we are the world

What is America?

America is a place where people from all over the world come to seek opportunity. People come here to get away from governments that steal from them, that treat them like slaves, that try to run their lives. Where else can people go to find a nation that provides in its founding documents, in its charter, the rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and guarantees those rights with an elaborate system of legislative, judicial and executive offices that are designed to limit the power of government?

America is a place that has, for centuries now, inspired people in other lands to sacrifice possessions and leave behind the familiar to answer the call to be free. To simply be free. To live life. To take the risk to be alive, as opposed to embracing the certainty of living death. There are doubtless multitudes who wish that they could be free, too, but for some reason have not paid or cannot pay the price.

When a handful of nations that have obviously questionable motives (see below), or a body of delegates that claims to speak for 'the world' speaks, who is really speaking? Is it the people of those nations, or the power structures of those nations? The answer is self evident. No other nation in the world has a power structure designed to be of, by and for its citizens. When these nations or bodies speak, they speak from the high and lofty halls of power. Power that has, too often, been secured and maintained by the blood, sweat and tears of simple people for generations.

When America speaks about world issues, who is speaking? America is like a garden, with plants and flowers of every variety. Almost every nation is represented here; that is, the citizens of America are former citizens of almost every nation in the world. They came here, and they speak from what they know. And they elected a man (please see the red and blue election map), to speak for them. And he has vowed to uphold the oath he took to protect them from aggressors.

Because of the makeup of its citizens, and the representative nature of its government, it can be said that when America speaks, voices from all over the world are speaking. And who are they speaking to? To the power structures of the world. When the power structures of the world respond by demonizing the man who represents their former citizens, one should not be surprised to detect palpable animosity. The citizens of the world, represented by the aggregate of world citizens now know as American citizens, are saying to the administrators of the dysfunctional power structures of their beloved former homelands, 'been there and done that.'

Are America and our allies against the world? No. American citizens and our idealogical allies the world over are standing up for liberty in the face of the unjust power structures of the world. Just like Americans always have.

We are the world. We are speaking. We declare: Liberty will not be defeated.

Are you listening?

more about oil

The pot can be fairly reliably counted upon to call the kettle 'black.' Once again we revisit the neo-mythical mantra that "Bush just wants the war for oil." We leave aside as self-evident the fact that such a remark is basically a non-sequitir.

The inspiration for this issue of {Speculations} was, originally, Russia's self-righteous alignment with France and Germany in opposing a war on Iraq. While many may choose to believe that Russia has and does mark the zenith of moral ground, people with their eyes and ears open will more likely be suspect of her motives. And rightly so.

Might oil figure in her motives? Why, might she want Saddam Hussein to remain in power, continuing to oppress masses of citizens (something Russia perfected in the last century), because Russia has oil concessions with the present Iraqi government which might be jeopardized in the event of the inevitable 'regime change?' I think so.

Too, mightn't Russia, one of the largest exporters of oil on the globe, have some vested interest in selling its wares at 'war premium' prices, significantly above the cost of production and distribution? I think so again.

I said that the original inspiration for this installment was Russia's position on Iraq. The actual impetus, the spur that set me to typing, is China's alignment with Russia. More specifically, it is China's alignment with Russia in the context of the fact that Russia is about to build a pipeline to pump some of its abundant oil into China.

China is of course a sweatshop of a nation that is being forced into the 21st century along with the rest of the world. Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but the alignment of two communist regimes, with records of oppressing perhaps hundreds of millions of people between the two of them, against the liberation of still millions more innocent people in Iraq, for the sake of oil and the money associated with it, is pure evil.

Thank you, China and Russia, for demonstrating to the audience of the world what it is that you really stand for. Germany, with its own past romance with a totalitarian nightmare, is finally in good company.

It's important to understand that the positions of the entrenched leaders of these countries, like corporate CEO's who retain their power by force, do not necessarily represent the convictions of their citizens. In fact, it's a safe bet that the majority of thinking people in these nations are deeply disturbed at the implications of this idealogical alliance.

Oil. Indeed.

"it's all about oil!"

Like a stereophonic cacophony of whining, I keep hearing things like "Bush just wants to start a war for oil!" Initially, I dismissed this proposition prima facea as propaganda that is sophomoric, emotionally charged, and completely disconnected from reality, which it obviously is. But I began to ponder the argument. And here is what is crystal clear.

Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the price of crude oil has doubled. During this time, the government of Iraq has been the antagonist in a slow motion game of hide-and-seek-the-weapons-of-mass-destruction. Each UN resolution subjecting Iraq to inspections and disarming, and each manuever to evade each resolution, has ratcheted up the tension between the free world and Iraq. The US is the only nation morally and militarily capable of enforcing any such resolutions in the Middle East -- should force be required. We have been put in the position of leadership in the protection of the free world from rogue nations with weapons of mass destruction. Rightly so.

Now, the question is: who benefits from higher oil prices -- the buyer or the seller? Clearly Iraq, which has been exporting oil in violation of yet other UN resolutions against doing so, is selling to a captive market at better than twice the price it was getting a little more than a year ago. And the free, industrialized world is paying a little more than double for a strategic commodity, suffering economically as a result. Wealth is being redistributed from free nations, from the economic engines and breadbaskets of the civilized world, to the little kingdom of Babylon. So, who's really pulling shenanigans 'for oil?'

Who's motives are dispicable here? Is it the leader of the strongest nation in the free world; one who has not shrunk from the moral responsibility to do everything in his power to judiciously and forthrightly hold the slick bully accountable, or is it the malevolent antagonist rattling his saber, cooperating with vicious terrorists who have no value for life, who are consumed with hatred; an antagonist who is waxing richer and richer each day he keeps the game going as a result of bullying and terrorizing peace-loving and well-intentioned nations?

Removing this self-centered megalomaniac will not only liberate a nation from his dictatorship, it will remove a major disturbance in the balance of the business of life across the world. When the oil market is no longer held hostage by Saddam Hussein, consumers of oil will be freed from the need to scramble to purchase future supply all at once, and the price of oil will decline to something more closely related to what the demand for it and supply of it ought to be under peaceful conditions. The cost of doing business will decrease, as this 'terror tax' is removed. Productive people will prosper. Hungry people will be fed. Weak nations will have a chance once again to become economically viable as terrorism, the oppressor of liberty and joy, is vanquished.

So, in a way, war might be about oil. But just not the way the cliche suggests. The leader of Iraq, in cooperation with terrorists and perhaps even unions in South America, has played a cruel and deadly game of market manipulation. Shame on him. It's time for him to be held accountable. The rest of the world deserves a shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

ho hum

So, Yahoo! is profitable, according to its accountants. They have singlehandedly breathed life enough for another lap into the hope (or rather, the dream) of the 'new economy.' As a trader, I find that to be interesting news.

As a consumer and a citizen, the story is even less exciting. Yahoo! has apparently pulled some black ink out of its hat, in part by selling popup ads. Ads that popup anytime I check my email, which I do frequently. Ads that are so annoying, and so interfere with the function of my computer, that I'm considering abandoning my Yahoo! email accounts altogether.

So put off am I, that, no, I wouldn't pay $9.95 a year to stop the ads. Paying that anecdotal extortion fee won't stop all the unsolicited garbage that Yahoo! allows into my email boxes. And who knows what other clever ways they'll find to stick ads in our faces, since it seems to pay them to do so? Not to mention what sort of data they are gathering and selling.

Those with vested interest, like corporate insiders, and the poor souls who bought the stock for more than a hundred dollars per share, might think a popup ad deluge is a small price to pay for the sight of some daylight on the monthly statement. But, my cable ISP email account is marvelously efficient, works with Microsoft Windows seamlessy, allowing me to send just about any file to anyone I'd like to in the simplest way possible. This is paid for anyway by the cable service charge. I have never received an obscene or mass marketing piece in that account. Competition is a marvelous thing for the consumer.

I doubt that I am the only one who had hoped that there was much more to the new economy than obnoxious ads aimed at base motives. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

"da doo doo doo"*

There are many different ways that the government can take your money. It can take it all at once, or a little at a time. It can let you keep a little bit and live like a pauper or it can let you keep most of it and sit back and allow you do productive things that improve everyone's existence, including your own, thereby giving you and others more money to take a little less from.

So what does this have to do with doo doo? That can be summed up in the headline that appears on Yahoo! news which reads, "Bush's Economic Plan Could Cost $600B Over 10 Years." This dire warning was suspended over an AP story with like theme. Dear, that sounds horrible when put like that, doesn't it? But whom will it cost? And what will happen to all that money? (We can assume, for the sake of discussion, that the size of the number is in the ballpark. But let's say up front that the assumption is certainly questionable).

It will cost the government, in the short run, in terms of reduced income. And all that money will remain under the control of the people who earned it in the first place. Is that bad news?

It might be, if one happens to be the beneficiary of a government largesse that is, under the scrutiny of what is best kept a tight budget, done away with. We could do with fewer government subsidized vats of urine with certain religious symbols submerged in them, for example.

Imagine, leaving all that wealth in the hands of those who's blood, sweat and tears produced it. Why, they might get out of debt. Or invest in their businesses. Or support their favorite charities. You know, charities are best policed by their donors, not by Central Command and Control zombies.

Whatever the wealth producers do with their wealth, it will find its way back into the economy. The money will circulate. It will become income for others, which will be taxed. It will support state and local income and sales taxes. It will do so more frequently, if those who earn it are allowed to keep it. They will spread it around, creating more earners, who will spread it around, creating still more earners, and so on, and so on. You see, free people are a phenomenon to behold -- they reverse entropy. Free markets allow human productivity to prosper. And then there's more, more, more income available to generate tax receipts. Frankly, the economy could use an extra $600 billion the way a faithful workhorse could use some good hot mash on a cold day.

So, is a tax cut really going to 'cost' anyone anything? No, no more than your best investments 'cost' you anything. When you have a good, productive investment, you want to put more of your available funds into it. You do better that way. Wouldn't it sound ridiculous if your sour-pussed Auntie started screeching about how much that investment was going to cost you, how much it was going to deprive your children of their goodies, how much less say she might have in what you do with it? Of course it would. You might want to invest double just to teach her a lesson.

Let's put it this way. Suppose you grow corn. A single kernel will yield a stalk, from which one or two ears will yield an average of 800 more kernels per ear. Corn makes more than 1,000 products that can be bought at the grocery store. Praytell, with that kind of math, wouldn't it make sense to put as many kernels in the ground as possible, as often as possible? Or should you put most of the kernels in Auntie's silo? Plant more, and Auntie comes out with more, in spite of herself. But then, she depends on you, and not the other way round. The way she whines about it, one might think that giving up control of your kernels is something that Auntie dreads.

Corn is good. But people are even more productive than corn. How else can it be explained that so few support such a large beaurocracy, and so many other deprived people the world over? There is no greater investment than in the prosperity and morality of free people. Cutting their taxes costs nothing. It's an investment that pays incalculable returns to everyone in the vicinity and many who aren't.

Wealth is not a finite quantity -- it's created all the time, by free people; more so when their right to manage the fruit of their own labors is not out-legislated. As for Yahoo!, AP, and all the other rhetoric-generators and thought-shapers, one can't help but wonder what cause of theirs is really at stake, buried under all that slung mud. Why do they use their influential pulpits to shout with Auntie about harvesting more and more of your corn?

"Their eloquence escapes me*."

*Da Doo Doo Doo -- The Police

Note: Ironically, minutes after this was published, the headline quoted was replaced. It would be presumptuous to attribute causation to this piece. I am remiss for not linking to it immediately.