Sunday, May 30, 2010

Cliches of Socialism

The Foundation for Economic Education produced this 70+ article series on the Cliches of Socialism. Before I created this blog a reader had to use the search bar to find all 70+ articles. Now, after hours of painstaking copying, pasting and hyperlinking, the articles are all available in one spot.

You may have heard some of these before:
#52 Wars bring prosperity and jobs
#7 The Free market ignores the poor
#51 Tax the rich to help the poor
#44 A worker should be paid according to his productivity
#43 No one must profit from the misfortune of others
#38 One man's gain is another man's loss
#32 We Never Had it So Good
#31 If Government Won't Relieve Stress Who Will?
#30 The Government can do it cheaper because it doesn’t have to make a profit.
#29 Private businessmen should welcome government competition.
#66 But it works in Sweden
#2 If we had no Social Security, many people would go hungry.
#6 The size of the national debt doesn’t matter because we owe it to ourselves.
#5 Too much government, just what would you cut out?
#3 The government should do for the people what the people are unable to do for themselves
#26 I prefer security to freedom
#23 If Free Enterprise really works, why the Great Depression?
#17 I’m a middle-of-the-roader.

Cliches of Socialism 1
Cliches of Socialism 2
Cliches of Socialism 3
Cliches of Socialism 4
Cliches of Socialism 5
Cliches of Socialism 6.0
Cliches of Socialism 6.5
Cliches of Socialism 7
Cliches of Socialism 9
Cliches of Socialism 10
Cliches of Socialism 11
Cliches of Socialism 12
Cliches of Socialism 13
Cliches of Socialism 14
Cliches of Socialism 15
Cliches of Socialism 16
Cliches of Socialism 17
Cliches of Socialism 18
Cliches of Socialism 19
Cliches of Socialism 20
Cliches of Socialism 21
Cliches of Socialism 22
Cliches of Socialism 23
Cliches of Socialism 24
Cliches of Socialism 25
Cliches of Socialism 26
Cliches of Socialism 27
Cliches of Socialism 28
Cliches of Socialism 29
Cliches of Socialism 30
Cliches of Socialism 31
Cliches of Socialism 32
Cliches of Socialism 33
Cliches of Socialism 34
Cliches of Socialism 35
Cliches of Socialism 36
Cliches of Socialism 37
Cliches of Socialism 38
Cliches of Socialism 39
Cliches of Socialism 40
Cliches of Socialism 41
Cliches of Socialism 42
Cliches of Socialism 43
Cliches of Socialism 44
Cliches of Socialism 45
Cliches of Socialism 46
Cliches of Socialism 47
Cliches of Socialism 48
Cliches of Socialism 49
Cliches of Socialism 50
Cliches of Socialism 51
Cliches of Socialism 52
Cliches of Socialism 53
Cliches of Socialism 54
Cliches of Socialism 55
Cliches of Socialism 56
Cliches of Socialism 57
Cliches of Socialism 59
Cliches of Socialism 60
Cliches of Socialism 63
Cliches of Socialism 64
Cliches of Socialism 65
Cliches of Socialism 66
Cliches of Socialism 67
Cliches of Socialism 68
Cliches of Socialism 66
Cliches of Socialism 69
Cliches of Socialism 70
Cliches of Socialism 71
Cliches of Socialism 72
Cliches of Socialism 73
Cliches of Socialism 74
Cliches of Socialism 75
Cliches of Socialism 76

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Atheism, Christianity & Environmentalism

There are two things I wonder when people decide to expound their ideas and release them to the public: how long did this person think about the topic before deciding to write an article, and what was going on in their mind when they wrote it. In the case of David Horton's article "Green and Atheist: The Incompatibility of Religion and Environmentalism" the latter thought pulsated through my head the most. Perhaps I should have also extended that thought to the editorial room and pondered what the editor was thinking before he or she allowed this article to be published.

Horton's thinking is of the horrid kind: dreadfully obtuse and deeply un-philosophical (I think that's an irony). Or perhaps it is philosophical, in a sort of way that parallels the amateur D-grade philosophy of Dick Dawkins (do people call him Dick? Or do they just call him Richard?) Skewering Horton's position, in a sort of analytic-Plantinga-to-Dawkins kind of way, is something that can only be done by Plantinga himself, since I am not an analytic Christian philosopher. But at least addressing Horton is something that should be done, since Christians ought to be able to defend what they believe.

I find it unfortunate that something so badly thought through reached the light of day. Not only does the guy display his ignorance on contemporary religious thought, he seems to be out of touch with contemporary arguments for atheism (if there is such a thing as a corpus of atheistic thought). What makes things even worse, and even more laughable, is that he is arrogant about it (Does the question "anyone disagree?" at the end signal arrogance to you too, dear reader?)

In block quotes I have listed his thoughts.

It is odd that the Libertarians among the religious, so big on self-reliance for individuals and communities, don't apply that principle to the Earth as a whole.

It seems that everyone wants to take shots at Libertarians nowadays. Tisk, tisk. He probably is not familiar with the Libertarian work "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism." In chapter 6, How Capitalism Will Save The Environment, Robert. P. Murphy explains the relationship between capitalism and environmentalism, and argues that capitalism is the best economic system to support environmentalist ventures. Who would have thought that the laws of supply and demand would kick in to conserve oil and other natural resources by raising the price when resources are low, forcing consumers to conserve the resources they have or become more efficient with their resources.

Only atheists understand, deep down, that there is no divine Lone Ranger out there coming to the rescue; that if we don't save our own planet, no one else will.

This is such an old line that I'm sure many atheists will disagree with it or won't bother using anymore. The line of thinking goes, since we only have this one life, we must protect it as much as we can. The thinking goes further: those theists, since they believe they will be going to Heaven, must have less incentive to take care of the Earth, since Earth is not their home but a pit stop to Heaven. Before I focus on the latter, I will focus on the former. Why is it that when someone reasons this way they never bring up the other side; that is, the side which says because this is the only life I have and I am going to do what I want--that brand of atheism does exist too. Not every non-believer is a principled scientist, philosopher, "Greenie" or "Darwinist" (although they don't have too many options for creation stories). Some people just don't care and are apathetic. As for the latter, Christians, as N.T. Wright explains in the video above (make sure you check out the video below too), are to be preparing the Earth now for the Kingdom to come in its fullness. Heaven is something that is coming to Earth; we are not coming to it when we die, and that theology makes a profound difference in how one views the Earth.

Religious people, even putting aside the Left Behind loonies, aren't really concerned, because they have an imaginary friend who will look after them if they are good and pray hard and wear the right clothes and don't cut their hair.

Oh really, you mean an opinion poll back in 2001 revealing that "Because God created the world, it is wrong to abuse it" doesn't matter? Should we not exclude these folks from the already excluded Left Behind loons and call them unconcerned? Since Horton is a scientist, it would be to his horror to find out that as early as 2001, Christians were pioneering the use of drought-resistant crops in famine-ridden parts of Ethiopia. Also, in 1994 what appears to be over 100 signatories have signed the "Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation." Perhaps it would be too much for evidence to contrary to find out that Christian theological seminaries actually have courses on environmentalism and stewardship, or that Christian biologists have come together to create an institution to educate the community on environmental issues. Oh no, that would be too much. Let's keep that quiet so we can keep our pro-atheist views in good standing. We wouldn't want anything to undercut our ideology (wait, our belief is not a belief). We don't want anyone to think that Christians actually care for mother nature, now do we?

[The Earth] is best helped by those who understand that these ecosystems have evolved naturally over tens of thousands of years, not by those who think the Garden of Eden was a real place and that the Biblical Flood was a real event.

This idea doesn't even follow from the premises. How does knowing about the traditional Darwinian explanation of our origins tell us whether a person will be caring or a "better helper" to the environment or not? It doesn't. Plus, he doesn't appeal to one relevant branch of science (ecology, biology, zoology, geology, etc.) to support his claim. He just makes an assertion (Big Deal). To prod further, what exactly are we supposed to know about the environment that will help us take care of the environment better? I'd also argue that the opposite is true: knowing that we have Darwinian origins can be a real downer for some. People who are of the more nihilistic bent, if they don't allow it to drive them nuts, could feel unmoved to care for the environment, despite knowing our natural theory of origins. If they feel as though human history has no ultimate purpose, that may diffuse some of that energy to help the environment.

Greenies really understand the proposition that all these species are in it together, that we are all cousins, that we all come from a common ancestor, and that all have either a complete right to exist or no right to exist, not some of one and some of another.

I'm not to sure what the second half of the sentence means but I will try my hand at it. I don't see how the replacing the common ancestor idea with the idea that we are created by one God does any harm to environmentalism, or all those cute and cuddly animals. He also implies that Christians, or at least theists, believe that because God is the creator some have the right to hold the keys to the animal kingdom--i.e. who gets in and who stays out; which animals will we eat or eat us (Yikes!Down Bambi! Down I say!)

And, I would hate to rain on his parade but what is this notion of having a right to exist? This doesn't seem to be very consistent in light of atheistic evolution. If we just happened--from the big bang to evolution--then why does anything have rights to live or not? If an atheistic big bang scenario is your starting point then you have no right to exist, you just exist.

I think Dinesh D'Souza was right in his debate with atheist ethicist Peter Singer when he said (something to the effect of)that I wonder if the animals think the same way too. In other words, if we take the position that "we have a complete right to exist" is a bear wrong for wanting a human snack when we decide to go on our camping trips? Heck, if we take this position we must ask if it is ethical for the bear to eat fish out of a river? What about the grass? Clearly, other animals don't think that other animals have the right to exist, or at least they support their right to exist right up until the moment they are consumed. Oh and since "we are all cousins" that's one heck of a round of family feud isn't it?

Ultimately I think the preceding quote is unclear. For example, what exactly does he mean by no right to exist? Does he mean it in the Libertarian sense, that people have a right to life but not a right to be supported to live? Or does he mean it in the way I think, that as Darwinians we have no ultimate rights. That all rights are contrived.

unless you really feel the wind and the sun and the smell of marshland or grassland rather than driving in your air-conditioned car from your air-conditioned house to your air-conditioned megachurch, blissfully unaware of being part of nature,blissfully believing that you are somehow above all that

So is this guy telling me he doesn't like air-conditioned places or doesn't drive an air-conditioned car? If he is driving something without air-conditioning (assuming it's an older car model), I'd doubt the environmentally friendliness of his car. Technology has a way of being efficient with resources and being environmentally friendly at the same time. Driving an environmentally friendly car shows awareness of environmental issues (to a limited degree) and is an environmentally friendly act in itself.

And is he really suggesting that these same megachurch-attending Christians don't have the capacity to care about the environment or bask in the splendor of nature? Tell that to the Christian Camp and Conference Association! And then follow them on Twitter!

Somehow, I think Mr. Horton is blissfully unaware of all the books on Christian environmentalism that have come out during the past decade; and I think he is blissfully ignorant about how Christians view the environment in the 2000's (and 90's). Perhaps next time, he can be a little bit more objective, you know, like science.

The rest of N.T. Wright's talk on 100Huntley can be seen here.

I'll go watch some of my imaginary friends now. They provide much comfort.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

The "Point of No Return" & the Train Metaphor

America can and will reach a point of no return if her leaders and citizens do not wise up and turn from their economic, ethical, and theological sins. What I mean is that Americans, for too long, have had a hand in perpetuating the problems in this country by being too supportive of the very things that will hurt them. The biggest example of this is the support of the vision of Barack Obama - actualized by his election as POTUS. I do believe that if Americans continue to support or act in ways that will eventually hurt them, their actions can not go on indefinitely and their Wile E. Coyote cliff-walking acts will condemn them. People who walk off cliffs without parachutes will have a hard time surviving once they hit the ground. In the same way, a country that strangles itself via inflation, and excessive regulation, will lose all their economic steam and will grind to a halt.

Perhaps this metaphorical grind to a halt is the point of no return; if that is true, then the only way to get the economic train moving again is to find more coal to throw in to the engine of the train. But a crew that has to find coal en route to their destination is a crew that has to take time off from manning the train; and an unmanned train with no steam is a train that is going no where until the crew gets off the train, locates coal, acquires the proper tools to bring the coal back to the train, and then has to return to the train to get it moving again.

The preceding paragraph could be a metaphor for the time-consuming process of getting the economy moving again once it likely (and unfortunately) stops. The time will come when people will have to begin saving and investing to produce by honest means.

Eureka! I just got another idea for a metaphor. To understand it, you must recall that the crew had to leave the train - and they had to leave all those passengers behind. (Keep in mind that the conductor of the train and the crew members do not serve as a metaphor for the POTUS and Congress or any one group "running the economy." Rather they should be seen as general metaphor for producers in an economy, perhaps a single business entity.)

At one point in time, all those passengers were serviced by attendants, eating as much they liked and what they liked, as long as the reserves weren't depleted. But what do the people do once they are left en route to their destination. People would have to eat and drink much less, which could be seen as a metaphor for the drop in the standard of living which will come once the economy comes to its halt.

It will be through this necessary correction period that people will learn the true meaning of under-consumption and savings to produce real wealth. I think the metaphor ends here, but the learning doesn't.

In the following articles and video several commentators discuss the economic version of the "point of no return" idea; and Thomas Sowell takes on the ethical and ideological version of the idea. Perhaps my metaphor goes beyond the intention of the writers of the articles, but hey creativity is what this blog is all about, right?

"Have We Crossed the Point of No Return?"
-Phillip Baggus
"A Point of No Return?" -Thomas Sowell
"The Point of No Return" -Peter Robinson

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Gulf Oil Spill May Be Bigger Than Estimated

As usual, we can expect that government estimates are actually higher than predicted; however, the government is not solely at fault (and may not be at fault at all). In this instance, BP gave Congress the estimates on how much oil is being leaked daily; the original estimates were 5,000 gallons per day, whereas new independent estimates say the spill is much larger.

Wouldn't it be nice if people would just tell the truth. Maybe that initial panic that they fear will be induced will be channeled into a motivation to find a solution.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Economics & the Resurrection

Here are a few lectures -- one on economics and the other on resurrection of Jesus -- by two scholars whom I greatly admire, especially N.T. Wright.

I set the links to Gary North's columns and website in the "Inform Your Worldview" column on the right side of the screen. However, the Wikipedia article is pretty informative on who Gary North is. I understand that many people don't like (or never heard of) Gary North, but I find his demeanor kind even if his past theology was in error. I am ambivalent towards his presuppostionalist philosophy, but as a Mises scholar and writer for Lew Rockwell, he is very informing. He has written many books including an economic commentary on the Bible, which I hope to subject to academic review as I pursue my Masters in Theology (or Masters in Divinity) and possibly my Ph.D (that's really far ahead in time; I'm think I should focus on my Master's first).

As for N.T. Wright, he is a New Testament Scholar and the Bishop of Durham. He is a fascinating scholar and an eloquent speaker and I suggest his lecture below. His unofficial website is awesome and it has plenty of writings and audio available. He is an advocate of New Perspective theology and his views on the resurrection are, in the words of a fellow religion major at La Salle, "refreshing and challenging." I also have a playlist on Youtube comprising of N.T. Wright videos which is much shorter than the videos below.

Why Does Jesus' Resurrection Matter? Considering Its Relevance for Today Part 1 of 2 from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

Why Does Jesus' Resurrection Matter? Considering Its Relevance for Today Part 2 of 2 from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Arguing with a Friend over the "Recovery"

After reading Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse (I began it Monday morning and finished Thursday evening) I was well prepared to answer a friend's objections to my assertion that there will be a "Greater Depression."

Honestly, my arguments come straight out of Crash Proof.

The argument all started when I posted a link to an article from on my Facebook page. The article advocated that the second Great Depression is on the way and suggested 20 items that will be needed to survive. My comment over the link was this:
Preparedness is the best way to weather the
coming economic storm...believe me the worst has yet to
simply hasn't happened yet...all our politicians have done is simply
push off the financial day of doing so we now have more
to reckon with...(think of it as pushing off a student loan to a later date...the interest accrues and the total you have to pay back is more.)

And I think that was enough to get the ball rolling.

My friend and I have a somewhat interesting history. We both attended the same university (he is a 2009 graduate; I am a 2010 graduate). In the spring of 2008, he actually was the one to convince me to join the Barack Obama campaign at our school (before then I had no political affiliation; although I leaned Democrat). I did for a while, even up to the 2008-2009 school year, but then I left (I actually joined College Republicans afterward, but I left that too, only to go back a year later); he remained a dedicated member of the campaign and Young Democrats. And like most people who argue from different positions, we hold profound disagreements in maybe just about everything (except religion).

Here is the argument thread:

HIM: "We're headed for a great recovery. Lets not forget that over the last six months our economy has grown grew by about 4.5%, a very aggressive growth rate, and one of the highest clips in the western world over the same time period. The American consumer finally feels confident enough to spend again, and so do businesses. Soon they'll begin accelerated hiring. We've almost turned the corner. Hardly proof my friend of an economic apocalypse."

ME: "So we are working with the same statistics, but we are obviously interpreting things differently. If I understand you correctly then consumption, consumer confidence and hiring is evidence for economic recovery. If that is so that is where we depart ways. I don't understand your 4.5% statistic -- is this production? consumption? something else?"

HIM: "economic productivity....and hiring, productivity, consumption and consumer confidence are evidence of an economic recovery, indeed they are the hallmarks of one. A simple truth is becoming clear Chris: The economic relief package passed by the Congress is working. The Obama Admin. saved us from economic abyss. I hasten to add that if we didn't ... See Morepass the relief packages more Americans would be unemployed, more houses would have been forclosed, more businesses would have closed, and American influence would have further waned around the world. Thank God we acted"

ME: "I noticed you left out production. An increase in productivity means employers are doing more with less workers, which is good on one hand, but on the other it also means that payrolls are still tight and employers can't afford to put people back on staff. Productivity deals with efficiency, yet production deals with the quantity of goods being ... See Moremade. My point is that we need an increase in production before any serious recovery really happens. When more money is injected into the system via relief packages, yes on the one hand people can pay for goods, keep their homes, keep businesses going, but that comes at a price. The increase in the supply of money into the system without increase of goods and services will lead to price inflation. In other words, you just socialized the pain to everyone else because the U.S. Dollar loses purchasing power.

Second, we have a massive trade deficit and we are in debt up to the moon. Consumption would only be good if we were using our own money to buy things. But we are not; we borrow billions of dollars a day from China. The consumption ends when China stops playing our game. I don't believe China will finance our consumption indefinitely.

Third, we need to go back to savings and under-consumption to move forward. Until people learn how to save again to produce goods we will never move forward.

I'll wager (nothing) on this, if the Obama administration (or any future administration) has to continue to pass relief packages then I think that proves my points both that the economy is not recovering and the relief efforts only delayed the necessary economic depression. Why necessary? Because absent the bailouts all those bad assets would have been liquidated and better company would have picked up the slack. But instead by bailing them out a company with a bad balance gets off the hook, as if they had a change of heart or quickly change their bad practices. They were failing for a reason. Let em' fail."

HIM: A few problems with you thesis,

One, "now hiring" signs are being posted in businesses and shops across America. Last month we added 300,000 jobs to our economy. The month before we added an addtional 160,000. Thats almost a half of million jobs sixity days!

Second, most economic forecasters believe that the odds of a double dip and a spike in inflation are quite low over the next four quarters.

Third, the notion that China would dump a signficant amount of American debt in the near future is laughable. Clearly it would dramatically alter US Chinese relations. Moreover, I don't see the wisdom in undermining your biggest trading partner. But most importantly dumping our debt would depress the Chinese economy. Its a lose-lose, which is means its non starter.

Our economy is growing precisely because of the bold actions of this adminstration. We need economic reform, we need to cut spending, reduce the size of government and increase revenue, perhaps with a VAT tax of some kind, or a modest income tax increase. For the first time in almost a decade we're on the right road again, and we can't afford to turn around.


As you can see I left the arguments intact, grammatical and spelling mistakes included. I let my friend have the last go around, but it was really enjoyable to hear the other side of the argument, and get someone to grapple with my economic pessimism. While I agree that we need to cut spending and reduce the size of government, I definitely disagree with the idea that a VAT tax of any kind or a modest income tax is the solution to our economic ills. My main concern with that thesis is that people need to save more, not save less by giving more money to the government.

As for his appeal to "most economic forecasters" I find this to be the least robust response; and I think other Austrian economists would too. Our belief, if I have been amongst these group of thinkers long enough to speak as an authority, is that mainstream thought, for the most part, has gotten the whole economy wrong; their prognoses are incorrect, and so are their prescriptions.

Finally, I disagree with his view on China. Lose-lose situation it may be for China--on the one hand, they can dump our debt and depress their economy; or they can keep our debt and hold devaluing U.S. dollars--but in the long run China will be better off by dumping our debt. In fact, the purchasing power of the Yen will increase dramatically, while the U.S. dollar's purchasing power will plummet. I didn't address everything in this recap, but I think I addressed enough.

To my friend, I suggest he picks up Crash Proof 2.0 (since it is updated and more recent) or become an avid reader of the writings of the Mises Institute, Atlas Sound Money Project, Peter Schiff's Economic and Market Commentary, Campaign for Liberty, among other articles on

Any articles that Peter Schiff wrote that were featured on Lew Rocwell's blog would be good starters.

Also, watching this lecture that I personally attended and partially recorded would be a quick primer on Austrian Economic thought, and thus would be helpful to understanding my position.

The rest of the playlist can be seen here: Peter Schiff in Philadelphia

[Update on 5-20-10]
Peter Schiff argues that the fundamentals of the economy are still unstable and that the bigger financial crisis has yet to come; he also argues that the perceived recovery is a sham and the new financial regulatory reform is merely going to exacerbate the problems that are already there.

Ex-Porn Star Tells Her Story

This is an economics blog; but this story was too good to not be shared. This is a potent interview. In it you will learn about what really goes on in the porn industry in grotesque detail. Everything from women being held at gun point, gang rapes, stalkers, HIV/AIDS, STDs, rectal muscles falling out on to the floor during production, vaginal walls protruding from the body is discussed.

My Life in the Porn Industry from p4cm on Vimeo.

Check out more from the Passion for Christ Movement website.

08 Election Map is Still Interesting

Although it will be two years old in November, I still find this map to be very interesting.

You can find the link to the real map here.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Wile E. Coyote Economics

(Finally, now that school is over I get a chance to do those fun and creative nostalgic blogs that I said I'll be dedicated to creating. I haven't created a nostalgia based blog since the Scrooge McDuck Against the FED post and the Ghostbusters post.)

So what does Wile E. Coyote have to do with economics? It's simple. Everything that the government does simply makes things worse. They passed Sarbanes Oxley in 2002 which had the opposite effect of what they intended. The intent of the act was to "restore investor confidence" in U.S. Financial Markets. Instead, the SOA drove business outside of the United States. The number of American Companies de-registering from the U.S. Stock Exchange tripled a year after the law was passed.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill, was created as a response to the economic crisis of 2008 and the perceived threats of the future. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was passed because those who supported it thought it was going to prevent a depression.

What marvelous foresight!

Not only are we entering Great Depression level unemployment, neither of these packages seemed to be getting us out of it. I know a predictable response: "the stimulus package wasn't big enough. We need more spending!" And if we buy into it, they'll manage to drag us deeper into the depression.

Like that rascally Looney Tunes icon, every time they react to something they make things worse. They keep cutting of all our economic branches. One day, they are going to strike at the root. Watch the video. I think you will get the symbolism.

Thanks to SpeedyStupidChicken for uploading this video. You can subscribe to his channel here.

[Update: After I finished this post I did a google search on "Wile E. Coyote Economics" and found this video and a few articles with the same idea (1,2,3). So much for me trying to be a blogging genius lol!]

Is A Food Bubble Imminent?

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Books I've read.

Since I eventually want to run for office once day (I do not know what office I would want to run for, I just know I want to run, locally) I thought it would be helpful for potential voters to know what I have actually read and what has influenced me.

This list is by no means comprehensive but does cover the most influential works.

So I guess I should say that if I read the entire Communist Manifesto I wouldn't put that up on here, because that would suggest, according to the intents of this blog post, that it influenced me in some way.

(By the way, even if I did post that I read the Communist Manifesto it would influence me so far as to not implement Communist ideas into our laws. They would compel me to get whatever resembles Communist thought or legislation in our current system abolished)

Here is the list:

1. The Alpha Strategy
2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
3. Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse
4. An Introduction to Economic Reasoning
5. Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, The Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts will make things worse
6. End the Fed
7. Inherit the Earth
8. Honest Money
9. Mises on Money
10. Economics in One Lesson

1. Is Jesus Coming Soon?
2. Cambridge Companion to St. Paul
3. Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling
4. Logical Defense of the Faith (Booklet)
5. Paul the Jewish Theologian
6. Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel: A Message for Christians
7. 101 Questions & Answers on The Prophets of Israel
8. Introduction to the Prophets
9. The Case for Christ

Chapters from Books
1. The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin, The Jewish-Christian Traditions
2. Pagan Christianity
3. Applied Economics, The Economics of Medical Care
4. Liberal Fascism, Liberal Racism: The Eugenic Ghost in the Fascist Machine
5.Puritan Economic Experiments
6. The Housing Boom and Bust
7. Jesus The Pharisee
8. Lessons for the Young Economist

Influential Articles
1. Imagine an Occupied America - Ron Paul
2. The Austrians Were Right - Ron Paul
3. What Do Our Tax Dollars Pay For?
4. Iran's Fist is Clenched for a Reason
5. The Mindset That Got Us Into War Is Alive and Well
6. The Antiwar Republican
7. 100 Years of Medical Fascism
8. A Strategy for the Right

This post was updated on 12/12/11.

Obama vs. Peter Schiff

Now that school is over for me I finally have time to work on my blog more. So, as I've expected, as soon as the Healthcare ill....I mean bill was passed the Obama Administration would attempt to tackle financial reform. As I've also expected they are once again playing the blame game and chose Wall Street as their opponent, all while failing to address the underlying problems that really caused the crisis.

I recommend this book so you can read it and understand what really happened.

Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse

In this post I just wanted to do a little Youtubian compare and contrasting. One person in this video is an economic genius, the other one isn't; One of these men is absolutely correct about financial reform, the other one isn't; and one of these men holds what should be the most prestigious office in the country and has the power to help pass a bad bill that will kill businesses, the other one has the power of influence and is running for Senate. Who could I possibly be talking about? Barack Obama and Peter Schiff.

Watch them as they both take on financial reform. Two men. Two different arguments. Two different conclusions.

"This crisis was caused by the failures in the financial industry. What is clear is this crisis could have been avoided if Wall Street firms were more accountable, if financial dealings were more transparent, and if consumers and shareholders were given more information and authority to make decisions. But that didn't happen." ~President Obama

"If this bill existed 40 years ago it wouldn't solve the problem." Peter Schiff

"Government laws normally achieve the opposite effect of their stated purpose." Peter Schiff

So who was right? I have my opinion: Barack Obama blames the wrong people all the time, Peter Schiff was right on the money. Barack Obama uses accountability and transparency on Wall Street as reason to pass his financial reform bill. Yet Obama said nothing--zero, zip, zilch--about making the Federal Reserve more accountable. Obama didn't support the audit the Fed bill.

By the way, I am not a Wall Street Lobbyist or any of those people that Obama accuses of opposing his plan. In fact, I am finishing up college and I may want to work at one of those small firms his bill will possibly kill.

Related Articles:
Financial Reform Bill 101: What is Means for Consumers
Financial Reform 201 ***This is a must read article! It addresses the real causes behind the financial crisis and how to solve it.

WCF Chapter One "Of Holy Scripture" Sunday School (Sept.-Oct. 2021)

Our text for Sunday School (also "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms") Biblical Theology Bites What is "Biblical Theology...