MaxBro

Disinformation

It’s interesting to see so many people filled with disinformation in regards the economy and how one presidential candidate will influence it over another. The other day I heard someone declare that if you want this recession to turn into a depression, raise taxes (i.e vote for Obama), whereas if you want to presumably “save” our economy, lower taxes (i.e. vote for McCain).

While on the surface that’s nothing more than party brand loyalty chest thumping—conservatives have been harking on lowering taxes for decades even though their actions in government spending rarely ever coincide with fiscal responsiblity—it reflects something deeper. That is, this notion that the president, or for that matter Congress, actually have any real control over the economy.

Don’t people know this already? Don’t people know the Federal Reserve controls the economy, not the Federal Government? Do people really think that snipping a percent or two of taxes here or increasing taxes a point there will affect the growth or decay of our economy?

If you have an organization that directly controls the lending rate, which the Fed does; if you have an orginization that controls the input and output of money, which the Fed does; and if you have an orginization that is the predominant lender to the U.S. Government, which the Fed is, than that organization effectively controls the economy. At the least the Federal Reserve is the prime manipulator of the U.S. economy, not to mention that of the economies of the entire world.

What our politicians do, whether it be lowering taxes or raising them, is ultimately window dressing in the end. It is the Federal Reserve that is the real parent here. All any president or major politician can do is stand there with hand out and open like a child on trick or treat night, hoping for a sweet handout.

An Err in Declaring the Death of Eras

I’ve been reading a lot of essays lately declaring the end of the Reagan Era. An end that is, of course, by virtue of Obama’s assumed ascendency to the White House. Even if McCains somehow pulls off a win, a feat which neither he nor that dimwit from Alaska deserve at this point, so say the pundits the Gipper’s time has passed. It’s as though some egg timer somewhere has dinged, signaling the death of one movement and the start of another.

Yet, aren’t we still living in FDR’s shadow due to the Social Security program? Aren’t we still living witht he effects of LBJ’s Medicare, Nixon opening up trade with China, and Clinton encouraging NAFTA? Aren’t we still feeling the tremors of those actions even decades after they happened? Why is it that we presumably lived in the Reagan Era prior to Obama becoming within inches of winning the White House? What happened to Bush, Clinton, Bush the First? Why do we even have to define “eras” in our nations’s history in terms of presidents? Why not, the Terrorism Era? Or prior to that, the Cold War Era? And before that, the WWII Era?

The Reagan Era hasn’t passed any more than any of those prior mentioned eras have either. What has passed is what passes typically the moment a president leaves his office. His coalition. His charisma. The mojo behind whatever movement he might have started. For sure, Bush I and Bush II tried to grapple onto that vast swath of the electorate and hold it tight, but they don’t match up with Reagan in terms of communication, charisma and charm anymore than Hillary matched up with her husband or Al Gore matched up with JFK.

If instead of personality we are going to talk about the effect of a president’s actions, then I’d say we are living in an abundance of overlapping eras. There are elements from each will come to suit the needs of the time. But this notion that one ends the moment another begins is a bit naive. The Reagan Era hasn’t ended as much as Reagan himself has at last become a true historical figure in the vein of the many presidents before him. The afterglow of his presidency, however impactful, is gone.

Some presidents “die” sooner than others, while others live on longer than expected. A president’s shelf life is usually determined by how much he got done in office, and in terms of realpolitik, their usefulnes in their respective party after leaving office. Carter died young, immediatly vacuumed into obscurity by Reagan’s electoral execution. Bush I, crafty old man that he is, stepped into the shadows once Clinton nudged him aside.

As for this current Bush? Well, sometimes a stain on the carpet remains no matter how much elbow grease you put into removing it. It will be long time before he is minimized by history. But the point is, in a hundred years, it will still be the same rug. Powerful men die, but their eras remain. It’s like that old physics maxim that matter cannot be destroyed. No matter the amount of effort, money, or passion of the movement, no president changes the rug. He merely adds his mess to it, and perhaps in the process blots out a few others.

In the future...

Money as we know it will not exist, but will be replaced with a currency based in energy units. I know this sounds farfetched and ridiculous, but when you stop to think about it, it would be the next logical step in human economic evolution. Eventually, we will come to depend on electricity so much and paper money and even computer money will have become so mistrusted due to devaluation and fluctiation, that people will prefer to own units of energy and use those as a standard of trade.

Why this has not happened already and will not happen probably for some decades, is because right now virtually nobody can operate indepdent of the electrical grid. We are all plugged in to whatever ower company is in charge of our district. However, with the advent of cheaper solar power, community-driven forms of energy like geothermal and wind power, not to mention the use of fuel cells, we are approaching a day in which every home will act as its own power source. Once that happens, power becomes abundant and transferable enough to act as a medium of exchange. Obviously now I can’t pay you in energy units for mowing my lawn. But imagine in the future if I could wire you so many mega watts of power to your house as payment. Imagine if your employer paid you in giga watts instead of a paper check or wire tranfer.

Such a system may sound impossible, but as we progress more and more everyday items require electricity. We use more lights, more computer power, more electronic gadgets, and more power sources year after year. When you think about it, what we buy most of the time is really fuel in multiple forms (i.e. food, gas, heating, lighting, entertainment, education, etc.) We are either fueling our bodies, our vehicles, or our minds. As we depend more and more on electrcity to accomplish this, eventually it will become practical if not preferable to exchange watts instead of dollars. At the least a watt is more measurable and can hold its value more than a dollar. A watt is a watt no matter what, to coin a phrase. It doesn’t devalue as the dollar does throughout the day. It is not a form of debt as the dollar is as it is nothing more than a note from the Federal Reserve which must be repaid by the U.S. Government. It has real value and is of course dependent on how you use the watt.

This transition will not come easy, and no doubt it is the powerful who will fight it. But ultimately it will be the millions of tiny villages dotting the future landscape—each one inhabited by people who will know each other just as tribes who dwelled in caves millenia ago knew one another—who will force this change. It’s hard to imagine such a scenario now because our power sources are decentralized and diversified. We use gas for our cars, electricity to turn on our lights, perhaps coal to heat our homes, or wood or oil. But give it the time and technology, and I believe this watt exchange theory will come to pass.

Movie Titles that Sound Like Porn Titles but Aren't

-Horatio Hornblower

-Holes

-Dick

-The Black Stallion

-What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?

-The Shape of Things to Come