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.

Here’s a question I’ve been pondering lately:

Should the government protect us from ourselves?

I actually asked this very question on Twitter, and the responses were quite mixed. I sort of expected a clear-cut winner, but that was not the case.

If the government were to protect us from ourselves, it would mean that society could not undermine it’s own country, even if it wanted to. But what does this imply? This would imply that the government no longer represents its people’s wishes. That seems bad to me.

On the flip side, if the government did not go against the common word, the people would end up destroying the nation (again, assuming that was society’s intent). We already know that majority rule is not always ideal, and so it would be wrong to allow the majority to destroy a nation against the will of the minority. Maybe you disagree with me here, but that’s how I see it.

This is a fundamental question I think, because your viewpoint here determines what you want and do not want the government to be able to do. Those who strongly believe in the will of the people would argue that the government has no choice but to listen to the people’s demands, even if that demand is the destruction of the government/nation. Those who believe that people sometimes do not know what is best would argue that the government has the right to tell them what is right and what is wrong. I… am torn.

To me it seems to be a case-by-case basis matter. Sometimes I do want popular vote to matter, and other times I want the government to know what is best, especially since the people can never know all the facts or even pretend to. But where do we draw the line? How do we figure out what the government should determine and what the people should determine? At what point should the government stop even indirectly representing the majority? Should the government ever stop representing the majority of its people at all?

Comments would be greatly appreciated.

Oh, if you’d like to have my blog’s posts delivered to you via email, that is now available at the top of the sidebar.

On Tuesday, California voters voted on several propositions to go along with the national election. Of these propositions, I’d like to talk about proposition 8.

What is proposition 8? If you haven’t already heard, it’s supposed to restore true family values and outlaw gay marriage in California. This would bring back the supposed traditional meaning of the word marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman in every religion I can think of.

Basically, California took a big step backwards when it comes to equal rights.

The problem for me is the fact that governments can define what is marriage. This should be impossible. I thought marriage was conducted by religions, and thus should be out of bounds for the government. The government should only define civil unions, which is much different from marriage. Religions can still choose who to marry, but everyone should enjoy the same tax benefits etc. as others. It’s only logical.

And let’s not get into any crap about keeping marriage sacred. Heterosexual couples have already screwed that up by divorcing 50% of the time here in the United States. How frikkin’ sacred is that then? People are already marrying up then giving up a few years later just to get back with someone else who they give up years later. Family values my @$$. Think about all of the children broken up by divorced families. It’s a nightmare.

Gay civil union would not impede on anyone else’s marriage rights nor would it impact anyone else’s lives at all. As far as we all are concerned, some gay couples are practically married besides the legal benefits, and they deserve those benefits as much as anyone else.

“Oh no, but they are sinning by wanting to be gay.” No one chooses to be gay, period. I couldn’t choose to be gay. It’s impossible. Others who are straight couldn’t choose to be gay. It doesn’t work. No one chooses to defy nature ok? If you still believe people choose to be gay, you’re brainwashed. I like women. I will never stop liking women. No matter how hard I try I will never be able to change that. That’s simply how my body reacts. With gay people it’s the same deal. They happen to like the same sex, and it’s not by choice. Children don’t choose to be gay, that’s simply not something they are thinking about doing actively. Just like you didn’t actively choose to like whichever gender you happen to like.

I’m not even going to mention that there are many, many species that have homosexual relations. It just… happens. Just like cancer just happens, and I’m not going to incriminate people just because they have cancer.

And don’t give me crap about a slippery slope, either. There is no slippery slope. Two consenting adults want a civil union, there’s no slippage there. People aren’t going to win arguments to marry siblings, animals, or inanimate objects. There’s simply no legal basis for that, and those things are stupid anyway.

Again, if your religion doesn’t support gay marriage, fine. I have no qualms with that. But the legal system should not be defining marriage anyway; it should only allow for civil unions. I’m pretty sure that’s something everyone can live with.

Here’s a story about some rights groups challenging the ban:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27557521/

Got a differing opinion, or do you agree? Let me know in a comment below.

Just to get this out formally, the 700 billion dollar bailout sucks.

Do I think it’s a good idea? No. Do I feel we have no choice but to let it happen? Yes. Essentially, Wall Street is afraid, and is now looking towards the government for reassurance. It’s pathetic and an insult to a capitalistic society. Will I get a bailout if I go into massive debt? No. Quite frankly, I’m not important enough. When you become important enough, only then will you have protection against ever failing.

It’s amazing how the market will start to swing upwards even on the mere HOPE that the federal government will go through with the plan. They don’t even have to pass the dang bill and the market starts going up again. Yes the gains do not outweigh the losses, but the way people act is just incredible, especially when they are scared. It would make a great psychological study I think.

The congressmen and women who voted down this bill don’t like it, but they do not realize that it would be worse NOT to pass it. I mean yes, taxpayers will essentially have to eat up three or four thousand dollars. That’s a lot of money. But look at everyone’s 401k’s!! They are sinking, and I bet they’ve been hit a lot worse than that amount of money. I don’t even have a 401k and I can feel everyone’s pain! The truth is people are left in the dark about important legislation. It’s just become a lot more apparent now because this happens to be a really really really important piece of legislation.

I was listening to the radio when one of the Senators (I don’t remember which one) mentioned that people should be suspicious of government. It’s sad when someone in the government has to say something like that. People should NEVER have anything to be suspicious about when it comes to our own elected officials. People blame the government for a lot these days, and it doesn’t matter whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office. They always manage to screw something up. It’s no wonder that people are sick of the one thing America has to be proud of: it’s political system and the right to have freedom of choice and the freedom to elect our representatives. Sometimes I almost feel like some people would gladly give up this freedom. I personally would never want to, but I can see why some of these people who go so far as to say such a thing.

The problem with this bailout is that it really is a catch-22. The government did not regulate a thing, and we trusted it. Now we’re in this mess because of it. And now we are expected to trust it anyway, because the one’s who caused this problem are the only ones who can fix it.

God bless the next few days…

It’s been a while since I’ve last posted.

Honestly, I’ve been very busy with other projects, so I decided to put my blog aside for the time being. The media was starting to get on my nerve anyway.

This bailout situation is a disaster.

I don’t even need to be reminded that I may be responsible for $7,000+ from what this is going to cost. I don’t need to know what the impact of this on the National Deficit is going to be.

Here are the facts.

1. Corporations went unregulated
2. Corporations screwed up
3. We have to pay for it

Those who are quick to blame the Clinton administration need to shut up. Clinton’s been out of office for 8 years. I’m sure the current administration could have done something about it. What’s the word, preemptive? They know all about preemptive strikes so there’s no excuse on the vocabulary.

And because we had a Republican administration, they left the economy on its own. And this is what we get.

How come we’re not sticking to Republican economic principles and let the market work its way out of this mess? Easy. Because it won’t. Woops.

McCain wants to suspend his campaign until this whole situation is sorted out. He’s trying to take the high road and transcend politics.

I’m so glad Obama is intelligent, because his statement puts McCain back down the road he continues to drive on, the lame one. It’s called multitasking. The election date isn’t changing, and people need to know who you are and what you stand for. We’re picking a new leader soon, and McCain can’t just suspend that process. If McCain wants strong leaders in the Senate, may he then stay a Senator.

Honestly, McCain’s campaign is scared that they’re not going to be able to handle an economic debate. This whole situation has ruined McCain’s standpoints. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent? No way that’s happening now.

McCain, show up or drop out. If Obama can handle both things at once, you can too. And being 72 is no excuse, not when you’re running for president.