Jello bot 2

Remember the little drummer bot posted before?
I think I found its cousin.

(4 min, but gets less interesting as it goes on. So feel free to stop when you've seen enough)

Peter Schiff was right, right, right.

Seemingly everyone else was wrong, wrong, wrong.



They just laughed at him, even mocked him. Who's laughing now?

Despite appearances, Peter Schiff is no clairvoyant- he was only applying the principles of the Austrian school of economic thought. In one interview, he said,

I was introduced to the Austrian school early on by my father. According to my dad saying Austrian economics makes as much sense as saying Chinese physics. Austrian economics is economics, period!

Although the Austrian school isn't reknown, it has been around for some time. Austrians like Schiff predicted the Great Depression, for example. Friedrich Hayek wrote in the February 1929 edition of the Austrian Institute of Economic Research Report, "the boom will collapse within the next few months." The stock market crashed in October, but we can forgive him for being a few months eager. Much like Schiff, Hayek saw serious imbalances and knew that the "Roaring Twenties", made possible by the loose monetary policies of the Fed, were simply unsustainable.

This is surprising to many, because we are told that economists failed to predict the crash. Well, many did fail to see it- Keynes, for example. And yet it is Keynes' policies we largely adhere to today- not those of the dissenting Austrian school who are repeatedly proven correct in their assessments.

Unfortunately, that's bad news for everyone. Without the correct diagnosis, there is little chance for an effective remedy.

Make it stop!

In case you missed the three joint press conferences, here's a recap:

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

On Ballots, Parties, Debates

i received my sample ballot in the mail last week, and it led me to make some observations.

First, Tennessee voters may be surprised to find eight candidates for President of the United States on their ballot. Aside from the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin tickets, it appears six mysterious independents are running. Except they're not all independents, and it's no mistake that they're not well known.

Let me revise and expand on the "independents":

• Chuck Baldwin, Darryl Castle - Constitution Party
• Bob Barr, Wayne Root - Libertarian Party
• Charles Jay, Thomas Knapp - Boston Tea Party
  
• Cynthia McKinney, Rosa Clemente - Green Party
• Brian Moore, Stewart Alexander - Socialist Party USA
  
• Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez - Independant

To be listed on this ballot, (or more accurately, to get the electors for your ticket on the ballot - we're not actually voting for candidates but for a slate of electors), these candidates gathered 2500 signatures of registered voters. Had they been one of the two state-recognized parties, they would have been automatically included. In Tennessee, as in many states, lawsuits have been filed against what are considered prohibitive rules regarding party recognition, or ballot access in general. Practically speaking, this means that while the two major party candidates are out campaigning, everyone else is running around trying to be included in the first place.

Tonight^[1], there will be a third-party debate on C-SPAN. i attended one such debate at Vanderbilt, the day prior to Nashville's so-called "Town Hall Debate" featuring Obama and McCain. The differences are striking- and if you watch the debate tonight, you can see if my observations still hold true. First, at the third party debate, there was a wide range of ideas and philosophies. What else would you expect at an event including the Socialist Party, the US Pacifist Party, and even the Boston Tea Party? i found it refreshing. Similarly refreshing was the utter lack of "he said, she said, but i said it first" which dominates the major parties' joint debates. The scope of discussion and tone of debate were much more interesting and altogether more useful.

Why are the joint major party debates so limited? Well, it starts with the sponsor- a group called the Commission on Presidential Debates, which wrestled the debates from the non-partisan League of Women Voters in the 1980s.

Here are some complaints i have regarding the Commission. First, it is a brainchild of both major parties- the two parties that defend the status quo. It was founded and is co-chaired by the former chairs of the RNC and DNC. The board consists of politically connected Republicans and Democrats, as well as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. A former board member of Fannie Mae, for example, is on this board. It's funded by corporations.

i won't go on about this because someone else already has- i urge you to investigate for yourself. NPR Commentator Connie Rice did, in 2004, and found herself presenting a scathing review called the Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates. Walter Cronkite declared Commission-sponsored debates an "unconscionable fraud."

What are the consequences of the limited exposure of third parties, and their exclusion from debates? i'll explain this anecdotally. Some candidates at the third party debate in Nashville couldn't be more dissimilar in ideologies- they made Obama and McCain look like two shades of the same color. Yet even with the wide range in philosophy, the entire 6-person forum were in outspoken agreement on some key issues, like ending our interventionist, perhaps imperialist foreign policy, and fighting against corporatism (not to be confused with capitalism). Neither Obama, McCain, nor the moderators give these ideas any mention. Where some would have you believe Obama and McCain are polar opposites, it's really a matter of scope.

Ron Paul made an announcement at the Nation Press Club^[2] on September 10th, where he encourages Americans to choose their favorite third party candidate over the two leading candidates:

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

The four additional candidates with enough ballot access to theoretically carry the electoral college all signed on to support a platorm of Foreign Policy, Privacy, Fiscal Policy, and Monetary Policy - three candidates who are very different from one another, but in unison hold key positions that are in opposition to the two major candidates! This should show us how far the charade has gone.

Our two leading candidates are in joint disagreement with Americans on the bailout, international adventurism, and privacy issues, while there are several candidates available who are of the real majority, and might perhaps even win if they had any comparable exposure. A Zogby poll indicated that 55% of likely voters favor the inclusion of Bob Barr in the debates. Since the two parties control the debates (while hardly anyone notices) this didn't happen. Do you see what's happening?

i urge you to find a list of candidates on your ballot for each office, and honestly consider them all. Consider stepping out of the two-party charade of false choice and cast an informed, principled vote for someone who might actually represent you well. Cast off the politics of fear-mongering by actually voting for someone (there is no vote against option on the ballot). Choose the candidate who you think will best serve as president, and vote for him or her.

---

Update 1 Oct 20
i mischaracterized the Oct 19th debate as a "third party" debate. The debate, which has been rescheduled for Oct 23rd, is open to all 6 candidates with ballot access sufficient to win the electoral college.

Update 2 Oct 20
Here are some better links to videos of the conference: parts 1, 2, 3 (McKinney), 4 (Baldwin), 5 (Nader). Original link.

Thoughts on the Bailout Act

Here are some hilights of the text of a draft of the bailout plan, as of the 21st. (They're now calling it a "Rescue Plan")

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Wait a second... "at any one time"? Suddenly the $700 billion plan sounds a lot like the $Infinity plan. Please someone shed some light on this troubling wording. And what's so special about the $700 billion figure? According to Forbes, a Treasury spokesperson sayd "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

"Non-reviewable... by any court of law of any administrative agency"? In other words, Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, can bail out whomever he wants to bail out with however much he wants to bail them out, no objections or oversight allowed. It's remeniscent of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney and the no-bid contracts of the Iraq War.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

This is the great irony of the situation: who better to bail out insolvent companies than the biggest debtor of all? Our current national debt is about $9.8 trillion, with the current limit being $10.6 trillion (which was recently raised to that level during the Freddie/Fannie debacle). Now we are going to put the limit at well over $11 trillion. Just 8 years ago, our national debt was half that amount. This is out of control.

This is Wile E Coyote Government.

Congressman Paul, who predicted this whole mess (remember, just two months ago, Fed Chair Bernanke told us the economy, and housing market, were doing pretty well) offers his reservations.

Then come the scare tactics. If we don’t give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary “the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet.” Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline.

Without really getting into it, consider the bailouts like this: your friend is an addict to heroine. Your friend isn't looking so well, and they're getting quite shaky. You give them another hit. This accomplishes two things: 1) they get their fix and are relatively stabilized, and 2) their entire body is that much closer to completely shutting down. The other option (which isn't getting much traction in the press), is to take your friend to rehab. This accomplishes the antithesis: 1) it's gonna hurt a little in the short term, 2) but not nearly as much in the long run. This option looks like this, according to a recent email from Congressman Paul:

1.) End the Bailouts - Congress must revoke the Federal Reserve's authority to bail out failed businesses at your expense.

2.) Cut Taxes and Curb Regulation - If we really want to stimulate businesses and revive the market, we need to cut corporate and capital gains taxes, spurring investors to come back to the market and making it easier to attract new workers and clients. It is also time to end failed legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley, which has crippled capital markets, diminished our competitiveness, and greatly harmed small businesses.

3.) Reduce Spending - We must freeze all non-entitlement spending by the federal government at current levels and eliminate wasteful spending both domestically and in our trillion-dollar overseas budget. Our debt has to come down, and it won't until we start living within our means.

4.) Reform the Monetary System - If we are to have long-term economic progress, we must end the system of printing money out of thin air. The current laws limiting the circulation of gold and silver-backed currency must be overturned. We can no longer base our money on the empty promises of bureaucrats that it is sound.

Unfortunately, even though public support for the bailouts is devastatingly low (about as low as Congressional approval ratings) it is likely a version of the bailout plan will nevertheless be passed. The conditions that brought the crisis about will go on. The crash of the dollar looms closer.

Jon Stewart makes a sly comparison of Bush's recent appeal for support of this plan, and his appeal for support in 2003 for war with Iraq. i would add the PATRIOT Act to that shortlist. Haven't we heard this before? Doomsday scenarios if we don't fall in line, giving the executive branch unprecedented power? We should resist the fearmongering.

What would it look like, to follow Paul's advise? What would the ramifications mean? Less credit, sure. Your cat won't be receiving any more pre-approvals for credit cards in the mail. As a nation, we'd have to live within our means.

If you're interested in learning more about this crisis and the events that led up to it, see The Bailout Reader on mises.org.

Please contact your representatives, and check out http://nocashfortrash.org/.

Sign this petition

We have this TV frequency spectrum opening up in 4 months. What better way to use some of it than to provide better WIFI access?

Some Title

Too lazy to come up with my own content, I'm posting a short video of Matt Damon on Sarah Palin. If there's any role model we should be listening to, wouldn't it be Jason Bourne?