a large number of banks, the worse off banks fail. Not that I totally trust our governments, but even the Repubs with their “free market” philosophy voted for this.
Cbass 10.15.08 at 12:59 pm
MPS,
So let me get this straight… If the gov does not step in then there will be chaos (There is no other possible outcome here?), and if anyone does not support this then they are an anarchist (Which is bad of course)?
So in essence you are appealing to my desire to not be associated with the term “anarchist” to persuede me to accept that the only possible solution to the problem at hand is the bailout and market manipulation that is going on?
MPS 10.15.08 at 1:27 pm
Nah, people who want chaos are anarchists. I’m not saying you want chaos. I think you’re just overly optomistic at this point. I had mixed ideas on it too. But when it became apparent that the problem was worldwide I decided, yup, they’re not just blowing smoke up our butts to bail out their wall strett buddies. They really do need to do something. I can’t say what the exact outcome would be if nothing was done but I’m quite convinced that it would be very nasty. Depression, riots, war, 25% unemployment are all very realistic. Our government has been trying to relay that message to us without causing immediate panic. Now I believe them. Do I have confidence that they’re going to get it right? Not really. If this money fails to free up the credit markets it was essentially wasted and another bail out will be necessary. How much more can they afford? At some point our government runs out of wiggle room because nobody will want to loan them money either. Are there other solutions? Could the Warren Buffets of the private sector step in and save us? Perhaps but that’s much much more unlikely because that’s an every man for himself situation and it would probably take way too long.
MPS 10.15.08 at 1:41 pm
CBass, but yes you are right. What they are doing now is called “aggressive intervention” not regulation. And you are right that our government should NOT be in the business of aggressive intervention. However, deperate times call for desperate measures. And we will never know what would have happened had they not intervened.
Cbass 10.15.08 at 3:52 pm
MPS,
Well I guess at this point you are correct, I have no choice but to hope it was the right decision, even though I am still pissed about it. I was thinking we should have tried something like raising interest rates. I know I will get blasted for that, but that is what I would have done if I were king for a day.
I was not suprised to see what was happening with the market today though. It was however about 2-3 months before I expected it to have any real effect. Not like I was going out on a limb with that one, but it did tear through the market none the less. From a technical perspective (as far as I understand) it is a bad sign when a market starts up and finishes down heavily.
Concerned Citizen 10.15.08 at 11:01 pm
Brian,
I did make the effort to find the facts myself. I came across that same document….I was asking for specifics. What do we export? I know what China, Japan, and Thailand all export. I see it all around me whenever I go into a Target or Wal-Mart. You made the statement you’re “in the business” so I was just asking for some examples.
My comments about our assets weren’t in sarcasm, I was being serious, and that’s why I’m worried. I am legitimately concerned that we have nothing to back up our debts; that we have no assets. Instead of insulting me, please find constructive ways to convey your opinions. “Obviously, the rest of the world appreciates our national assets, even if you don’t.” Definitely no reason to attack me. Who said I don’t? I’m just looking for answers.
You mention we have the world’s reserve currency. So does that absolve us from financial responsibility? Pouring trillions of dollars into the economy and saying that will fix the problem just doesn’t make sense to me, as the whole problem was based on too much fiat money in the system in the first place.
Concerned Citizen 10.15.08 at 11:18 pm
MPS,
In a truly free market people will find alternatives to the monopolies.
http://mises.org/story/621
MPS 10.16.08 at 12:45 am
Concerned Citizen,
yeah, it would be called a revolution and it would involve my guns.
Brian McMorris 10.16.08 at 6:54 am
Lets all know our facts on the economic consequences of a truly “free market”. This article makes reference to several Nobel Laureate economists, including Milton Frideman, so its expertise cannot be questioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Notice in this article how the “gold standard” handcuffed the Fed and helped create the conditions of bank failure which was the basis for the Great Depression. Also note how an indifferent Fed allowed for monetary supply contraction, which creates deflation leading to depression. CBass: raising interest rates during a bank panic is like throwing gas on a fire. A really bad idea.
Cbass 10.16.08 at 10:05 am
Brian,
That is your opinion. I am aware that they actually used fire to fight fire in Kuwait after Desert Storm so maybe that was what we needed?
I also agree with Concerned Citizen in that we are no longer a production oriented economy and that creates so many serious issues for us as a nation. We are basically funding terrorism against ourselves every time we fill up our tank and we rely to heavily on other nations.
Brian McMorris 10.16.08 at 9:27 pm
“That’s your opinion”….not really, it is fact. It is the history of the Great Depression as analyzed by the best minds in economics, not my personal opinion. You can have your own opinion that there is another way, if you would like, but I would rather not see our country take that chance with our future. And thankfully, we have not.
You made the statement that maybe I am biased because “I have skin in the game”. I am 51. Anyone my age better have skin in the game, as you say. If you are over 30, and you do not, I feel sorry for you. There will not be a Social Security program to take care of you in your retirement. I am not even counting on getting what I put in back, in my retirement. How do you expect to take care of yourself after you retire or can’t work any longer? If you are not invested for your future….well, you know the story of the ant and the grasshopper.
I am involved in the solar energy industry. We are working hard in the industry to solve our national energy deficit problem. Please do what you can to contribute to making our country stronger. It is very easy to just criticize a faceless Washington or Wall Street.
Cbass 10.17.08 at 9:00 am
Brian,
Well it is good that you are confident, but nothing about what you have to say is factual. These are theories that you prescribe too, not facts.
One of your points was that I am biased because you assumed I had nothing to lose. You felt that strengthened your argument I guess. You said “But it is obviously a perspective shaped by someone with little at risk.” My counter point was to show that following your logic you must also be biased because you do have something at risk. So why even bring it up if we are either biased one way or another? They negate each other and serve no useful purpose.
Please don’t worry as I will be fine. I don’t expect to be paid a dime for my contributions to SS, I had accepted that many years ago. But what you are telling me is that you realize our country does not have the financial resources to repay its current obligation but you still support adding more demands on our future financial resources because it will help you today. That makes less sense than your argument that I am biased because I don’t have anything to lose. I am an American Brian; I have everything to lose whether I have a billion dollars in the market or zero. Do you not have children Brian? Are you not worried about what they will face in the future because of the mismanagement of past and current administrations or do you just hope that it will work itself out after you are gone?
As far as solar goes you would like my policy on that. I would mandate all new homes be built to incorporate solar and or wind power into construction. I would make similar mandates on existing homes within reason. I would require autos to be hybrid at a minimum by 2012. I would begin construction on nuke, solar, hydro, thermal, or whatever else is feasible to reduce our dependence on oil and secure our future. I think that is one of the keys to our countries national security. It is a scary world out there and we are not helping our own cause. We are attacked on a daily basis whether you read it in the paper or not.
Lastly I don’t just criticize; I am voicing my opinion, it is my right to do so last I checked. I vote, I pay my taxes, I work hard every day to provide for my family and this country, and basically just try to live the “American Dream.” Please don’t come at me like you are doing something great for this country and I am not. You are not better than I am, we just have different OPINIONS.