Youth Politics

Guest Post by Bryan Sayers from Forex Fraud

There is a century old debate among economists concerning how a Central Bank and government should handle a recession. In one camp, you have economists who believe that the economy should be left alone. Free markets will correct themselves, and the waste will be purged out of the economic system. When the economy recovers, it will be stronger and more formidable than ever. In the other camp, you have economists who believe a Central Bank and government should step in and stimulate economic growth during a recession by injecting liquidity into the economy. Currently, these two camps are very much at odds with one another concerning the economic recovery in the United States.

In September of 2008 when the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis erupted, Central Banks formed a unified economic front around the world and injected unprecedented amounts of stimulus into global markets by slashing short-term interest rates to historically low levels and bailing out large companies in danger of default. This concerted effort seemed to work. By March of 2009, the recession had bottomed out and economic growth resumed in most developed nations.

Now, two years later the economic recovery is proving to be difficult. In fact, in many western nations the economic recovery is hitting a major wall of resistance. In the United States, unemployment is remaining at stubbornly high levels, consumer sentiment is still weak, and economic growth is disappointing to say the least. Thus, economists are now split into two opposing camps concerning how the Federal Reserve and U.S. government should move forward.

The first camp of economists believes no more stimulus should be added. Deficits are already at “unsustainable” levels, and if further deficits are incurred, these economists are concerned that the investing public could lose faith in the United States government, which means bond vigilantes would make a run on the U.S. Dollar by driving up interest rates so high that the U.S. government would never be able to finance its huge debt. This would drive the U.S. government into sovereign default, which would of course cause global hysteria on a scale never before seen in modern history, especially in a forex account. These economists believe that no further stimulus measures should be taken. This process will ensure that waste is purged from the system; then, when the economy does finally emerge into strong growth, the foundation will be healthier and stronger.

The second camp of economists believes more stimulus must be injected into the economy in order to subvert a relapse into recession, which could ultimately lead the United States into a depression. These economists are often referred to as “Keynesians” after John Maynard Keynes, the renowned economist of the 20th century. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is a “Keynesian,” and he is dedicated to injecting as much money into the economy as is needed in order to save the United States from The Lost Decade syndrome that Japan has experienced throughout the 90′s and 00′s. This camp of economists is not as concerned with the far reaching negative effects of unprecedented levels of stimulus. Instead, they are fully preoccupied with the current economic conditions. Their stance is, let us deal with the present economic conditions, and once we are out of the woods, we will address possible future issues. They believe that tightening monetary policy prematurely is a major fiscal tragedy that must be avoided at all costs.

Each day, these two camps of economists are continually challenging each other in the financial media and in more formal settings. The truth is—the current global economic conditions are historically unprecedented. There has never been this degree of economic hardship in such a globalized economy. Only time will tell which camp is right.

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated topic, no doubt about it. There are arguments on both sides that I support, however there are also plenty of ridiculous arguments for and against the research. Why am I bringing this up now? Bush, while his administration did allow for some stem cell research, imposed limits which severely impacted the progress of such research. Obama hopes to reverse these limits and will be announcing it sometime this week. What I want to do is first clear up the facts.

Embryonic stem cells are basically blueprint cells; they are cells which can become any other cell in the body. There are actually several kinds of such cells. There are adult stem cells and younger stem cells found in fluids in the placenta. However, embryonic stem cells are the easiest to work with and as such are most needed by scientists in order to further discoveries. The hope is that we can control what these cells turn into, and then use this technology to cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s (which kills off brain cells).

We also know that our only way of obtaining these embryonic stem cells is by essentially destroying the embryo itself. In the eyes of many, this is seen as equivalent to killing a human life. Such is the dilemma then: we can potentially cure life threatening diseases but only by killing innocent lives. I’d have to say that this is a fairly solid argument, and one that’s not easily overcome.

One such challenge to the killing of human life is that the embryo would have been thrown away anyway at an abortion clinic. Now, given the choice of completely throwing away the life and using it in order to further research, I’d pick research. However, you have to take into account views on abortion. Those who believe abortions are murder will obviously not condone abortions in the first place and thus this line of debate is completely nullified. But we have to think realistically, not ideally. Assuming abortions will not be outlawed for a while, wouldn’t it be better to use the embryos for research rather than throwing them away?

The argument I don’t like that pro-stem cell research proponents use is that the killing of an embryo is not killing life. I would have to disagree. I’ll use this definition of life as my example: (source: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm)

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

Given this definition, life would begin as soon as the egg and the sperm unite. An embryo is quite organized, it acquires materials and energy, it responds to its environment, it obviously reproduces, and it can adapt. It may be limited in its adaptation skills and its environmental responses, but they are there nonetheless. Thus, unless someone can convince me otherwise, the embryo is a life.

Can we justify the killing of life in order to save lives? When starting a business, you can risk taking a loss before making (hopefully) significant gains. Can we do the same with human lives? Can we take losses in order to possibly make future gains? Please let me know what you think.

No, the Stock Market didn’t go 12 years into the future; we’re looking at a US stock market that has lost 12 years of gains in less than 6 months. At this rate I’ll be able to catch up to my parents’ 401Ks pretty quickly.

There have been a lot of items to discuss lately. The economic stimulus package was passed and it seemed like everyone had an opinion on the subject. I’ve seen talks of bipartisanship and how Obama has broken from that. I’ve also heard that Obama hasn’t accomplished what he said he would (although he’s only been in office for a little over a month). None of these items are currently on my mind. However, I have been paying close attention to how the stock market has been performing and, while the stock market is not exactly an accurate indicator of how the economy is doing, it does correspond quite well to the mentality of the American public at this time.

The market has now lost well over 50% of its value since last year. I thought that the market had already hit bottom, but it seems to be able to continue to slide. Now, it hasn’t deepened too significantly, and I’m optimistic that the market wont continue to nosedive. If you wanted to take the value of the market as an indicator of how the economy is performing, you’d be fairly accurate at this point. Looking at the trends in the market you can clearly see how people view the economy and what they predict the economy to be like down the road. It doesn’t look all that hot right now.

There are two factors that are preventing the recovery of the stock market and the overall economy. The number one biggest factor is consumer expectation. Everyone thinks the economy will continue to slump. As such, no one’s investing, and no one’s buying. No buying means no sales. No sales means companies don’t make money. The damage is self-inflicted, and we’ll continue to spiral downwards until expectations meet reality. Until then, expect further declines (but keep investing and buying!). The second factor is that of companies falling into bankruptcy. Now, I admit that this second part is mostly influenced by factor number one, however I feel that a lot of companies with bad business models have been able to stay afloat because the economy was just that good. Now companies with poor business plans are beginning to crumble, and as more and more companies go under, the others with sound business models will obtain bigger market shares and outlast this recession. I predict that once all of the deserving companies that go under do so, the stock market will finally begin stabilizing.

With all that said, how are my stocks doing?

My Google stock has declined 60ish points from last month. I’m still up from when I first bought, but not by over 100 points as had been true a month ago. I don’t see Google actually going away anytime soon, so it’s still safe to hold. It’s still over 40 points what I bought it for, and it wouldn’t be a bad time to put money into the company (it was over 700 a share last year and is now only 300).

Apple has had its ups and downs but for the most part it has been stable in the high 80′s low 90′s dollar range. Even the latest big slumps in the stock market haven’t moved the price of it’s stock too much.

Activision/Blizzard has been my latest gem. It had wobbled for a time to a price well under what I bought it for but it has been actually going UP in value during this entire period of declines in the stock market. The stock actually went up 29 cents today to close at a record high since I bought at $10.33 a share. It goes to show that this company is financially sound, has a great game plan, and produces high quality products. When all is said and done I’m sure that their stock is going to take off.

Those are my thoughts. If you have any questions about my stock picks or about the stock market and the economic recession so far, feel free to leave some in the comments. I’d also love to hear about your current investments in the market. If you haven’t gotten a chance, you may sign up to my RSS feed by clicking the link or subscribe to this site via email in the sidebar. Thanks for reading!

Is everyone entitled to vote? The simple answer is, no. The more complicated and more correct answer is, it depends. In one of my earlier posts entitled Make Your Own Decisions, Vote!, I discuss how I believe it is not only your right but your responsibility to vote. Now however, I want to talk about who should actually vote and who I don’t ever want to see at voting booths.

In the United States, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to vote officials into public office. The question is why. Why are we putting an age limit here? Clearly, it’s because we don’t feel that those under the age of 18 understand the political system enough to have a valid opinion. I certainly wouldn’t want a four year old determining the fate of this country? I’m sure at least most of you would agree with that. Similarly, a baby of not even a year old couldn’t possible decide who to vote for, much less even know what it means to do anything except eat, sleep, and cry. I could make a similar argument for those who just became teenagers: nothing but eating, sleeping, and crying, am I right?

So if our age limit has to do with who we believe could even make a rational choice, then is it fair that those who still can’t make rational decisions past the age of 18 are still allowed to vote? Does that even make sense? Do I want a complete idiot who is oblivious to all things politics have a stab at changing the direction of this country? What if someone lapses into a coma at the age of ten and wakes up in their thirties? Do they still have every right to vote?

Criminals are denied the right to vote. This makes sense, as society has already determined that to commit a crime, you already must be thinking irrationally. Let’s not even bring up the fact that you’d probably hate the government for locking you up anyway. It’s further proof that the people we do not want to have voting are the ones who are incapable of thinking rationally.

However, being under the age of 18 and committing crimes are not the only criteria for not being capable of rational thinking. I’m sure you’ve met some people (or a lot of people!) who you deem ill-qualified to actually vote, either because they would be ignorant of who to vote for or because what they think goes beyond stupidity. And no, I’m not going to label liberal thinking nor conservative thinking as stupid, although there are certain aspects of both that astound me with their respective stupidities…

Anyway, I don’t think EVERYONE should vote. People who have no idea what’s going on… I don’t think should vote. But that’s just me. I mean, it wouldn’t make sense for them to. Generally the people who don’t know what’s going on wouldn’t really care to vote regardless. There’s also the people who do care, but they’re just plain wrong. I’d love NOT to see them at the voting tables, but alas you can’t just command stupid people not to vote. Or can you….

First of all, I’d like to apologize for my total neglect of this blog. Schoolwork is catching up and as the quarter is ending, all of my projects and work deadlines are coming up, not to mention all of the exams I’ve had to take. It can certainly take its toll. Expect a general slow down of posts from once a day to a few per week. That will be my goal at least.

One of the main topics of discussion that I’ve seen is whether or not the economic stimulus package will do any good. Liberals will praise it. Conservatives condemn it. I asked Twitterers whether or not we even needed this package and if it will work. Here’s how I see it.

The whole point of the stimulus package is to increase government spending into the US’s infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure will help to promote faster economic growth in the future, all the while raising current GDP. Investing in infrastructure should help to bring in more jobs and in the end take us out of the recession with a stronger economic growth plan. It’s a very Keynesian approach to solving the current crisis, an it sounds good on paper.

Conservatives will argue that the economic stimulus package is but a load of crap that will only help to raise the national debt and will provide absolutely no relief because of how the bill will allocate the money. If you take a look at one of the Black Sphere’s latest posts, Education in the Financial Bailout – Pork-A-Palooza II, you’ll see that the author’s concern is that of spending money in education that will mostly go to waste. If you agree that the public education system is mostly ineffective and inefficient, then you can easily agree that investing a lot of deficit money into a system that will make poor use of the funds is a cause for concern.

Democrats are of course complaining that Republicans are taking a party stance on the economic stimulus package and are outright rejecting the bill. Although it’ll most likely pass anyway, I really feel the specifics of the bill need to be worked out between the two parties to make sure that funds aren’t being wasted, because throwing 800+ billion dollars into programs that are ineffective and/or inefficient are not going to help achieve the results we want.

Of course, if you’re a Monetarist, the stimulus package is worthless anyway.