This past Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) fell close to 300 points mainly on the fear that Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, would not allow banks to repay loans borrowed from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) who wish to do so. His testimony on Tuesday did little to reassure the banks that he would change his position. After being in the “hot seat” for much of his testimony, one could basically conclude that the repayment of TARP loans will depend on the credit needs of the overall economy. The question that we are faced with is what factors determine the economy’s credit needs? Furthermore, why is the government suited to do this in a so called free market enterprise system? Even more to the point, how the government going to be at the helm when it caused the problem in the first place?

Geither’s testimony is disturbing for two key reasons: 1) the threat exists for the current non-voting preferred shares that the government owns to be converted in to common stock with voting rights; and 2) the current legislation brewing in Congress that would cap interest rates on credit cards.

If the government opts to convert their preferred shares in to common stock with voting rights, then it will effectively be part owner of the banks. This would give the Obama Administration major control over their operations and would effectively nationalize the banking system. Some may argue that our banking system has already been nationalized through the creation and expansion of the powers of the Federal Reserve. However, government ownership in the banks would effectively seal the deal since it can now control both sides: a) monetary policy and b) how funds are distributed.

Banks who borrowed TARP money now have to rely on government stress tests by regulators that will determine the institutions’ overall financial health. Mind you, these are the very same “regulators” that oversaw erroneous lending practices that brought about the financial meltdown. The parameters of the stress tests are unknown and will not be released to the public until April 24th. (1) Once the government sinks its teeth into something, it is very difficult for it to relinquish its hold. The history of government involvement in the market since the Great Depression illustrates this concept.

Ever since the “financial meltdown” came about last year, we have heard repeatedly about “frozen credit markets.” The entire purpose of TARP was to give banks money to lend in order to “unfreeze” the credit market. The reasoning was that if consumers and businesses couldn’t get access to credit, then America and the rest of the world would sink into a recession and possibly another Great Depression. If the government is so concerned about frozen credit markets, then why is Congress currently trying to pass legislation that would cap interest rates on credit cards, which would ultimately restrict the flow of credit?

Congressmen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) have proposed legislation that would cap credit card interest rates at 15 percent. (2) On the surface, this may seem like a good idea as it is a natural reaction to initially embrace the populist view of people struggling in a sluggish economy being forced to pay very high interest rates on credit cards. However, caps on interest rates mean rationed credit. If credit card companies cannot tailor interest rates to one’s credit risk, then only the wealthy and those who have spotless credit will be able to obtain a credit card. This is a classic example of the government having its foot on the both the gas and break pedals at the same time.

High interest rates indicate a market correction. The government is talking about frozen credit markets; however the action taken by credit companies indicates otherwise. Interest rates rise as a result of the growing number of people who are unable to repay what they have borrowed. Banks through the coercion of the government have overextended credit to people for a very long time. As a result, the oil shock that came about last year has squeezed people into bankruptcy. Now it is time for the market to correct past wrongdoings.

From the perspective of the credit card companies, the money that is loaned out to consumers by way of a credit card is unsecured debt, meaning no collateral is offered. When people buy a house or an automobile, the loan is secured by the asset itself. In the event of a default, the bank can recoup the loss by repossessing the house or the automobile. Credit card companies do not have that option. Therefore, credit card companies must assess individual risk and systemic risk when determining interest rates.

The other factor that is being left out of the populist talk in Washington is individual responsibility. Does any of the blame rest on the consumer? Isn’t it fair to say that people abuse credit? What is not being discussed here is that people have the option not to pay interest if they own a credit card. How many people take advantage of borrowing money interest free for the duration of the grace period? High interest rates do not affect people who pay their bill on a monthly basis. The bottom line is people have a choice when it comes to paying credit card interest, and the terms and conditions are spelled out to the credit card holder in advance. Rather than cap interest rates, perhaps some consumers need to rethink how they use credit. Otherwise, credit cards will no longer be accessible to a great number of people.

It is possible that a hidden agenda exists to nationalize the financial sector. The government has the power to use talk of reckless lending practices, “loan shark” interest rates and instability in the market as a means for it to step in and correct said “injustices.” The Obama team has blamed free market capitalism. However, if one takes the time to examine the situation closer, it will reveal that the government’s hands in the financial sector have caused much of the agony that the world has experienced over the past year. A free market is a market free of government interference. That hasn’t been the case since inception of the FED in 1913 and the stricter government regulation and control that has followed in the ensuing decades. Higher taxes, government ownership in major banks and interest rate caps will only stifle the growth of capital needed to lead America into a healthy, prosperous economy.

(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/16/business/econwatch/entry4949969.shtml

(2) http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=309493

It’s quite clear that the left is angered and concerned about the tea party participants who demonstrated across the nation on April 15th. Over the past few days, we’ve heard left-wing commentators like Keith Olbermann accuse FOX news of overestimating the amount of participants. To add insult to injury, his guest Janeane Garofalo said the following: “a bunch of tea bagging rednecks….this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” We all know how low Olbermann stoops to distort reality, but this is a new record.

Not to be outdone by Olbermann, other far-left sites such as “Media Matters” and the “Huffington Post” made sure to cherry pick demonstrators that carried offensive signs that had nothing to do with the matter at hand. They chose to ignore mainstream folks who were there for very legitimate reasons. While FOX news chose to simply cover the event as any news station should, the network has been accused by NBC and CNN of being “right-wing.” It’s comical that networks that don’t even attempt to hide left-wing bias accuse another network of bias on the other side. It seems that there is a great deal of confusion between commentators and reporters. Commentators like Sean Hannity are not to be confused with reporters who are supposed to report the news. The difference is that networks such as CNN and NBC have their commentators report the news and try to pass it off as “fair and balanced.” For example, the following video shows CNN reporter Susan Roesgen caught “red-handed” in the act:

What CNN Did Not Show

Instead of adhering to the concerns of constituents like any elected official should do, Washington politicians made sure to join in the act of distortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the following: “This tea party initiative is funded by the high end – we call it Astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”

So there you have it, and the drivel from the left continues…

The bottom line is the left is afraid because they know the real underlying reason behind these movements, and is clearly not driven by racism or the rich elite. I suppose we can excuse Nancy Pelosi’s comment. After all, she doesn’t know it’s possible to have a real grassroots protest as almost all left-wing protest groups are backed by 501(c) groups like “moveon.org.” Union workers are actually PAID to protest. It’s impossible for her to believe that people can use the power of the internet and organize across the country to oppose her policies.

The bottom line is people have had enough. Libertarians like me are tired of not having a voice in government. This is what networks like NBC and CNN didn’t report. Many of the protesters there believe the following:

First, there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are funded by the same lobbyists and large corporations. People are tired of the lack of a limited government option when they go to the voting booth. There were plenty of signs and people who acknowledged George W. Bush’s failed economic policies that actually paved the way for the Obama Administration to pick up where Bush left off.

Second, there is much hatred and discontent for the Federal Reserve and large centralized banking. People realize that the FED’s policy has a direct impact on their purchasing power. While elected officials like to center tax policy around class warfare, they conveniently ignore what hyperinflation can do to middle class folks. In addition, the “rich” folks that they like to “soak” are not the power elite. Many are small business owners who provide jobs to people and are forced to pay the same tax rates as billionaires.

Third, people are strongly opposed to corporate bailouts which were supported by both Democrats and Republicans. This goes back to the first issue where these same corporations are buying our elected officials. Failure is a necessary part of capitalism. Without it, we are seeing the monopolized effect of large corporations that are “too big to fail.” They have grown in size primarily because they have been propped up by political connections. Without competition, choice is limited, and the power for abuse is great. Capitalism is not about Washington, the FED and a few large corporations having the power to make or break an economy.

Finally, people are paying close attention to the kind of debt the country has sunk itself into. It is estimated that the federal deficit will exceed $1.2 trillion this year, and total debt is approaching $11 trillion. Regardless of what political party is in control, reckless spending continues.

In summary, “IT’S ECONOMIC POLICY STUPID!!” I’ve been writing about bad economic policy for years, and finally people are beginning to see it for themselves. It’s comical that the Bush Administration touts the fact that Americans were kept safe after 9/11. There may have not been another attack on American soil, but what about the dangers of a weak economy? Bush’s economic policy did not center on a strong U.S. dollar. How vulnerable is America in a weakened economic state? How dangerous is it for the leader of the free world to say that the principles of the free market should be put aside in order to save it?

If Bush’s policies weren’t bad enough, we now have the Obama Administration and a Congress that has spent money in ways never seen before in American history. Elected officials do not read the bills they sign into law. There is no transparency, as the stimulus measures were not made available for public inspection until AFTER it was signed into law. This was not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise of transparency.

In the meantime, individual states are raising taxes on everyone. Property taxes have dramatically risen in many states along with sales tax and various fees. States have been forced to raise taxes in order to comply with many federal mandates aimed at growing entitlement programs. If Obama thinks he can quell angry crowds by giving people a few dollars more in their paychecks, he is mistaken. The chump change he is offering pales in comparison to rising state taxes and the inflationary threat America faces due to his policies along with Congress and the FED.

If economic policy doesn’t become “change we can believe in,” these tea parties will only give way to an even larger populist revolt.

From the horrible deeds that were described in the torture memos, many experts believe the profile fits this man:

“I know what I'm talking about.”

“You're just a dumb conservative.”

“Wikipedia is a legitimate source!”

“Hitler was a conservative!”

“Abortion is a woman's right.”

“No, you shouldn't be able to drive what you want!”

“Micheal Moore is a great filmmaker.”

“Fascist!”

“I support the troops, that's why I want them to come home and stop killing innocent people.”

“You can't fight a tactic.”

“We should respect other cultures.”

“Christianity is dangerous.”

“We lost Iraq.”

“We're just creating more terrorists.”

“We need more regulation.”

“Hands off my body!”

“We should all be equal.”

“What do you mean affirmative action is racist?”

“I've read 1984!”

“The USSR isn't an example of socialism.”

“Woodrow Wilson was a great president.”

“Jimmy Carter was a great president.”

“Ronald Reagan was a fascist!”

“Ronald Reagan deregulated the economy!”

“Ronald Reagan created a huge deficit.”

“We needed the stimulus package.”

“AIG should give back the bonuses.”

“You have no heart if you think the poor should pay taxes.”

“No tax cuts for the rich!”

“We should help people who were scammed on their mortgage!”

“Who's Franklin Raines?”

“Gay marriage is a civil right!”

“Guns are just a tradition.”

“Health care is a right!”

“What's federalism?”

“The Federalist Papers? What's that?”

“Who's George Mason?”

“I doubt George Washington would prosecute deserters!”

“Deserters are heroes!”

“Chickenhawk!”

“I don't believe in war.”

“What aren't we in Darfur?”

“Why aren't we in Tibet?”

“No war for oil!”

“No drilling for oil!”

“I hate oil companies. They gouge us!”

“Fuck tha police.”

“Hello? 911. There's someone in my house!”

I don't know about all my former comrades across the world, but when I was a dyed red anarchist I had deep survivalist notions about the world and, in fact, wished for them to come to fruition. When oil would spike, I'd look for signs of downfall. When wars would flare, I'd wish for revolutions. When things went bad, I'd see things going well. For me, when the world ended, the world had actually just began.

Survivalism isn't specifically an anarchist aspect, there are plenty of right-wing militias, cross-ideological conspiracy laden groups and various other sects within American politics that talk peace and utopia while planning for Armageddon. It was easier to be a survivalist as well as an anarchist, though, since having an ideology claiming the world works better without government has a greater chance of combining with survivalism than right-wingers that profess loyalty to the idea of US government or militant socialists who are for large government. Not all anarchists are survivalists, mind you, as there is a deep schism between the industrial world anarchists who wish to do away with class but keep the spoils, and the primitive, anti-industrial, anti-civilization anarchists who believe a better world is a world based on tribalism.

By itself, survivialism isn't ideological in the sense of conservative or liberal, but in that its a belief/set of beliefs that command the individual to plan for or to talk about a threat (in the less extreme) to plan for /talk about civilization collapse (in the most extreme). Pure survivalists are nearly impossible, though I think that the Alex Jones conspiracy people could be considered close. I can't imagine being that paranoid and being able to function.

Although I am now a libertarian conservative and no longer hold that the best thing for the world is the end of organized human society, I've never been able to shake the feeling that I need to plan for very bad things that may or may not happen. There is a reason, of course, and that is the way specific civilizations tend to turn against their own or collapse throughout history. I am not saying that America is near the edge, far from it. President Obama was elected with a majority and without any electoral violence despite his radical background and various other unsavory ideological aspects. That is proof enough that, right now, America has should not worry about any kind of civilization collapse. But, just because the America political system still works amazingly, it does not mean something cannot change the stability and safety of our nation. No one, and I mean no one, should assume we are safe from any kind of danger: crime, natural disaster, terrorism, war, etc.

I am not trying to scare, but advise. I find it that the people who panic the most are the ones who never think of the situation their in in the first place: bad weather car accidents, accidents while hiking, crime in the neighborhood, mass murder by the mentally insane, etc. No one and no government should turn paranoid about these things and turn simple vigilance to mass panic, but the inability to be alert to threats does not mean the threats do not exist and to not plan for these threats may mean a harder life afterward.

Again, I am not trying to scare. The rash of mass murder this past few weeks and within the past few years have shown that simple security procedures like security guards (for the immigration office in NY) or in the more expansive sense, armed teachers (Columbine, Virgina Tech) could prevent massive loss of life. Having emergency food storage, having a self defense weapon, having a simple plan to meet during a disaster; all these things tap in to the basic human urge to survive, which has been dumbed down with our comforting lifestyles.

For all the urge we love to give in to (food, sex, etc), why can't protecting ourselves count among them?

The world ain't perfect and no one should expect it to be. Since the creation of civilization there's been war, hate, jealously, thievery, rape, murder and so on. No once has a day gone by that something horrible has happened to someone or to a group of people. The world is a dangerous place no matter if you live in the Sahara or in Salt Lake City. We should never trick ourselves into thinking that we live in anything but a thin layer of protection from the natural battles our nature and our culture wage everyday.

Countless numbers of Americans pray to the Gods of Modernity as often as they can. The lives of millions are hedged on that the Gods will provide with haste and without any strings attached. Alas, what we have been told by the preachers is only one side of the story. Unlike the Abrahamic God that gives well to its believers and brings them to heaven for their loyalty, the Modern Gods are as fickle as the ones of Greek legend. No matter the amount of praise, the amount of energy and amount of money invested in this pantheon will ever assure the bounty promised.

One praises these Gods as their own risk. To invest anything is akin to betting on a random number at a horse race. There are those who have made horse racing their life, but most of the time it is just the random rube hoping for a quick buck on a lucky number. The Gods do not look highly on the impatient and the inexperienced. They do not give in to the begging of those down on their luck for they are not compassionate. These Gods are in it for themselves, just like their cultists, except the Gods do not shroud their intent in rhetoric. The Gods are blunt, if you listen.

Yet, more now than ever before, we have duped ourselves into a bubble reality where the Gods of Modernity give and never take. We live in a world where housing prices always rise, gas prices always fall and you can buy a large screen TV without worry that your health insurance just expired because someone else will pay that for you. When we are at war, sacrifice is left to those fighting and their families, and the only thing the rest of us complain about is about the morality, the ideology and endless inane crowing about if winning a war is costing us entitlements. We assume the Gods are on our side because we cannot fathom the Gods being apathetic.

That's the key to living, but which no one really understands. One must realize the Gods and the people who praise them and the people who deny them do not do it altruistically. We do not move from city to city, vote on a ballot, bank with a this company and work for that company because we are part of a bigger plan. We do what we do based upon what our individual needs and wants are. We trust based on that trust being reciprocated. We give hoping we can get. That is the way of things.

The cult of the Gods tell you different, though. The tell you the Gods give because its right. They tell you the Gods smite because its right. They tell you the Gods will help the poor, save the weak, grow the crops and keep the world safe. They tell you things you want to hear because the horror that the most powerful aspects of our civilization are based on anarchistic self-interest scare the rube and the layman. They manipulate this fear and use it for their own particular goals which profess to attempt to consolidate the anarchy in the name of altruism. In other words, they use you for their self-interest.

The Gods will not change for you. The Gods will not change for a bunch of you. The Gods are eternally themselves and eternally do things in the name of their own feelings and goals, not yours. Never attempt to collar the Gods or pigeonhole the Gods as to ostracize them from the human condition. These Gods can never be defeated, unless we are willing to defeat the very things that make us human. The only way to end the insanity of our anarchistic world is to destroy ourselves, but I highly doubt the health insurance-less couch potato will want that just so he can have his world a little bit easier.