Well, another football season is drawing to a close. I have not written any on it this year. Thought I'd put my two cents worth (and not much more) now while I have just a minute.
I am actually excited about the future prospects of Auburn football. The immediate prospects are not too great, though. They have at times this year looked quite good, especially on offense. At other times they have looked horrendous, in all three phases of the game.
Their main problem right now, and this affects all three phases, is depth. They have pretty good depth at skill positions on offense. Ben Tate, Onterio McCaleb, Mario Fannin, and Erick Smith are all pretty good running backs. However, Smith has had off the field troubles (apparently of his own doing), Fannin seems to have trouble holding on to the ball, and McCaleb has had a nagging injury since the middles of the season. I do not think it is a coincidence that Auburn's offense has tended to look much less explosive when McCaleb was unable to play. I think the one-two punch of O-Mac and Tate opens us up tremendously. Take O-Mac out, and that closes us down a bit.
Our collection of receivers is really incredible. We got a couple of real hot recruits last year, including the 21 year old freshman Deangelo Benton, as well as Emory Blake. We also had returning highly recruited junior (I believe) Tim Hawthorne. However, these three have combined for very little of our receiving. Benton did not have a catch all year until the tenth game in mop up duty against hapless Furman. What has happened is that out of nowhere youngsters Darvin Adams and Terrell Zachary have exploded to become major players. These two far and away lead the team in receptions, td receptions, and receiving yards. In addition to these, QB turned receiver Kodi Burns has a few receptions, as does H-back Fannin, and a few others.
At Tight End, senior Tommy Trott has been consistent and will be missed. However, a couple of times freshman hot shot Phil Luthtrlskdnginglskdmngh (Ok, the spelling may not be right!) has shone. I think he will be a tremendous tight end in our offense in the future.
Chris Todd at QB has looked like a Heisman contender at times, and looked like a High School non-starter at others. He is more or less the mirror of this team. Jekyl and Hyde. As Todd goes, so goes Auburn.
When we get to the O-line, we start to see some problems. We have some good players there, but virtually no depth, and little consistency. There have also been apparently some off field issues, causing some suspensions. When there is no depth, and you lose a player or to to injury or suspension, you get sacks, three and outs, etc.
On the defensive side, while there have certainly been some high points, the biggest problem is definitely depth. Throw in the fact that we have had some injuries and that problem really gets magnified. Our starting D-line is real good, but it falls off behind the starters. Eltoro Freeman has really come on as of late at LB, but has been hurt some and it really falls off from there. Neiko Thorpre at DB has tremendous athletic ability, but his technique leaves me with my doubts that he could cover even me! Seems like every long pass play against us this year has had one thing in common - number 15 trailing the open receiver. Darren Bates is a freshman safety with superstar potential.
Depth really shows on special teams. We have been non-existent in returning punts this year, and I swear if we have dropped one punt we have dropped fifty. We finally found a kick return game against UGA, returning one for a TD.
On the whole, I do not think AU right now is quite as good as they have looked when they looked their best this year. Neither do I think they were quite as bad as they have looked at their worst. They sit at 7-4 which is about what I would have thought, although the 7 and the four may have been against different teams. They now only have undefeated NC contender and hated rival Alabama to go, and the prospects do not look good.
If I had to guess, I would put Bama at least three touchdowns favored right now. This is because Bama's strenghts match up exceedingly well against Auburn. Bama has a tremendous running game, and Auburn has struggled stopping the run even against mediocre teams all year. Bama has a tremendous defense, and Auburns offense has been so up and down all year, due mainly to the lack of depth on the line and the up and down play of Todd.
I never say never and lots of stranger things have happened in football history than an Auburn victory over Alabama - so I do not completely count them out. However, in my mind to realistically make a game out of it, I think they need the following:
1. O-Mac's ankle needs to be 100%, giving Auburn the Thunder and Lightening running attack of him and Tate.
2. Freeman needs to be at 100%. AU is weak on the run defense side, but this weakness is glaring without Freeman.
3. AU needs to score or set up scores on special teams. They finally got some kick returning going las weak. If they can just learn to catch and return a punt, this will help.
4. They need to minimize the needless penalties - something they have struggled with all year.
5. They need to be on the plus side in turnover ratio. This has been another indicator in their wins and losses this year.
If they can do all of this, with a little luck, this could be a good and close game. If not, then my three touchdown prediction may still be undershooting it a bit.
Now, as for the future, I think it is getting brighter. Remember Saban's first year? 6-6. At worst Chiziks first year will be 7-5. And that coming off the disaster of the last Tuberville season, and the disaster of the last several Tuberville recruiting classes. I remember hearing before the season started about how depth would be an issue because not only had CTT not recruited as many good players as needed, but that many that he did recruit either never qualified or have since left the team. While Auburn's starting 22 may be in the upper half of the SEC, certainly their top 44 are in the bottom half, and their total depth of SEC quality players is probably in the lower portions of the bottom half. This explains the Jekyl and Hyde look of this years team. When they've clicked, they've looked good. But a little slip here, and a penalty or turnover there, etc. can knock them out in short order.
But Chizik is not sitting around thinking that quality players will come running to Auburn the way his predecessor seemed to think. Instead he is engaging, even challenging, Saban's dominance of the state. Already for this year, among other hot prospects AU has a committment from one of the consensus top three running backs in the nation. (All three in fact have shown interest in AU, one has committed, and while it is out of the question that all three would, two of the three are within reality). he also got a blue chip receiver, the top rated prep player from the state of Louisianna. He has a committment from the nation's number one kicker.
Going back to last year, it was he, not Tuberville, who brought in Deangelo Benton, Emory Blake, Phil Luhjkjhkojkgks, and QBs Tyrik Rolison and Clint Mosely. If he can just over the next couple of years shore up the O-line and the defensive side of the ball, things will turn around. I think we are on a three to four year project here. Saban actually came into a pretty talented team (which is amazing considering the years of probation and AUs dominance over Bama - AU should have been killing them in recruiting but weren't) Chizik has come into a depleted team, and it will take time to rebuild it. Say if we finish 7-5 this year and go to a bowl, then 7-6 or 8-5. I would not be really surprized if our record did not improve much next year, but our performance should. Then by the third year our record should start showing improvement. Then we go from there.
However, if after three to four years there is not significant improvement in the program, you move on. However, I feel pretty good about Chizik, as a person, in his style of coaching, in his choice of assistants (which will change as some of them will move on to bigger jobs) and especially in his zeal for recruiting and building this team. This year is not quite over yet, and I am already looking forward to next year.
War Eagle!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
I just don't understand some people
Some time back, I wrote a lengthy post on why I am not a Republican. I stick by that account. Not only is the historical founding and growth of the party abhorant to me, it's modern leaders are as well. Admittedly, there is at least a part of me that has a soft spot of The Gipper. And Ron Paul, who holds a congressional seat as a Republican, and ran for President in the Republican primary is a man that I admire. But, on the other hand, going back through at least Eisenhower, the policies pursued by Republican Presidents or Presidential Nominees have been very poor. Think Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain. No real true solid consistent constitutionalist in the bunch. In fact, quite the opposite. (Reagan, I believe was a mixed bag - and while far from perfect, was the best of the bunch)
Basically, I am a man without a party. While I am not a Republican, I do not see how any knowledgeable Christian person could ever support any of the Democratic Presidential candidates of the last several decades. It is chilling to me that many Christians are openly supporters of our current leader, Barack Obama. While I can sympathize greatly with them if they do not like many of the Republican contenders, as neither do I, I can not even see a "hold your nose and vote for Obama as the lesser of the two evils" approach as acceptable. As I wrote elsewhere, I even think a 'wasted' third party vote or even a no vote at all are more respectable than a vote for a downright evil candidate.
But, I am aware of people who profess the name of Jesus Christ and who attend Evangelical Bible Believing churches who whole heartedly support Barack Obama. I honestly do not get it. I can give at least a couple of reasons for it, but I think they would fall apart with even a cursory examination.
1. GWB got us into a war that we do not need to be in and we need a change in that direction.
The whole current war situation is way beyond my understanding and I honestly do not know if it is a 'just war' on our part or not. I am not of a settled opinion, and can actually understand if someone is of the settled opinion of it being bad. That is, I can sympathize with someone who thinks this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, fought in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons. But, after all the hoopla in the election cycle, when all is said and done Obama's timeline for troop withdrawel is virtually identical to Bush's.
2. We have used torture methods and Obama is ending that practice and shutting down Gitmo
The torture method that seems to make all the headlines is waterboarding. This is a very controlled method which produces no injury and no long term harm. Obviously while going through waterboarding, the recipient must be under more than a minor discomfort, else it would not work. But, is it 'torture'? Is it inhumane? What if it produces results which prevent a major attack on the US (which it has) What if this method, which produces no injury results in imformation which saves thousands of lives?
This interrogation process does not even hold a candle to the methods used in the past and present by other nations - many of which either permanently maim, or even kill the victims. (I don't think anyone has ever survived a decapitation)
But, no, we just need to 'love our enemies' I am told. All the while, they not only hate us, but are bent on our very destruction.
Also, as some commentators are now pointing out, for all the grand oratory about closing Gitmo, our beloved leader has no workable plan on what to do with the detainees. Hey, Obama supporters, ya'll got any ideas? Why don't you 'love' them by taking them into your own homes???
Finally, though, if Barak wants to end the practice of waterboarding and even if he wants to close Gitmo, that still does not make it right for him to have released important classified documents to the world.
3. Barack (and of course all Democrats) care for the poor or otherwise underpriviledged, unlike those rich evil Republicans
This is the one that just kills me. Of course, every politician of any party if he or she is going to have any chance of getting elected, is going to claim to want to help the helpless, etc. and of course, virtually everyone falls into some sort of 'underpriviledged category. Women?? Underprivilidged. Minorities? Underpriviledged. Old People; children; overweight; addicts; The list goes on and on.
And of course every right thinking person, especially Christians, actually do want to truly help the truly underpriviledged. BUT, on what do we base the idea that the only way, or even the best way, to do so is through government coercion? I could go on and on, and won't, but I have yet to hear a single person argue effectively that government is good or successful at this. In fact, I have seen scholarly studies proving just the opposite. Also, on what do we base the very idea that this is even a legitimate function of government. Helping the needy IS a legitimate activity, and the Church should be behind it in every way. But before one more Christian ever attempts to tell me that he or she is for the 'liberal' candidate because said candidate 'cares about the poor' I insist that that person make the biblical case that this is a legitimate function of the civil government to carry out. I am also going to insist that they prove to me that if I don't share their love of government programs, that this means that I do not care about the plight of the unfortunate. I hate to harp so much on this, but I have read a few too many Christian writers state that they like Obama (or some other liberal) because he cares about the poor and of course Christians should care about the poor so why would any Christian not support Obama. Well, I care about the poor, and I think in the long run government programs to help the poor actually hurt the poor and everyone else, so why would I support a candidate that wants more and more programs?
Now, in addition to fact that the supposed reason for a Christian to be a supporter of Obama are quite weak, the reasons to not be are even stronger.
1. For over 20 years Obama attended a church that was so obviously racist and anti-American that absolutely no one can deny it. He finally dropped it when it became a politically hot issue and the media immediately dropped the issue as well. But, study up on this church and its preacher. Then exchange the black and white labels and ask yourself would a white person ever stand any chance of having any respectability at all if he attended such a place. You know the answer. It is beyond doubt. The white guy would be universally condemned and would never stand a chance in national politics. AND RIGHTLY SO. But, with Obama, we just act like it never happened. Apparently people even believe his preposterous story that even though he attended there twenty years, he never heard any of the inflamatory type remarks that were documented.
Moreover, Barack's 'religion' is not at all Orthodox Christianity. I base this not on conjecture, but on his own words that can easily be found on the internet. He believes all will go to heaven and there is no hell. He believes 'sin' is defined as 'not being true to yourself'. (Actually, we are all born sinners so sin is actually when we ARE true to ourselves!!) there are so many other things in which whatever his religious beliefs may be, they are definitely not Christian.
2. Obama has very little relavent experience
He has in his adult life been a left wing agitator (aka community organizer) a state repressentative (for a short period) and a US Senator for a short period before running for President.
3. He demonstrates on a daily basis that he does not understand (or is it does not care about?) our constitutional system of government.
The constitution spells out what the federal government as a whole can and can not do, and specifically spells out what the executive can and can not do. He daily acts as if these restraints do not exist.
4. He is driving the economy so far down the tubes that I fear it will never recover
I know I know George Bush did this. Well, he did have a lot to do with it. That is why I do not like W. He pushed the economy further and further toward the breaking point. But, here is what 98% of Americans do not understand. BO does not represent a change in direction from the Bush administration in the area of the economy. Instead, he is going in basically the same direction at a much much higher rate of speed. All this sype policy does is put off the inevitable crash that much longer, and make the inevitable crash that much more severe. Apparently Obama, like Keynes, has the opinion that it does not matter because "in the long run, we're all dead." How CHRISTIAN is it to place our kids and grandkids in the position of a nation in total economic collapse?
5. He radically supports gay 'rights' and the gay agenda
On an earlier post I put a link to a site documenting his beliefs and actions on this issue. You can go look it up
6. He is rabidly pro-abortion - more so than any President or contendor in the history of this nation
Again, that post refered to in #5 has info on this. Of course, many Christian Obama supporters will say that well, they are not 'one issue voters' but if there was ever a single issue that one could vote on, this would be it. Killing innocent unborn human life just should not be an option.
I also realize that some supporters will say that we should be more willing to help and to be understanding to women in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy. I agree, that Christians should be on the front lines of this issue and where we are not it is to our shame. But even that is not as shameful as supporting a politician who wants no part of any limitations on abortions. And we do not need to let our care and concern about it remove us from the fact that quite often the woman is not exactly a 'victim' but was a willing accomplice. We are not showing Christian love to a person by telling them there are no consequences to their actions. Instead we show them there is forgiveness in the cross and strength in Christ to work through the situation without resorting to making a bad situation a million times worse by committing murder.
How anyone who considers themselves an evangelical Christian, who believes that humans have dignity and worth because they are created in the image of God, could turn the other way and support with great fanfare a leader who is not only complacent, but active in the destruction of millions of innocent lives, while at the same time decrying a previous leader because he allowed some people to poor water on the faces of terrorists bent on our destruction is totally beyond me.
Can anyone explain this to me please?
Basically, I am a man without a party. While I am not a Republican, I do not see how any knowledgeable Christian person could ever support any of the Democratic Presidential candidates of the last several decades. It is chilling to me that many Christians are openly supporters of our current leader, Barack Obama. While I can sympathize greatly with them if they do not like many of the Republican contenders, as neither do I, I can not even see a "hold your nose and vote for Obama as the lesser of the two evils" approach as acceptable. As I wrote elsewhere, I even think a 'wasted' third party vote or even a no vote at all are more respectable than a vote for a downright evil candidate.
But, I am aware of people who profess the name of Jesus Christ and who attend Evangelical Bible Believing churches who whole heartedly support Barack Obama. I honestly do not get it. I can give at least a couple of reasons for it, but I think they would fall apart with even a cursory examination.
1. GWB got us into a war that we do not need to be in and we need a change in that direction.
The whole current war situation is way beyond my understanding and I honestly do not know if it is a 'just war' on our part or not. I am not of a settled opinion, and can actually understand if someone is of the settled opinion of it being bad. That is, I can sympathize with someone who thinks this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, fought in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons. But, after all the hoopla in the election cycle, when all is said and done Obama's timeline for troop withdrawel is virtually identical to Bush's.
2. We have used torture methods and Obama is ending that practice and shutting down Gitmo
The torture method that seems to make all the headlines is waterboarding. This is a very controlled method which produces no injury and no long term harm. Obviously while going through waterboarding, the recipient must be under more than a minor discomfort, else it would not work. But, is it 'torture'? Is it inhumane? What if it produces results which prevent a major attack on the US (which it has) What if this method, which produces no injury results in imformation which saves thousands of lives?
This interrogation process does not even hold a candle to the methods used in the past and present by other nations - many of which either permanently maim, or even kill the victims. (I don't think anyone has ever survived a decapitation)
But, no, we just need to 'love our enemies' I am told. All the while, they not only hate us, but are bent on our very destruction.
Also, as some commentators are now pointing out, for all the grand oratory about closing Gitmo, our beloved leader has no workable plan on what to do with the detainees. Hey, Obama supporters, ya'll got any ideas? Why don't you 'love' them by taking them into your own homes???
Finally, though, if Barak wants to end the practice of waterboarding and even if he wants to close Gitmo, that still does not make it right for him to have released important classified documents to the world.
3. Barack (and of course all Democrats) care for the poor or otherwise underpriviledged, unlike those rich evil Republicans
This is the one that just kills me. Of course, every politician of any party if he or she is going to have any chance of getting elected, is going to claim to want to help the helpless, etc. and of course, virtually everyone falls into some sort of 'underpriviledged category. Women?? Underprivilidged. Minorities? Underpriviledged. Old People; children; overweight; addicts; The list goes on and on.
And of course every right thinking person, especially Christians, actually do want to truly help the truly underpriviledged. BUT, on what do we base the idea that the only way, or even the best way, to do so is through government coercion? I could go on and on, and won't, but I have yet to hear a single person argue effectively that government is good or successful at this. In fact, I have seen scholarly studies proving just the opposite. Also, on what do we base the very idea that this is even a legitimate function of government. Helping the needy IS a legitimate activity, and the Church should be behind it in every way. But before one more Christian ever attempts to tell me that he or she is for the 'liberal' candidate because said candidate 'cares about the poor' I insist that that person make the biblical case that this is a legitimate function of the civil government to carry out. I am also going to insist that they prove to me that if I don't share their love of government programs, that this means that I do not care about the plight of the unfortunate. I hate to harp so much on this, but I have read a few too many Christian writers state that they like Obama (or some other liberal) because he cares about the poor and of course Christians should care about the poor so why would any Christian not support Obama. Well, I care about the poor, and I think in the long run government programs to help the poor actually hurt the poor and everyone else, so why would I support a candidate that wants more and more programs?
Now, in addition to fact that the supposed reason for a Christian to be a supporter of Obama are quite weak, the reasons to not be are even stronger.
1. For over 20 years Obama attended a church that was so obviously racist and anti-American that absolutely no one can deny it. He finally dropped it when it became a politically hot issue and the media immediately dropped the issue as well. But, study up on this church and its preacher. Then exchange the black and white labels and ask yourself would a white person ever stand any chance of having any respectability at all if he attended such a place. You know the answer. It is beyond doubt. The white guy would be universally condemned and would never stand a chance in national politics. AND RIGHTLY SO. But, with Obama, we just act like it never happened. Apparently people even believe his preposterous story that even though he attended there twenty years, he never heard any of the inflamatory type remarks that were documented.
Moreover, Barack's 'religion' is not at all Orthodox Christianity. I base this not on conjecture, but on his own words that can easily be found on the internet. He believes all will go to heaven and there is no hell. He believes 'sin' is defined as 'not being true to yourself'. (Actually, we are all born sinners so sin is actually when we ARE true to ourselves!!) there are so many other things in which whatever his religious beliefs may be, they are definitely not Christian.
2. Obama has very little relavent experience
He has in his adult life been a left wing agitator (aka community organizer) a state repressentative (for a short period) and a US Senator for a short period before running for President.
3. He demonstrates on a daily basis that he does not understand (or is it does not care about?) our constitutional system of government.
The constitution spells out what the federal government as a whole can and can not do, and specifically spells out what the executive can and can not do. He daily acts as if these restraints do not exist.
4. He is driving the economy so far down the tubes that I fear it will never recover
I know I know George Bush did this. Well, he did have a lot to do with it. That is why I do not like W. He pushed the economy further and further toward the breaking point. But, here is what 98% of Americans do not understand. BO does not represent a change in direction from the Bush administration in the area of the economy. Instead, he is going in basically the same direction at a much much higher rate of speed. All this sype policy does is put off the inevitable crash that much longer, and make the inevitable crash that much more severe. Apparently Obama, like Keynes, has the opinion that it does not matter because "in the long run, we're all dead." How CHRISTIAN is it to place our kids and grandkids in the position of a nation in total economic collapse?
5. He radically supports gay 'rights' and the gay agenda
On an earlier post I put a link to a site documenting his beliefs and actions on this issue. You can go look it up
6. He is rabidly pro-abortion - more so than any President or contendor in the history of this nation
Again, that post refered to in #5 has info on this. Of course, many Christian Obama supporters will say that well, they are not 'one issue voters' but if there was ever a single issue that one could vote on, this would be it. Killing innocent unborn human life just should not be an option.
I also realize that some supporters will say that we should be more willing to help and to be understanding to women in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy. I agree, that Christians should be on the front lines of this issue and where we are not it is to our shame. But even that is not as shameful as supporting a politician who wants no part of any limitations on abortions. And we do not need to let our care and concern about it remove us from the fact that quite often the woman is not exactly a 'victim' but was a willing accomplice. We are not showing Christian love to a person by telling them there are no consequences to their actions. Instead we show them there is forgiveness in the cross and strength in Christ to work through the situation without resorting to making a bad situation a million times worse by committing murder.
How anyone who considers themselves an evangelical Christian, who believes that humans have dignity and worth because they are created in the image of God, could turn the other way and support with great fanfare a leader who is not only complacent, but active in the destruction of millions of innocent lives, while at the same time decrying a previous leader because he allowed some people to poor water on the faces of terrorists bent on our destruction is totally beyond me.
Can anyone explain this to me please?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Been Awhile
I have not been able to blog anything for quite some time. New job with different hours, things going on, etc. When I do have the time, I just don't really fell like it. It takes a lot of energy to write all these brilliant analyses. Maybe one day soon I will get back into it. I hope so.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The God that Runs
The Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches us that God is "a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." As a Presbyterian, and really as a Christian, I believe every word of that is true. I believe each word used to describe God herein can easily be Biblically validated. I have no disagreements, major or minor, with this statement.
But, here is a question. Does this statement inspire you to really know this God? Yeah, maybe to a certain extent. But, does it really inspire you? While this is an absolutely accurate description, and a study of it has definite benefit for us as Christians, this is an abstract, somewhat academic, definition. I do not knock us having such a description, and think it has an important place to play in our study of theology - in a definite, systematic way.
However, when we actually get to the biblical text, we get a more solid, concrete, real, tangible, meaningful picture of God. We get this in a million places, and in a million different ways.
Just one example comes from the text our pastor used for his sermon on this past Lord's day. The passage is familiar to us all - the parable of the 'prodigal son.'
When we get to the heart of the matter in this parable, God is not just "a Spirit......." as stated here, but God is a Father who comes out to meet his wayward son while he is still afar off. He not only just comes out to see him, but he runs out to greet him. Out pastor indicated that the word means something along the lines of "races." When we repent and return to God, He races to come greet us.
Not only that, but he dresses us in the finest robes, puts sandles on our calloused feet, gives us his signet ring, hugs us, and then throws us the grandest of parties, killing the fatted calf, and also begs our troubled brother to join Him in the celebration.
This is the God I serve. I have been prodigal son and He has welcomed me back, many times, with a smile, a hug, and a party. I have been the grumpy elder (presbyterian!) brother, and he urged me to join the party. No matter my sin, he beckons me to the party.
God is "a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" and I praise Him for it.
God is also the God who races to see me when I am still afar off.
I praise Him all the more for that.
But, here is a question. Does this statement inspire you to really know this God? Yeah, maybe to a certain extent. But, does it really inspire you? While this is an absolutely accurate description, and a study of it has definite benefit for us as Christians, this is an abstract, somewhat academic, definition. I do not knock us having such a description, and think it has an important place to play in our study of theology - in a definite, systematic way.
However, when we actually get to the biblical text, we get a more solid, concrete, real, tangible, meaningful picture of God. We get this in a million places, and in a million different ways.
Just one example comes from the text our pastor used for his sermon on this past Lord's day. The passage is familiar to us all - the parable of the 'prodigal son.'
When we get to the heart of the matter in this parable, God is not just "a Spirit......." as stated here, but God is a Father who comes out to meet his wayward son while he is still afar off. He not only just comes out to see him, but he runs out to greet him. Out pastor indicated that the word means something along the lines of "races." When we repent and return to God, He races to come greet us.
Not only that, but he dresses us in the finest robes, puts sandles on our calloused feet, gives us his signet ring, hugs us, and then throws us the grandest of parties, killing the fatted calf, and also begs our troubled brother to join Him in the celebration.
This is the God I serve. I have been prodigal son and He has welcomed me back, many times, with a smile, a hug, and a party. I have been the grumpy elder (presbyterian!) brother, and he urged me to join the party. No matter my sin, he beckons me to the party.
God is "a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" and I praise Him for it.
God is also the God who races to see me when I am still afar off.
I praise Him all the more for that.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Our Current Economic Crisis
I have been reading, studying, and thinking alot about the economy lately. My daughter is having to read a book entitled Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? for her high school economics course and the wife and I have been reading it also. Like all economics books, it is not perfect. But, especially the first several chapters are very good, and should be required reading for every single person in America (that is if I were the dictator type - but I guess the fairness doctrine would insist that everyone also read Keynes or Marx or something).
I have also been re-skimming Honest Money by Dr. Gary North, and What Has the Government Done to Our Money by the late Professor Murray Rothbard. If you get a chance, you need to read any or all of these.
Yesterday while out and about, I stumbled on a radio program which featured a guest named Thomas Woods. His insight into the situation was fascinating. A brief article about his book can be found here: http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8531
Woods main argument, one that is echoed in the works of Rothbard and others, is that an unfettered free market is NOT the cause of the problems we are facing, and government intervention of one form or the other is NOT the solution. In fact, the exact inverse is true.
The current situation, like that of the Great Depression of the 1930s, has been caused by irresponsible governmental monetary policy.
The books mentioned above make this claim as well. In reading my version of Penny Candy which was dated 2005, I was fascinated by the relevance to the current situation. The author demonstrates how throughout history, governments have turned to the same currency devaluing schemes to try to continue to prop themselves up, ultimately leading to their inevitable downfall, and the downfall of the society they were suppose to be protecting. The same thing is happening now at a terribly alarming rate.
Money is simply a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Nothing less. The natural state of things has always led in civilized society to the use of precious metals ( hereafter referred to as PMs), specifically gold and silver, as this medium of exchange. The reasons for this are many. PMs have real value in and of themselves. They can be broken down into usable quantities (from large bullion to small coins). The amount of them available in society can not be quickly, nor infinitely increased. In short, they provide value, ease of use, and stability.
Monetary units (such as dollars) are simply known quantities of some precious metals. By definition, a dollar was the equivalent of one ounce of silver. (The British Pound Sterling was just that - a pound of sterling silver). At the time of the formation of the U. S. Constitution, gold was considered to have roughly twenty times the value of silver - hence a 'dollar' was also one twentieth an ounce of gold, or an ounce of gold was twenty dollars. That is, the value of gold or silver did not fluctuate in terms of dollars, but the value of a dollar would fluctuate if the value of gold or silver fluctuated. Things were essentially this way for the better part of 150 years. If you had a dollar, that meant you had an ounce of silver or a twentieth of an ounce of gold. If silver or gold for some reason increased or decreased in value, your purchasing power increased or decreased with it. However, due to the nature of things, rapid or large fluctations in the value of precious metals rarely occur.
In times past, such as during the late stages of the Roman Empire, governments would devalue the currency by 'clipping' the coins. That is, they would collect coins (through taxation or whatever means), shave off portions of the gold or silver, then mint new coins with the shavings. A coin that was say one ounce, may then be 0.9 ounce, but, have the same 'face value' even though the real value had diminished. Also, there were now more coins made from the same amount of PM.
Now suppose you were a Roman merchant who was selling an item for an amount equal to nine ounces of PM. Previously, you collected nine 1 ounce coins. Now, to obtain the same quantity, you needed ten 0.9 ounce coins. (Obviously, I am simplifying here). The result? There are more coins (therefore, supposedly more 'money' available for exchange) in the market, but prices have gone up. That is, the currency has been devalued. Prices have risen. People may seemingly have more 'money' in their pocket, but, their purchasing power has not improved. This is inflation.
Please note, inflation is not a rising of prices. The rising of prices is a result of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of the currency.
Over the centuries other innovations have made this practice more convenient for the government devaluers (counterfeiters) to ply their trade. The most useful innovation has been the introduction of paper money.
Paper money began as what could be termed bank notes. Someone may not want to store their reserves of PM in their own home. Businesses which were essentially warehouses for PMs developed. One could deposit his PM in the warehouse, and the warehouse would issue him a paper receipt or receipts. Suppose I deposited 25 ounces of gold and 100 ounces of silver in the warehouse. I get receipts stating that I have this (maybe I get twenty five receipts each worth one ounce of gold, and 100 receipts each worth one ounce of silver). Now, I do not carry all this gold and silver around with me, but I can redeem any or all of my receipts whenever I desire. If I buy an item priced at one silver ounce, I could trade my receipt for it. Now, the merchant I traded with can redeem that receipt upon demand and receive the actual silver. (Likely, the warehouse (bank) would charge some type of holding and processing fee for this service.)
Now, these banks began to get creative. They determined that rarely if ever did they have a run on all deposits. At any time, they had the overwhelming majority of deposits on hand. Therefore, they began 'loaning' some of the reserves that they had. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking. So, just using my deposits for example. I may come in and out occasionally and deposit more, or withdraw some, but on the whole, my balance is staying somewhere near what I originally deposited. The bank may then write out another receipt against my deposit and give it to another individual as a loan that must be repaid. So, now for my one deposit, there are two sets of receipts in circulation. The borrower then goes and somehow invests this, trying to make a return. He may go turn his certificate over to a merchant who sells him some equipment that he uses to provide a good or service to make more money. If he makes a return, he pays back the borrowed credit, with interest. The bank has made money. As long as I, and the others who are now holding certificates against my deposits do not demand our PMs at the same time, the bank is safe. However, obviously, the larger the overlending verses the amount actually on reserve, the larger the risk the banker is taking. Also, the riskier the investment, the more risk of the bank failing.
Fractional reserve banking has caused some problems during economically troubled times in the past. In fact, it has actually caused some of the economic problems themselves. For one, this has inflated the currency (If the banker 'loans out' receipts equal to my original deposit, he has essentially doubled the currency in circulation, thereby lowering its value, much like the coin clippers of old)
During much of the 19th century, American politicians struggled with these issues. On the one hand were the bankers, licking their chops to use fractional reserve banking, along with the politicians they backed to help foster the system. On the other hand, were more economically conservative politicians who fought against this system.
Finally, in 1913, perhaps the greatest debacle in the history of American economics occured. The Federal Reserve system went into effect. Since that time, they have continued along a path that has gone further and further in the direction of currency devaluation.
The climax of this has been to utimately remove all ties from our paper money to any PM, along with the passage of 'legal tender' laws. Not too many years ago, your paper money had a noted on it saying it could be redeemed for 'real money' (i.e. silver or gold). That is no longer the case. Now, it is simply a note that we are forced by law to accept as legal tender for all debts. In reality it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. (And nowadays, often it is not even that, but is simply an electronic blip on a computer program). You could have piles and piles of hundred dollar bills, and they are absolutely worthless in and of themselves (unlike silver or gold) and the ONLY reason they have value is because the government by law forces everyone to accept them as tender.
So, now the 'value' of a dollar is not tied to PMs. It therefore can fluctuate tremendously. As stated previously, one of the major reasons why PMs became used as a medium of exchange is because they could not be quickly and easily devalued by a sudden large influx. (It is not impossible that this could happen, as it happened in Spain when they obtained huge amounts of gold from the Americas during the 16th century - another story for another post at another time!) However, it can not easily and frequently happen.
However, when paper that is printed solely at the governments discretion and is forced to be used as legal tender is the only allowable legal tender, the government can inflate the currency at will. A huge influx of this so called money into the economy does not add one whitt of wealth to the economy, but only devalues the currency.
Our wealth as a nation is the sum total of all our productivity. In reality, money is only a medium of exchange for that productivity. If suddenly the government prints one trillion dollars and injects that into the economy, it has not increased our wealth one iota. All it has done is make the buying power of each unit (dollar) that much less. This can cause widespread destruction.
Suppose you are 70 years old, have worked hard all your life, have saved, invested, and smartly handled your money and you now have a net value of one million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? However, if the government suddenly prints and circulates trillions of dollars into the economy, now your one million dollars is worth a fraction of what it once was. All your hard work and intelligence just went down the drain. This is happening to millions of Americans right now.
Well, in our current hard financial situation (which has been caused by the very monetary policies we are talking about) the Messiah's, uh, I mean the President's plan for fixing it is to inject tons of money into the economy. See how utterly senseless this is?
Not one person in a hundred understands this. The average Joe, while possibly thinking something might be amiss in what is going on, at least on some level thinks that injecting money to 'jump start' the economy is a good thing.
In actuality, it is a travesty - and one we will be suffering from for a long time to come.
This inflationary monetary policy is actually harmful in many many more ways than I can even begin to talk about here. This policy, and not the unfettered free market, causes the business 'boom and bust' cycles we have seen throughout our history. We have just come out of a long 'boom' and are now going into a huge 'bust.' The best that our current policy of stimulous can do is to continue to artifically lengthen the aritificial 'boom' and forestall the inevitable 'bust,' while making the eventual 'bust' just that much more severe. I fear we are near a breaking point where no matter what happens, soon the 'bust' will be irreversable - perhaps leading to a total cultural meltdown. The only way to fully and finally recover is to allow the 'bust' to run its course - as painful as that may be, then to restore a sound monetary policy in its wake.
Austrian economists (see the Woods link above, or that of the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell Report to the right) have been saying this for years, only to be labeled lunatics. However, I think it is undeniable that the only solution to this situation is to somehow someway get back on some sort of Precious Metal ("honest money") monetary system with little or no government intervention.
I have also been re-skimming Honest Money by Dr. Gary North, and What Has the Government Done to Our Money by the late Professor Murray Rothbard. If you get a chance, you need to read any or all of these.
Yesterday while out and about, I stumbled on a radio program which featured a guest named Thomas Woods. His insight into the situation was fascinating. A brief article about his book can be found here: http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8531
Woods main argument, one that is echoed in the works of Rothbard and others, is that an unfettered free market is NOT the cause of the problems we are facing, and government intervention of one form or the other is NOT the solution. In fact, the exact inverse is true.
The current situation, like that of the Great Depression of the 1930s, has been caused by irresponsible governmental monetary policy.
The books mentioned above make this claim as well. In reading my version of Penny Candy which was dated 2005, I was fascinated by the relevance to the current situation. The author demonstrates how throughout history, governments have turned to the same currency devaluing schemes to try to continue to prop themselves up, ultimately leading to their inevitable downfall, and the downfall of the society they were suppose to be protecting. The same thing is happening now at a terribly alarming rate.
Money is simply a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Nothing less. The natural state of things has always led in civilized society to the use of precious metals ( hereafter referred to as PMs), specifically gold and silver, as this medium of exchange. The reasons for this are many. PMs have real value in and of themselves. They can be broken down into usable quantities (from large bullion to small coins). The amount of them available in society can not be quickly, nor infinitely increased. In short, they provide value, ease of use, and stability.
Monetary units (such as dollars) are simply known quantities of some precious metals. By definition, a dollar was the equivalent of one ounce of silver. (The British Pound Sterling was just that - a pound of sterling silver). At the time of the formation of the U. S. Constitution, gold was considered to have roughly twenty times the value of silver - hence a 'dollar' was also one twentieth an ounce of gold, or an ounce of gold was twenty dollars. That is, the value of gold or silver did not fluctuate in terms of dollars, but the value of a dollar would fluctuate if the value of gold or silver fluctuated. Things were essentially this way for the better part of 150 years. If you had a dollar, that meant you had an ounce of silver or a twentieth of an ounce of gold. If silver or gold for some reason increased or decreased in value, your purchasing power increased or decreased with it. However, due to the nature of things, rapid or large fluctations in the value of precious metals rarely occur.
In times past, such as during the late stages of the Roman Empire, governments would devalue the currency by 'clipping' the coins. That is, they would collect coins (through taxation or whatever means), shave off portions of the gold or silver, then mint new coins with the shavings. A coin that was say one ounce, may then be 0.9 ounce, but, have the same 'face value' even though the real value had diminished. Also, there were now more coins made from the same amount of PM.
Now suppose you were a Roman merchant who was selling an item for an amount equal to nine ounces of PM. Previously, you collected nine 1 ounce coins. Now, to obtain the same quantity, you needed ten 0.9 ounce coins. (Obviously, I am simplifying here). The result? There are more coins (therefore, supposedly more 'money' available for exchange) in the market, but prices have gone up. That is, the currency has been devalued. Prices have risen. People may seemingly have more 'money' in their pocket, but, their purchasing power has not improved. This is inflation.
Please note, inflation is not a rising of prices. The rising of prices is a result of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of the currency.
Over the centuries other innovations have made this practice more convenient for the government devaluers (counterfeiters) to ply their trade. The most useful innovation has been the introduction of paper money.
Paper money began as what could be termed bank notes. Someone may not want to store their reserves of PM in their own home. Businesses which were essentially warehouses for PMs developed. One could deposit his PM in the warehouse, and the warehouse would issue him a paper receipt or receipts. Suppose I deposited 25 ounces of gold and 100 ounces of silver in the warehouse. I get receipts stating that I have this (maybe I get twenty five receipts each worth one ounce of gold, and 100 receipts each worth one ounce of silver). Now, I do not carry all this gold and silver around with me, but I can redeem any or all of my receipts whenever I desire. If I buy an item priced at one silver ounce, I could trade my receipt for it. Now, the merchant I traded with can redeem that receipt upon demand and receive the actual silver. (Likely, the warehouse (bank) would charge some type of holding and processing fee for this service.)
Now, these banks began to get creative. They determined that rarely if ever did they have a run on all deposits. At any time, they had the overwhelming majority of deposits on hand. Therefore, they began 'loaning' some of the reserves that they had. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking. So, just using my deposits for example. I may come in and out occasionally and deposit more, or withdraw some, but on the whole, my balance is staying somewhere near what I originally deposited. The bank may then write out another receipt against my deposit and give it to another individual as a loan that must be repaid. So, now for my one deposit, there are two sets of receipts in circulation. The borrower then goes and somehow invests this, trying to make a return. He may go turn his certificate over to a merchant who sells him some equipment that he uses to provide a good or service to make more money. If he makes a return, he pays back the borrowed credit, with interest. The bank has made money. As long as I, and the others who are now holding certificates against my deposits do not demand our PMs at the same time, the bank is safe. However, obviously, the larger the overlending verses the amount actually on reserve, the larger the risk the banker is taking. Also, the riskier the investment, the more risk of the bank failing.
Fractional reserve banking has caused some problems during economically troubled times in the past. In fact, it has actually caused some of the economic problems themselves. For one, this has inflated the currency (If the banker 'loans out' receipts equal to my original deposit, he has essentially doubled the currency in circulation, thereby lowering its value, much like the coin clippers of old)
During much of the 19th century, American politicians struggled with these issues. On the one hand were the bankers, licking their chops to use fractional reserve banking, along with the politicians they backed to help foster the system. On the other hand, were more economically conservative politicians who fought against this system.
Finally, in 1913, perhaps the greatest debacle in the history of American economics occured. The Federal Reserve system went into effect. Since that time, they have continued along a path that has gone further and further in the direction of currency devaluation.
The climax of this has been to utimately remove all ties from our paper money to any PM, along with the passage of 'legal tender' laws. Not too many years ago, your paper money had a noted on it saying it could be redeemed for 'real money' (i.e. silver or gold). That is no longer the case. Now, it is simply a note that we are forced by law to accept as legal tender for all debts. In reality it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. (And nowadays, often it is not even that, but is simply an electronic blip on a computer program). You could have piles and piles of hundred dollar bills, and they are absolutely worthless in and of themselves (unlike silver or gold) and the ONLY reason they have value is because the government by law forces everyone to accept them as tender.
So, now the 'value' of a dollar is not tied to PMs. It therefore can fluctuate tremendously. As stated previously, one of the major reasons why PMs became used as a medium of exchange is because they could not be quickly and easily devalued by a sudden large influx. (It is not impossible that this could happen, as it happened in Spain when they obtained huge amounts of gold from the Americas during the 16th century - another story for another post at another time!) However, it can not easily and frequently happen.
However, when paper that is printed solely at the governments discretion and is forced to be used as legal tender is the only allowable legal tender, the government can inflate the currency at will. A huge influx of this so called money into the economy does not add one whitt of wealth to the economy, but only devalues the currency.
Our wealth as a nation is the sum total of all our productivity. In reality, money is only a medium of exchange for that productivity. If suddenly the government prints one trillion dollars and injects that into the economy, it has not increased our wealth one iota. All it has done is make the buying power of each unit (dollar) that much less. This can cause widespread destruction.
Suppose you are 70 years old, have worked hard all your life, have saved, invested, and smartly handled your money and you now have a net value of one million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? However, if the government suddenly prints and circulates trillions of dollars into the economy, now your one million dollars is worth a fraction of what it once was. All your hard work and intelligence just went down the drain. This is happening to millions of Americans right now.
Well, in our current hard financial situation (which has been caused by the very monetary policies we are talking about) the Messiah's, uh, I mean the President's plan for fixing it is to inject tons of money into the economy. See how utterly senseless this is?
Not one person in a hundred understands this. The average Joe, while possibly thinking something might be amiss in what is going on, at least on some level thinks that injecting money to 'jump start' the economy is a good thing.
In actuality, it is a travesty - and one we will be suffering from for a long time to come.
This inflationary monetary policy is actually harmful in many many more ways than I can even begin to talk about here. This policy, and not the unfettered free market, causes the business 'boom and bust' cycles we have seen throughout our history. We have just come out of a long 'boom' and are now going into a huge 'bust.' The best that our current policy of stimulous can do is to continue to artifically lengthen the aritificial 'boom' and forestall the inevitable 'bust,' while making the eventual 'bust' just that much more severe. I fear we are near a breaking point where no matter what happens, soon the 'bust' will be irreversable - perhaps leading to a total cultural meltdown. The only way to fully and finally recover is to allow the 'bust' to run its course - as painful as that may be, then to restore a sound monetary policy in its wake.
Austrian economists (see the Woods link above, or that of the Mises Institute or Lew Rockwell Report to the right) have been saying this for years, only to be labeled lunatics. However, I think it is undeniable that the only solution to this situation is to somehow someway get back on some sort of Precious Metal ("honest money") monetary system with little or no government intervention.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
An open letter to President Obama, and all people in power
Dear President Obama,
You may want to consider the following words from a 'Good Book' that I have:
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Thank you for your time.
You may want to consider the following words from a 'Good Book' that I have:
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Thank you for your time.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Fooled Again?
A blogger friend of mine (The Sun Stands Still - linked at the right) posted the following quote from Mark Horne concerning Obama:
"Obama’s arrival is change from the Bush administration the way a baby is change from a pregnancy. He’s not a repudiation; he’s the ultimate end."
When I read that, I immediately thought of that classic hard rock anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again." by The Who. (I know - I'm kinda weird). The lyrics seem to speak of a 'revolutionary' change of power, which only results in more of the same.
Look up the lyrics on the internet - they're easy enough to find. I am sure The Who were not politically (or religiously, or in any ways) near any form of agreement with Evangelical Christianity, yet taken generically, the lyrics to this song are actually, for rock music, pretty profound.
The climactic final lines of that song demonstrate a similar thought to those of Mark Horne:
"Meet the new boss.......Same as the old boss!"
"Obama’s arrival is change from the Bush administration the way a baby is change from a pregnancy. He’s not a repudiation; he’s the ultimate end."
When I read that, I immediately thought of that classic hard rock anthem "Won't Get Fooled Again." by The Who. (I know - I'm kinda weird). The lyrics seem to speak of a 'revolutionary' change of power, which only results in more of the same.
Look up the lyrics on the internet - they're easy enough to find. I am sure The Who were not politically (or religiously, or in any ways) near any form of agreement with Evangelical Christianity, yet taken generically, the lyrics to this song are actually, for rock music, pretty profound.
The climactic final lines of that song demonstrate a similar thought to those of Mark Horne:
"Meet the new boss.......Same as the old boss!"
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Keynesian 'Solution'
Dictionary.com describes John Maynard Keynes as follows:
1883–1946, English economist and writer.
British economist who proposed that high unemployment, being a result of insufficient consumer spending, could be relieved by government-sponsored programs. He also advocated deficit spending by governments to stimulate ecomomic activity.
English economist who advocated the use of government monetary and fiscal policy to maintain full employment without inflation
Keynesian economics has dominated the American political economy for decades, going back at least to the great depression. It was Keynesian policy which FDR used to get us out (cough, gag) of the depression. In the late 1960s early 1970s Richard Nixon (who had taken us off the gold standard completely) stated “We’re all Keynesian now.”
Virtually every president since at least FDR has been to some extent or the other, Keynesian, no matter what else you may say about him. That even includes Reagan, though possibly to a lesser extent.
As can be seen from the above definitions, one of the main, perhaps THE main tenant of Keynesian economics is that during times of economic slowdown, the government should spend money on infrastructure and various projects in order to provide jobs, spur consumer spending, etc. This, supposedly will get the economy through the tough times. Once the economy recovers, the government spending can be curtailed. It is a form of planned economy.
Sounds good on paper to the layman, but there are more than a few drawbacks.
To start with, it really does not work. As I have said elsewhere, the state of the economy was at least as bad, if not worse in the late 1930s, after years of FDR, than it was when FDR took over. FDRs programs were, among many other things, Keynesian.
It is not a natural thing for the whole economy to be in a downturn all at the same time. Unfortunately, most people think that the free market will frequently result in a total economic meltdown, at which point some government intervention (in the form, at least, of Keynesian policies, if not outright socialism) is required. However, while no possible economic system can ever insulate every individual from hardship, the free market will never end up in an economic meltdown. The meltdowns that do occur (such as 1929 onward and our current situation) are almost always directly related to government intervention. However, the solution proposed by our government leaders? More government intervention. Make sense to you??? Yeah, me neither.
1929 was the result of government intervention. The as bad or worse situation of 1938 was due to continued government intervention.
Second, it is as close to an absolute fact as anything in the world that once government spending is started, it is not stopped. Many of the programs for economic recovery of the 1930s are still with us today. This causes continued deficits and other problems which result in further economy wide problems on down the road.
Third, and most importantly, there are long term negative effects of this type of spending (deficits and higher taxes and the further economic hardships that occur due to these things). When asked about what the effects of his policy would be in the long run, Keynes himself famously quipped, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” There ya go. That’s the philosophy we want to hand down to our kids, right? We want policy which we believe (rightly or wrongly) will benefit us, but who gives a rip what it will do to our descendents? Sure, count me in. I don’t care what Jr. says.
Now, what to do about our current mess? First off, let us be clear. Our problems are not the result of the free market gone wild. Our problems are directly related to over arching government intervention into the lives and businesses of individuals and corporations, from bad, even terrible tax policy, from wretched spending programs, from freedom squelching regulations, from currency devaluing monetary policy, and on and on. The proposed solution? More government. Create money out of thin air and spend it on ‘infrastructure,’ and a myriad of other social programs. In short, the current proposed solutions are the same old tired Keynesian policies which have actually contributed to the current mess.
In the end, I have no idea exactly how all this will turn out. But I can promise you, absent any major change, the direction we are heading is wrong. We can keep putting band-aids on our severed jugulars and keep the patient alive until hopefully, in the long run, we are all dead, OR we can care about our descendents and try to fix the problems permanently with sound, honest money, low taxes, limited government, and so forth.
What do you think?
1883–1946, English economist and writer.
British economist who proposed that high unemployment, being a result of insufficient consumer spending, could be relieved by government-sponsored programs. He also advocated deficit spending by governments to stimulate ecomomic activity.
English economist who advocated the use of government monetary and fiscal policy to maintain full employment without inflation
Keynesian economics has dominated the American political economy for decades, going back at least to the great depression. It was Keynesian policy which FDR used to get us out (cough, gag) of the depression. In the late 1960s early 1970s Richard Nixon (who had taken us off the gold standard completely) stated “We’re all Keynesian now.”
Virtually every president since at least FDR has been to some extent or the other, Keynesian, no matter what else you may say about him. That even includes Reagan, though possibly to a lesser extent.
As can be seen from the above definitions, one of the main, perhaps THE main tenant of Keynesian economics is that during times of economic slowdown, the government should spend money on infrastructure and various projects in order to provide jobs, spur consumer spending, etc. This, supposedly will get the economy through the tough times. Once the economy recovers, the government spending can be curtailed. It is a form of planned economy.
Sounds good on paper to the layman, but there are more than a few drawbacks.
To start with, it really does not work. As I have said elsewhere, the state of the economy was at least as bad, if not worse in the late 1930s, after years of FDR, than it was when FDR took over. FDRs programs were, among many other things, Keynesian.
It is not a natural thing for the whole economy to be in a downturn all at the same time. Unfortunately, most people think that the free market will frequently result in a total economic meltdown, at which point some government intervention (in the form, at least, of Keynesian policies, if not outright socialism) is required. However, while no possible economic system can ever insulate every individual from hardship, the free market will never end up in an economic meltdown. The meltdowns that do occur (such as 1929 onward and our current situation) are almost always directly related to government intervention. However, the solution proposed by our government leaders? More government intervention. Make sense to you??? Yeah, me neither.
1929 was the result of government intervention. The as bad or worse situation of 1938 was due to continued government intervention.
Second, it is as close to an absolute fact as anything in the world that once government spending is started, it is not stopped. Many of the programs for economic recovery of the 1930s are still with us today. This causes continued deficits and other problems which result in further economy wide problems on down the road.
Third, and most importantly, there are long term negative effects of this type of spending (deficits and higher taxes and the further economic hardships that occur due to these things). When asked about what the effects of his policy would be in the long run, Keynes himself famously quipped, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” There ya go. That’s the philosophy we want to hand down to our kids, right? We want policy which we believe (rightly or wrongly) will benefit us, but who gives a rip what it will do to our descendents? Sure, count me in. I don’t care what Jr. says.
Now, what to do about our current mess? First off, let us be clear. Our problems are not the result of the free market gone wild. Our problems are directly related to over arching government intervention into the lives and businesses of individuals and corporations, from bad, even terrible tax policy, from wretched spending programs, from freedom squelching regulations, from currency devaluing monetary policy, and on and on. The proposed solution? More government. Create money out of thin air and spend it on ‘infrastructure,’ and a myriad of other social programs. In short, the current proposed solutions are the same old tired Keynesian policies which have actually contributed to the current mess.
In the end, I have no idea exactly how all this will turn out. But I can promise you, absent any major change, the direction we are heading is wrong. We can keep putting band-aids on our severed jugulars and keep the patient alive until hopefully, in the long run, we are all dead, OR we can care about our descendents and try to fix the problems permanently with sound, honest money, low taxes, limited government, and so forth.
What do you think?
Another Freebird Falls
I heard on the way home last night, that Billy Powell, keyboardist for Lynyrd Skynyrd, passed away.
Powell's story was an interesting one. He had been classically trained as a pianist. In high school, he befriended Leon Wilkeson, future bassist for Skynyrd. Ultimately, he began working for the band as a roadie, setting up and taking down equipment, etc. No one in the band really knew that he even played an instrument, let alone that he was good.
One night in 1972 after the band had played at a prom (can you see Skynyrd playing a prom???) Billy had a few minutes and he sat down at a piano, and began playing "Freebird." Ronnie Van Zant was blown away. "Man, you mean you've been working with us for two years, and you can play like that??? We've been wanting to add a keyboardist. You're in the band."
The rest is history. Other members of the band have joked about Billy's playing. The problem is in holding him back. He does not know when to not play. he plays constantly, throughout the song. Although classically trained, Billy's work with Skynyrd produced more of a 'honky tonk' piano style.
This band (a favorite of my youth, and one that still holds a special place in my heart and mind) has had perhaps the most tragic history of any band. Everyone, of course, knows about the plane crash of October 20, 1977. That crash killed the heart and soul of Skynyrd - Ronnie Van Zant, as well as the most recent addition - Steve Gaines, who had replaced Ed King as third guitarist.
In subsequent years, guitarist Allen Collins was seriously injured (and his girlfriend killed) in an alcohol related auto accident. Collins was left permanently crippled.
In 1987, the band reunited and embarked on a reunion tour. On October 20, the ten year anniversary of the plane crash, they played the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center. Your's truly was present, about 15 rows back from the stage. It was a great show. Included were Gary Rossington, Powell, Leon Wilkeson, and Ed King (original 3rd Guitarist). I'm thinking Artimus Pyle may have manned the drums that night, but I am not sure. Of course Johnny replaced his brother Ronnie on vocals. A touching moment was when Allen Collins came onto the stage in his wheelchair and praised the band, and encouraged everyone to not drink and drive.
The show was great and the band has been playing with varying lineups ever since. However, most of what they have done is insignificant tripe compared to the old days.
Since that night, however, Allen Collins subsequently passed away (I think around 1990) from further complications going back to his accident. A falling out occured amongst many of the old members. Ed King was kicked out (he claims that as a Californian, he was never accepted by the other members, even in the old days - even though he is responsible for the licks on Sweet Home Alabama, their biggest hit) Artimus Pyle has had major legal battles and is no longer welcome ni the band. Many of the old timers speak ill of Rossington.
In 2001, Leon Wilkeson died of liver problems, likely related to years of not living right.
Now, Powell dies at 56. He had a history of heart problems, and was significantly overweight in later years. I am sure that he had had substance abuse issues in his life too, but I have no idea if that was a demon he had conquered or if he still dealt with it.
During the original years of Skynyrd fame (1973-1977) the band had 6 or 7 members at any one time on any one album. With some rotation, this included a total of nine people. Of these, at least five are now dead (unless there are others I am unaware of.) Of these, Powell lived the longest, and that only to 56. The only ones still living are original drummer Bob Burns, replacement drummer Pyle, Original 3rd guitarist (and sometimes bassman) Ed King, and Gary Rossington. Of the current Skynyrd recording/touring group, only Rossington is present. King has had major heart problems. Pyle has had major legal problems. I don't know much about what has happened to Burns.
I got into Skynyrd after the plane crash - probably first latching on to their music around 1980. During my high school years, all of music could be divided into two categories. There was Lynyrd Skynyrd, then there was everything else. I've grown a great deal since then, thankfully. But the original Skynyrd will always have a place in my heart. Powell was an incredible talent, and, from what I could tell seemed to be a nice, soft spoken gentleman. He will be missed and remembered fondly.
Incidently, the childhood friend/neighbor I grew up with - his birthday was October 20, the day the plane went down. Now Powell dies on January 28 - my son's 19th birthday. Weird.
Powell's story was an interesting one. He had been classically trained as a pianist. In high school, he befriended Leon Wilkeson, future bassist for Skynyrd. Ultimately, he began working for the band as a roadie, setting up and taking down equipment, etc. No one in the band really knew that he even played an instrument, let alone that he was good.
One night in 1972 after the band had played at a prom (can you see Skynyrd playing a prom???) Billy had a few minutes and he sat down at a piano, and began playing "Freebird." Ronnie Van Zant was blown away. "Man, you mean you've been working with us for two years, and you can play like that??? We've been wanting to add a keyboardist. You're in the band."
The rest is history. Other members of the band have joked about Billy's playing. The problem is in holding him back. He does not know when to not play. he plays constantly, throughout the song. Although classically trained, Billy's work with Skynyrd produced more of a 'honky tonk' piano style.
This band (a favorite of my youth, and one that still holds a special place in my heart and mind) has had perhaps the most tragic history of any band. Everyone, of course, knows about the plane crash of October 20, 1977. That crash killed the heart and soul of Skynyrd - Ronnie Van Zant, as well as the most recent addition - Steve Gaines, who had replaced Ed King as third guitarist.
In subsequent years, guitarist Allen Collins was seriously injured (and his girlfriend killed) in an alcohol related auto accident. Collins was left permanently crippled.
In 1987, the band reunited and embarked on a reunion tour. On October 20, the ten year anniversary of the plane crash, they played the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center. Your's truly was present, about 15 rows back from the stage. It was a great show. Included were Gary Rossington, Powell, Leon Wilkeson, and Ed King (original 3rd Guitarist). I'm thinking Artimus Pyle may have manned the drums that night, but I am not sure. Of course Johnny replaced his brother Ronnie on vocals. A touching moment was when Allen Collins came onto the stage in his wheelchair and praised the band, and encouraged everyone to not drink and drive.
The show was great and the band has been playing with varying lineups ever since. However, most of what they have done is insignificant tripe compared to the old days.
Since that night, however, Allen Collins subsequently passed away (I think around 1990) from further complications going back to his accident. A falling out occured amongst many of the old members. Ed King was kicked out (he claims that as a Californian, he was never accepted by the other members, even in the old days - even though he is responsible for the licks on Sweet Home Alabama, their biggest hit) Artimus Pyle has had major legal battles and is no longer welcome ni the band. Many of the old timers speak ill of Rossington.
In 2001, Leon Wilkeson died of liver problems, likely related to years of not living right.
Now, Powell dies at 56. He had a history of heart problems, and was significantly overweight in later years. I am sure that he had had substance abuse issues in his life too, but I have no idea if that was a demon he had conquered or if he still dealt with it.
During the original years of Skynyrd fame (1973-1977) the band had 6 or 7 members at any one time on any one album. With some rotation, this included a total of nine people. Of these, at least five are now dead (unless there are others I am unaware of.) Of these, Powell lived the longest, and that only to 56. The only ones still living are original drummer Bob Burns, replacement drummer Pyle, Original 3rd guitarist (and sometimes bassman) Ed King, and Gary Rossington. Of the current Skynyrd recording/touring group, only Rossington is present. King has had major heart problems. Pyle has had major legal problems. I don't know much about what has happened to Burns.
I got into Skynyrd after the plane crash - probably first latching on to their music around 1980. During my high school years, all of music could be divided into two categories. There was Lynyrd Skynyrd, then there was everything else. I've grown a great deal since then, thankfully. But the original Skynyrd will always have a place in my heart. Powell was an incredible talent, and, from what I could tell seemed to be a nice, soft spoken gentleman. He will be missed and remembered fondly.
Incidently, the childhood friend/neighbor I grew up with - his birthday was October 20, the day the plane went down. Now Powell dies on January 28 - my son's 19th birthday. Weird.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obamanomics
Maybe interesting to some of my millions of readers.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-d/armentano16.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-d/armentano16.html
Thursday, January 8, 2009
A New Day on the Plains
I wrote a couple of posts below concerning Tuberville's tenure at Auburn. Some people loved him. Some people didn't.
I never quite knew where I stood with him. I did not understand the fuss about him when he was hired. He had five years head coaching experience. This was at Ole Miss who he took over when they had been hit with major probation. He did ok. Not great, but not terrible especially considering the circumstances. But, was he the best coach Auburn could have gotten?
He came to Auburn and brought his entire coaching staff in tact. After five years he had two four loss seasons, two five loss seasons, and a six loss season. His overall record was 38-24 (0.613) No conference championships (though he did play for one). Nowhere near any National Championship contention. I was ready for him to go. So were a lot of other people. Some were not.
The powers that be then made Auburn a laughing stock. Instead of firing him or doing something to improve things and generally going about it the right way, they sercretly flew the private jet of a major donor (and Board Member) to Louisville to hire Bobby Petrino just before the Alabama Game. Apparently they were then going to fire Tuberville and announce Petrino. I am glad we did not get Petrino.
However, the best laid plans have a way of failing. The plan leaked out. AU was embarassed. Petrino was embarassed and backed out. The AD got fired. Auburn surprisingly beat Alabama. Tuberville was kept on, given an extension. He promised a National Championship in his tenure. "You can write that down."
Surprises kept coming. After starting out with no seasons in five with less than four losses, in his sixth season he went 13-0, won the SEC, should have been able to play for the National Title. All of a sudden, everyone loves Tubby. He gets a huge extension. Big money. Oh, great great Coach. What then?
They start out the 2005 season losing the Georgia Tech. However, the only other loss in regular season was an OT loss to LSU who was a pretty darn good football team. The season ended on a low note with a bowl loss to Wisconsin.
2006 was a weird year. They were highly rated at one point. The finished a very good 11-2. However, they lost to Arkansas in embarrasing fashion and did not even show up for Georgia.
In 2007 they started out 1-2, losing to South Florida and Mississippi State. They did not show up for Georgia again. They finished 9-4.
2008....well.....don't get me started.
So, really, 2004-2006 were very respectable, even very good years. But, other than those three years, Auburn lost at least four games every single year under Tubby. Sure they won six straight over Bama (a Bama that was down mostly). They kept barely winning over Bama while Bama's bookend wins over Auburn were blowouts. Tubby never had the killer instinct. He never quite got AU over the hump, and was now on the downhill slide. He had a revolving door at the coordinator positions, yet kept basically the same staff in tact for fifteen years. He totally blew the Franklin hire.
Good or bad, love him or hate him, I truly believe it was time for Tommy to go.
"We should get a great coach," I thought. When we hired Gene Chizik, a man with a head coaching record of 5-19, I was speechless.
However, while only time will tell, I am very pleased with what Chizik has done so far. He has hired Gus Malzahn as OC. Gus led Tulsa to be a top 2 offense the last two years. This year they were in the top ten in both rushing AND passing as well as scoring. He has hired what appears to be several assistants on offense that are succesful coaches plus great recruiters. He kept one of the better defensive coaches off of Tuberville's staff who also is a good recruiter. He has hired a potentially very good D Coordinator. The good thing is that between all thee guys they have recruiting connections all over from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and maybe others.
Oh, and the 13-0 season at Auburn? Chizik was the defensive coordinator. He left and went to Texas in 2005 where they went 13-0 and won the National Title. So Dude CAN coach!
It will be very interesting to see how that goes.
I never quite knew where I stood with him. I did not understand the fuss about him when he was hired. He had five years head coaching experience. This was at Ole Miss who he took over when they had been hit with major probation. He did ok. Not great, but not terrible especially considering the circumstances. But, was he the best coach Auburn could have gotten?
He came to Auburn and brought his entire coaching staff in tact. After five years he had two four loss seasons, two five loss seasons, and a six loss season. His overall record was 38-24 (0.613) No conference championships (though he did play for one). Nowhere near any National Championship contention. I was ready for him to go. So were a lot of other people. Some were not.
The powers that be then made Auburn a laughing stock. Instead of firing him or doing something to improve things and generally going about it the right way, they sercretly flew the private jet of a major donor (and Board Member) to Louisville to hire Bobby Petrino just before the Alabama Game. Apparently they were then going to fire Tuberville and announce Petrino. I am glad we did not get Petrino.
However, the best laid plans have a way of failing. The plan leaked out. AU was embarassed. Petrino was embarassed and backed out. The AD got fired. Auburn surprisingly beat Alabama. Tuberville was kept on, given an extension. He promised a National Championship in his tenure. "You can write that down."
Surprises kept coming. After starting out with no seasons in five with less than four losses, in his sixth season he went 13-0, won the SEC, should have been able to play for the National Title. All of a sudden, everyone loves Tubby. He gets a huge extension. Big money. Oh, great great Coach. What then?
They start out the 2005 season losing the Georgia Tech. However, the only other loss in regular season was an OT loss to LSU who was a pretty darn good football team. The season ended on a low note with a bowl loss to Wisconsin.
2006 was a weird year. They were highly rated at one point. The finished a very good 11-2. However, they lost to Arkansas in embarrasing fashion and did not even show up for Georgia.
In 2007 they started out 1-2, losing to South Florida and Mississippi State. They did not show up for Georgia again. They finished 9-4.
2008....well.....don't get me started.
So, really, 2004-2006 were very respectable, even very good years. But, other than those three years, Auburn lost at least four games every single year under Tubby. Sure they won six straight over Bama (a Bama that was down mostly). They kept barely winning over Bama while Bama's bookend wins over Auburn were blowouts. Tubby never had the killer instinct. He never quite got AU over the hump, and was now on the downhill slide. He had a revolving door at the coordinator positions, yet kept basically the same staff in tact for fifteen years. He totally blew the Franklin hire.
Good or bad, love him or hate him, I truly believe it was time for Tommy to go.
"We should get a great coach," I thought. When we hired Gene Chizik, a man with a head coaching record of 5-19, I was speechless.
However, while only time will tell, I am very pleased with what Chizik has done so far. He has hired Gus Malzahn as OC. Gus led Tulsa to be a top 2 offense the last two years. This year they were in the top ten in both rushing AND passing as well as scoring. He has hired what appears to be several assistants on offense that are succesful coaches plus great recruiters. He kept one of the better defensive coaches off of Tuberville's staff who also is a good recruiter. He has hired a potentially very good D Coordinator. The good thing is that between all thee guys they have recruiting connections all over from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and maybe others.
Oh, and the 13-0 season at Auburn? Chizik was the defensive coordinator. He left and went to Texas in 2005 where they went 13-0 and won the National Title. So Dude CAN coach!
It will be very interesting to see how that goes.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Is this what is wrong with the current economy?
Awhile back, I wrote on the dismal state of economic knowledge. This lack of understanding is never more evident than in an economic crisis such as we now have.
Several weeks ago I happened to be watching TV. I believe it was CNN - which I never watch but I was at someone elses home who had it on. Some guy was talking about the current crisis. I very much wish I would have written his name down and took notes so that I could be more specific than I am able to be.
He was talking about how some experts have said this collapse was coming for quite some time. He said, until now, most 'experts' just thought these guys were crazy. Now it turns out they knew what they were talking about.
My immediate thought was that yes, the Autstrian School economists (and those of similar inclinations that may go by various names) have for years explained the business cycles and particularly huge drawn out recessions/depressions such as the one from 1929 to ~1942. These guys have stated again and again how we are going down the same road that led us to that disaster (only it is worse now because more and more of the obstacles on that road have been removed) and the result will be a depression even worse than that.
The problem is the market is not allowed to work. Government intervenes through regulation, through monetary policy, (including now the removal of the gold standard that at least we still had in 1929), Keynseyen (sp??) spending, jerking around interests rates, etc. The Austrians would argue that this government intervention into the natural economy is what causes the huge and drawn out crises.
Sure, in any economic system there will be countless contiunous 'little crises'. If you lose your job, that is a crisis and no type of economic system can guarantee that you will always have a job. However, a planned economy (where the government tries to control the whole economy) leads to economy wide crises. Just read the current headlines to see the result.
So, naturally, I assumed that this was what the CNN reporter was getting at. Planned economy, debased currency, all encompassing economic policy is what got us here. Some experts have said this for years, now it is coming true. The answer is to shrink government and reduce (almost to the point of elimination) its effect on the economy.
But, NOOOOOOO that is not what this guy was saying. He went on, and I paraphrase, but this is a very accurate paraphrase: "One thing we know for sure is that we can no longer just let the free market rule. That is what we have been doing and it has led us into this mess. We must have more regulation and control."
Does this guy live in the same universe that I do? We have had a free market up to now?
This of course was the exact same argument that has been used for eighty years now concerning the Great Depression. We had a free market. It began to crumble. Hoover refused to do anything thinking the free market would work. It crashed. FDR came in and instituted economic policies which led us out of the depression. Hurray for FDR. Hurray for our government saviour. Boo freedom.
However as Murray Rothbard showed conclusively in his book "America's Great Depression" this is not at all accurate. We were hardly a 'free market" in the years leading up to 1929. Hoover increased government intervention drastically (to the point that FDR ran against Hoover's 'big government' philosophy. FDR was clueless what to do. The result? Unemployment was higher in 1938 than it was in 1932 when FDR too over.
I don't know about you, but all that sounds familiar to me. We have not been in a free economy in my lifetime. Bush, in the face of bad economic indicators has tremendously increased government intervention, but is going down in history as a 'do nothing.' Obama is our FDR/Messiah. What will this all look like four, five or six years down the road.
I shudder to think.
However, I can't think for long, I have to go look for a job.
Several weeks ago I happened to be watching TV. I believe it was CNN - which I never watch but I was at someone elses home who had it on. Some guy was talking about the current crisis. I very much wish I would have written his name down and took notes so that I could be more specific than I am able to be.
He was talking about how some experts have said this collapse was coming for quite some time. He said, until now, most 'experts' just thought these guys were crazy. Now it turns out they knew what they were talking about.
My immediate thought was that yes, the Autstrian School economists (and those of similar inclinations that may go by various names) have for years explained the business cycles and particularly huge drawn out recessions/depressions such as the one from 1929 to ~1942. These guys have stated again and again how we are going down the same road that led us to that disaster (only it is worse now because more and more of the obstacles on that road have been removed) and the result will be a depression even worse than that.
The problem is the market is not allowed to work. Government intervenes through regulation, through monetary policy, (including now the removal of the gold standard that at least we still had in 1929), Keynseyen (sp??) spending, jerking around interests rates, etc. The Austrians would argue that this government intervention into the natural economy is what causes the huge and drawn out crises.
Sure, in any economic system there will be countless contiunous 'little crises'. If you lose your job, that is a crisis and no type of economic system can guarantee that you will always have a job. However, a planned economy (where the government tries to control the whole economy) leads to economy wide crises. Just read the current headlines to see the result.
So, naturally, I assumed that this was what the CNN reporter was getting at. Planned economy, debased currency, all encompassing economic policy is what got us here. Some experts have said this for years, now it is coming true. The answer is to shrink government and reduce (almost to the point of elimination) its effect on the economy.
But, NOOOOOOO that is not what this guy was saying. He went on, and I paraphrase, but this is a very accurate paraphrase: "One thing we know for sure is that we can no longer just let the free market rule. That is what we have been doing and it has led us into this mess. We must have more regulation and control."
Does this guy live in the same universe that I do? We have had a free market up to now?
This of course was the exact same argument that has been used for eighty years now concerning the Great Depression. We had a free market. It began to crumble. Hoover refused to do anything thinking the free market would work. It crashed. FDR came in and instituted economic policies which led us out of the depression. Hurray for FDR. Hurray for our government saviour. Boo freedom.
However as Murray Rothbard showed conclusively in his book "America's Great Depression" this is not at all accurate. We were hardly a 'free market" in the years leading up to 1929. Hoover increased government intervention drastically (to the point that FDR ran against Hoover's 'big government' philosophy. FDR was clueless what to do. The result? Unemployment was higher in 1938 than it was in 1932 when FDR too over.
I don't know about you, but all that sounds familiar to me. We have not been in a free economy in my lifetime. Bush, in the face of bad economic indicators has tremendously increased government intervention, but is going down in history as a 'do nothing.' Obama is our FDR/Messiah. What will this all look like four, five or six years down the road.
I shudder to think.
However, I can't think for long, I have to go look for a job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
