Who Decides?

The conservative criticism of Obama's message and the fear of a socialist sentiment is a legitimate concern related to the promise of freedom in which We are ALL Constitutionally endowed.

To brand Obama as a socialist is ridiculous. Unlike his predecessor, and would-be successor, when he swears to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States it will not be to antithetically administer the command and control of a power elite.

Socialism is a consolidated conceptual model of government. It is an elitist model of power and political economy in which an elite decide what is to be produced, the quantity, the quality, the price, who is to produce it and the value, the compensation, of the producers, including the management. It is a command economy.

The elite of our consolidated capitalism, of our command economy, decide whether we produce expensive homes and yachts and other class commodities while the rest of the world goes without the basic needs. The higher value is supposed to, in theory, trickle down to provide for the general welfare by deciding who and what has the most value in service to it, and by force of the argument, what is not provided for, by command of the bid on the price, is the best approximation of what the general welfare is.

Like Obama says, this economic theory is a very clear failure. The trickle-down hypothesis is disconfirmed by the brutal force of the evidence. If We do not throw it out to test a new hypothesis (the obvious alternative being to finance a pluralistic economic model--what a model of consolidated power is not and what our Constitution is designed to prevent), then We The People must be entirely stupid, and stupid We are not!

We are a creative, innovative, pragmatic, highly productive people. Relying on the leadership of McCain and company just condemns us to the failed model and legitimacy of the past.

Arguing we should conserve the model we have now to ensure a self-determined fate that is clearly not our own, now that's stupid!

The People are sovereign.

Let The Will of the People rule.

Let freedom reign!

Obama/Biden 2008!

Simple and Direct

A politician you can trust is simple, direct, and empirical.

Senator Obama says the crisis we are in is no accident. "It is the direct result of a failed economic theory." It is a political statement that does not rely on soliciting the confidence of a sophisticated rhetoric to be believed in or not, but simply relies on the empirical confidence that can only compel a person's trust.

This simple, direct, empirical speech, "my friends," condemns ideology to the dustbin of failed beliefs and expectations.

It's time for the means to real freedom, to real prosperity, to a real creative, entrepreneurial spirit that is not defined by being in servitude to the conceits of others, but the fulfillment of the self, actualized in the pursuit of the good life. It is time for the political will to allow it to happen.

The People are already standing in line to make it happen!

The utility of providing the rich with all the capital they want, the poor with what they then need, and being stuck with the bill in the middle, is spent. It is passe'. It's time to move on.

Sharing the burden to fully Provide for the General Welfare will not rob the rich of their success, "my friends," but allow for the success of The People's wise beneficence and productive providence to have the full effect of a peaceful prosperity.

The line is long to cast the vote for change we need!

Obama/Biden, and David Boswell, U.S. House for the 2nd District of Kentucky!

David Boswell will not sell your jobs to the highest bidder and leave you with a huge tax bill to pay the employer for a job. He will not put your jobs on a boat to China! Republican Bret Guthrie will!!

A Vote for Productive Incentive

We hear candidate McCain argue that Obama's economic policy will deprive The People of productive incentive.

It is the classic conservative argument that productive incentive comes from the top down, from the managerial skill of organizing, or "factoring" resources to provide what we want and need. A progressive tax code, they argue, renders the capital necessary for factoring unproductive because it does not have the full capacity of the return on investment. It therefore will not be optimally invested.

Furthermore, they argue, a regressive tax code is only necessary to support the needless operation of government regulatory authority and wasteful welfare programs. The conclusion is that taxation is a non-productive incentive and should be minimized if not eliminated.

According to the conservative argument, a federal government was founded to ensure the sovereignty of The People; that is, to ensure eliminating the non-productive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth. The best way to provide society with what it wants and needs is to deconsolidate power and constitutionally endow The People with organizing its means.

That is exactly what Obama's economic plan will do: diminish the verified unproductive tendencies of consolidated power and wealth.

It is exactly what McCain's economic plan will not do: provide the means of The People the productive incentive, the opportunity, to provide what we want and need; what allowing for the consolidation of the capital will not verifiably do without punctuated periods of deprivational crisis like we have now.

If you want to vote for sure means of deprivcation and a non-productive incentive of the capital, vote for McCain.

If you want to ensure the free flow of capital and the maximum productive incentive that comes with it, vote for Obama/Biden.

Support and Resistance

If you trade equities, you probably notice that support more often than not becomes resistance. Popular analytics are full of this observation and refer to it as psychological modeling rather than identify it as the elitist model that it is to accurately predict price movements. Admitting an elitist model of consolidated wealth will not get you published.

While being psychologically tricked into a market position is licit, manipulation through a disproportionate amount of concentrated capital smacks of an illicit means for fixing the price.

The support-becomes-resistance technique of price manipulation forces the trader to buy-in to a ceiling in order to establish a predictable basis. The result is to manipulate the small investor into a constant wash. It is less important for the power of consolidated capital to profit from program trading--if "you" buy in at X THEN resist at X--than to consolidate the funds available to the market, like 401k funds. It is all important to acquire the means to consolidate, even if it means taking a loss, because it is THE formula for gaining power and keeping it.

Consolidating the value affords the ability to command it in the guise of predicting it; to, in other words, manipulate prices.

Support-to-resistance program trading triggers exchanges to automatically suspend trading to prevent a program collapse of the market. It is rather emblematic of our faceless, impersonal consolidation of wealth and power that, if left unchecked, could result in untold devastation, even for the elite of power, so it is programmed, fixed, to be technically impossible.

The countermove for the small investor is to average-in at the new support level determined by the short-interest program indicator. The bad part is that it requires the small investor use twice the capital to achieve the expected return on a typical technical indication. The indicator must be modified to account for the program trade manipulation of the price with the consolidated capital, which is at record levels. The trader cannot wait for the modifier, per se, and not spend the extra cash since whether a position is taken or not triggers the resistance program.

That record level of consolidation is the prime determinant of our current macro-economic status, in a crisis mode. Where the economy should be at a level of technical support, it becomes resistance. So, we are looking at interest rates getting resistance at historically low levels with high levels of inflation. The result is a highly arbitrary, unpredictable, bureaucratic macro model of command and control that is only predictable from the inside--the elitist model of power.

Command control of our economy is what ails us. It will be an Obama/Biden executive that will reverse the trend for command economy that comes with the over-consolidation of the capital. This reversal will not be socialism which preserves the consolidation of power. We will continue with the command macro if we have a McCain executive.

The progressive tax code Obama proposes will begin to deconsolidate the capital for a macro that will allow typical technical indicators to have predicitve utility without modification. That lack of a needed modifier will indicate that the progression of the tax code is working to deconsolidate the capital to build a more pluralistic economy and a model of power that does not consolidate the opportunity to grow your personal wealth, but fully allows for it!

Obama/Biden 2008!

Value Schemas

Keeping Account of Value and Values


The 11 percent uptick of the U.S. equity market yesterday is explained with a schema that accounts for the value gained in terms of preserving the expected normative values associated with the interpretation of profit and loss. The recent devaluation of assets then appears less as a zero-sum gain of possible retributed value.

The strong uptick fits a technical schema, a bear market bounce, for example, that safely describes the volatility as a natural occurrence of corrected valuation. The most significant determinant, however, is the over-accumulation of capital that is arbiting, commanding, valuations instead of free-market economics.

Yes, it is a function of supply and demand, but an over-supply of capital in the hands of just a few market players that oversold the market shares to buy them back yesterday with a capital gain at both ends of the margin with little benefit to anyone else. Big noney flow out, big money flow in accounts for the volatility and the valuations. It is the determinant least talked about because it is the source of power (the determinant) that if changed, if deconsolidated, changes the balance of power.

The real determinant that accounts for value is not a part of the normative schema except to regard its change as a moral hazard (a normative cognitive value) that disrupts the "natural" order and stability of the power structure (a predictive empirical value of ensuring the status quo ante).

Like Obama says, McCain describes bottom-up growth as socialism (a conservative schema) when it is really economic opportunity, simple, direct (not trickled down with complex financial derivatives), with value easily accounted for both in means and ends.


We all think with concepts that are schematized into categories and hierarchies to decsribe and explain, if not to predict, what we perceive to be reality.

Plato is often described as the first psychologist because he describes a world of ideas, concepts, and a schema for perfecting the state he called "The Republic." His description of the individual and the state is more an accurate description of the cognitive process than an ideal state, but the relationship he describes is timelessly useful and fundamental to our understanding of the cognitive process when we make an account of value.

Much of what we concern ourselves with to be accounted for in relation to the state is an economic value. What am I worth? What is the value of my assets and why? Who must sacrifice for the good of the state and why?

The answer to these questions are built into a schema of what value is, conceptualized and operationalized into categories and hierarchies of value classification. The cognitive process of accounting for the value gives the process of creating that value a legitimacy that is the essence of both economic and political power and the way it is structured, or schematized, into a cognitive understanding, or accountability, of it and what is to be expected of it.

The legitimacy of power based on the schema creates an expected value on the outcome. When that value is violated, the failed expectation becomes a value that must be managed to preserve the legitimate value of the schema and the loss of value that was expected. That requires a cognitive process, a story, a narrative, that describes and explains the missing value, and accounts for it in the world of ideas while it is absent in the real, material world.

Reconciling the two values is to manage the retributive value inherent to any economic system. It can be rationalized, put off and accumulated, or it can be paid.

The process of creating economic value, storing it and sharing it in a political-economic process of accumulation and distribution is as much a cognitive process of schematic accounting of the value in abstraction as the reality of its conspicuous consumption and a demonstration of class and an expected hierarchy of power to support it.

Where once war was primarily the means of distributing accumulated value (the capital), a cycle of war and peace, we now monetize the value into complex abstractions that are "ideal" for schematic cognitive control of the accounted value.

We find ourselves in an evolved system of creating and storing value, and a schema to account for it, with a failing expectation and an accumulated retributive value that is evermore demanded to be paid in the real world. A good part of the means to manage the demand for payment of the value is to micro manage it into micro schemas of seemingly unpredictable, random events that cannot account for value gained or lost, like the volatility of equity markets.

Any economidt will tell you that not much changes day to day to account for a ten percent or more intraday swing in the equities market. It just seems to happen with a panoply of schemas offered to explain it that tends to keep our expectation of the value to be retributed safely in the world of ideas.

Notice how the Obama campaign went from "change we can believe in" to "change we need." The change reflects the reality of an extreme failure of expectation, an accurate accounting of the missing value, an expected retributing of that value without endlessly searching for it within the boundless domain of the ideal world whether it be socialism, capitalism, or any other prototypical "ism."

A clear, unadorned accounting of value is being demanded with an "ism" that is not prototypically confined to, and lost in, the world of ideas, but to be categorically identified and accurately attributed in the real world of what is righteously expected. That is the a-prototypical alternative of pragmatism. Not what fits the prototypical schema of class consciousness, but the practicality of what righteously works to create and distribute wealth, value, with an accountability fully verified by the reality of our expectations.

It's Only Money

The Perception of Value and Money


If you have been following the analytics on the current economic crisis, what most analysts agree on is that it is easy to overvalue assets and leverage into a crisis.

We need to operate with a predictive utility that allows for policies and programs that avoid crisis.

I am forever hearing that the candidates and the pundits did not foresee the current economic crisis. Punditry requires an understanding that fundamentally makes the pundit aware of the effects of overvalued assets and the leveraging of value that is empirically measured by the value of the currency--money.

Rather than the complexity, a willingness to ignore the indicators of crisis, or at least not account for it, explains the lack of predictive utility, and reflects a generally conservative bias.

Biased control over policy is something to be marginalized for a People's Pragmatism in which a predictive utility is operationalized to provide policies and programs that are devised, implemented and evaluated with an empirical methodology of verification. The best verification is an easy verification of The People, with the true consent of the governed.

So what is your house really worth? What's your 401k really worth? What's the value of your labor really worth? The empirical measure is the value of the money supply--a Keynesian measure of supply and demand--being determined by financial elits that consider themselves to be better than the mere sovereignty of The People, and should be rewarded with value that they determine to be more for them and less for The People.

That added, elite value must be, through a market system, leveraged from The People through the invisible, inscrutible, gnostic mysticism of monetary mechanics. The legitimacy is, however, easily verifiable: does it result in a crisis of technical re-pricing of risk and valuation of assets that just results in the wealthy elit having more and The People having less? If yes, then the process is verifiably illegitimate and does not have the legal consent of the governed. Throw it out! and test another hypothesis. Don't just keep making the same mistake over and over. That's idiocy! The People are not idiots! They are the trusting victims of elits that rig the system to violate the public trust without accountability.

A system is needed, therefore, that allows for the necessary ease of direct accountability, an ease of verification and a ready sanction. That mechanism is a free and unconsoolidated marketplace. Without it, there is just an eternal sea of arbitrary valuations that require technical correction with punctuated crisis events.

For example, the samll investor never knows what an equity is really worth because the people that manage the assets are apt to commit a fraud on that value and, often can get away with it at a huge profit. The real value is only known on the inside. When the truth is revealed, the value is lost to the outsider and results in a zer-sum gain for the fraud.

A free market that allows for a more equitable bid and a quick and sure replevin of ill-gotten gain will assuredly minimize the fraud and effect a verifiable valuation in priority.

Insurance companies and auto manufacturers are now in line to receive public-financed bail out funding. They are organized to be too big to fail. Their valuation, therefore, is determined by the organizational model. That model can be easily reversed to produce a testable, verifiable, easily measureable result that is likely to be the reverse of the failed alternative.

Instead of publicly financing to merge them up into inefficient behemoths prone to fraud and all manner of abuse, finance them into an organized technology that requires a clearly accountable efficiency, responsibility, in order to survive. The way the market is being financed now, in crisis to crisis, is to reward fraud, abuse and inefficiency. The bigger and, therefore, more apt to be overvalued with corruption and inefficiencies, the more likely to survive.

That not allowing for multi-million dollar compensation of executives that drive our economy into crisis is considered to be a moral hazard because it discourages "the best and the brightest" from seeking the top positions of decisional power and administration of power is quite telling. That valuation is from the top down, not the bottom up valuation of a free-market accountability. The value is the arbitrary product of a command structure of power (elitism), not the consent of the governed (pluralism).

The Fed is poised to reduce the interest rate a half point, a top-down measure that will devalue the currency. It will not spur growth, it will, rather, give the banks an additional spread on the leverage which distorts valuations from the top down.

The effect of all this support for inefficiency accumulates in the value of the national debt which affects the value of the currency, and that serves to arbitrate the value of your home, your savings, the value of your labor, instead of your direct accountability in the marketplace. The system is so huge that it seems out of our control, and money is so readily handed out to reward corrupt inefficiencies that it is trivialized. "It's only money." The value of The People is trivialized right along with it. It's time for that to change!

It's time for change we need!

Obama/Biden 2008!

Pricing the Risk

It looks like the bailout funds will be mostly used to consolidate rather than pluralize the financial sector. Easily predictabe.

The economic model of efficiency being used is "bigger is better" which translated means "bigger is too big to fail" and receives public funding to consolidate and cause more crisis for more funding.

The current price on this risk is greater than $700 billion with a perfect probability of failure at 100 percent. I guesse we can't accuse our elits of not striving for perfection.

The bigger the firm, the more likely, if not certain, it will leverage risk for a magnified return, which caused the crisis we are now in. Banks will not be in the business of risking capital to grow the economy--lending to The People and their businesses--but to leverage a pure profit by bidding up futures contracts, straddling rate spreads and securitizing the risk into inscrutible value with bogus marks to the market.

The bureaucratic managers to discharge the TARP are sector executives that are likely to price the risk based on returns for the private sector and the consolidation of market share, recycling crisis with the legitimacy of public authority.

Instead of better products, services and prices, the consumer is financing an organization inimical to its interests.

Instead of financing a competitive multiplicity of the marketplace in which risk is priced in terms of the best value for the customer (The People), the risk is priced to shift it all it to The People with the least possible benefit and the greatest gain for the private corporate entity, thereby securing exploitation of The People, the perfect probability for crisis, and the public funding that it causes, all with the legitimacy of public authority which is defined by the consent of the governed.

The risk is priced out of the market and into the public domain so that the accountability is all with a bogus consent of the governed. The risk is priced by dumpimg all the cost into the public domain. The result will be crisis and the need to service the inefficieny of "bigger is better" with public finance, always being supported as the confirmed model of efficiency with the empirical verification of the huge amount of public money spent to bail it out, and preserve it, by popular consent.

The People's capital needs to invest a deconsolidation of industry and markets, not pay for the organized means for The People's deprivation.

Obama/Biden 2008!

The Distribution Phase

From the deflationary phase of the business cycle, which includes the disinflationary part of that phase like we see with the price of energy where supply exceeds demand despite the opposite prediction, our economy proceeds into the distribution phase from here.

The price of energy is a significant factor in this distribution because it was a primary causal factor for the deflationary phase of the cycle. Seventy percent of the demand on the price of energy and, consequently, food was speculative following modification of commodity futures trading law back in 2002. An acute slope in the price from that time supports the null peak-oil hypothesis, and more fully confirmed by the latest attempts to support the price of oil.

There was very little indication that peak-oil was nothing but a fraud on the market fundamentals to justify a generally deflationary price. The consolidated capital is still intact to drive the bid on energy commodities to a peak, deflationary level, but since deflation has been attained, there is not only the oil on the market from the artificially high price--the fundamental fraud--but the declining demand. The result is a retrace on the value, a technical correction, that will compress the price of oil below $50/bbl.

The retrace on energy values marks the beginning of the distribution phase of the business cycle. It will be supported by the political cycle.

The reports on increased sales of homes is not a part of the distribution phase of this cycle. It is a part of the deflationary phase and is not disinflationary. These homes are being bought on forclosure to be retailed in the distribution phase.

Like I said, the real estate sector operates inimical to our economy in every phase. The profits need to be recapitalized to "disinflate" prices so that The People can have a place to live affordably without speculators, and that includes their agents, that ridiculously arbitrate the values, control local governments, and pocket the benefit out of pure greed and entirely at the expense of the average working American. It produces phony wealth that steals value form honest, hard working Americans to satisfy a bogus, inimical sense of class status that unnecessarily inflates property values and taxes.

A Democratic legislature and executive is extremely bullish for financials, and the economy generally, because there will not be a tax increase, but a rebalancing of the tax burden from a regressive, deflationary value to a progressive, pro-growth value.

Progressing the tax code combined with strategic reinvestment from the consolidated capital into consolidated markets like energy, a pluralizing of the marketplace, will be highly disinflationary and extremely bullish for asset values, quickly reflected in equity valuations.

An Obama/Biden executive is a very strong positive. It will be a highly pragmatic, non-ideological administration that will effectively minister to the needs of The People. We will be able to quickly move from providing for what We need to what We want, making for a very robust growth factor that, if We ensure pluralism of the marketplace, will be sustainable with full employment and low inflation.

The distribution phase of this cycle can be exponential and timely so We may move forward with an efficiency that is by-and-for The People.

Crisis will be just the memory of what "We The People" don't want, don't need, don't deserve, and are self-determined to not allow.

Vote Obama/Biden, and the change We need is on the way!

It's No Mistake

As we progress into the distribution phase of the lomg-term cycle on an accumulation of income in the top 10 percent not attained since 1938, or The Great Depression, the rhetoric will now be that the crisis it causes is just a bureaucratic mismanagement of our economy, like blaming Greenspan, or Paulson, or Cox....

It's no mistake. The long-term cycle is confirmed, and it has been skillfully managed to where we are now to successfully consolidate the wealth and allow the disribution phase to occur under the banner of the Democratic Party.

If the Party does not take the opportunity to operate with a new economic model to replace the disconfirmed model, the cycle, both politically and economically, repeats itself.

The change we need will be described and explained by mainstream economic theory as a moral hazard. The rhetoric will be presented as declarative knowledge, despite being disconfirmed.

The attribute of the moral hazard is why economics is known as "the dismal science." While we know that the general utility of depriving The People of necessities so that a high income class can enjoy the fruits of labor and. therby, trickle it down to be enjoyed by everyone else is a disconfirmed hypothesis, and categorically immoral, mainstream economics maintains that abandoning the theory that supports the hypothesis is a moral hazard.

The hazard, described as moral because of its dimension of behavioral modification, is dismally described as a non-productive incentive that historically brings societies to collapse.

As Jefferson carefully noted, profligate accumulation of wealth and power is historically a sure indicator of impending collapse, avoided by constitutional provision for a plurality of power and not its consolidation. That way, the prosperity of The People is peaceful, sustainable, and ensured through an empirical process of historical improvement in which making the same mistake over and over again is not supposed to happen. If the society is not allowed to learn from its mistakes, modify its behavior, then the processes of pluralism are not being allowed to fully operate.

So, we have a distribution phase of the cycle that ensures we make the same mistake over and over again. The mistake is a "normative" cycle that if modified is a moral hazard.

What is dismal about the dismal science is that it tends to be dismally unscientific. Instead of describing and explaining the brutal truth of economic existence, it serves to validate the brutal reality of it with self-fufilled mechanics and detrimental effects explained away as misfeasance that if thrown out would be morally hazardous. That hazard is, of course, validated with the name of "science," suggesting it is not a property of belief, or bias, but knowledge.

The scientific method requires confirmation or nullification--verification, not logical proof or disproof--validation.

Something is either verified or not. Having to prove or disprove something through argument and rhetorical manipulation indicates an unwillingness to accept the empirical method and the knowledge it produces.

Much of what is presented for analytical public consumption is a validation process, not a verification process for continuous improvement. That is why we recycle the same "mistake" over and over again.

The change we need is to preserve the value of The People's assets, and doing that will also be the means for economic growth, and stability, that We The People can describe and explain as the moral imperative that verifiably avoids the moral hazard.

Obam/Biden 2008!

Moralizing the Hazard

According to the McCain campaign, spreading the wealth is a moral hazard.

Mainstream economists, and the McCain campaign, argue that without the consolidation of wealth and power, capitalism will not operate to make the necessary sacrifice to produce capital and investment needed to produce economic growth and the wealth for The People. Spreading the wealth nullifies the sacrifice necessary to produce capital and wealth. It is, therefore, a "moral hazard."

Redistribution of the wealth is to be avoided because, as Sarah Palin proclaims, with her professed deeper understanding of what is right and good for The People, giving the wealth away to the people that labor to create it will ultimately make them unproductive. To suffer deprivation of the wealth is the sacrifice necessary to accumulate capital so that The People will be willing to suffer for its creation.

The deeper understanding neo-conservatives have, accordingly, is that the sacrifice of The People--the crisis we are now experiencing--is a necessary condition for the creation of the wealth. Not allowing for it to occur will result in crisis, so the solution to our crisis is to be sure that it happens. Avoiding the crisis is a hazard to be avoided, so we should be sure to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and realizing that is the product of a higher moral intelligence.

In order to have all the things a wealthy person buys but does not need that trickles the wealth down to The People, must be suffered by The People not being able to buy what they need. The result is a debtor economy. Not to allow for the sacrifice is, by the deeper understanding, immoral because it deprives consolidation of the wealth, falsely argued as the formation of capital.

The capital does not have to be consolidated. Consolidating the capital, the sacrifice, causes debt, economic crisis. It always has and always will.

Instead of avoiding a moral hazard, the conservative, Hamiltonian argument moralizes the hazard.

The Good Lord Says: "...forgive us our debts as We forgive those that have debts against us." The McCain campaign has a deeper understanding of this: forgiving the debt, not allowing the debt to be suffered, is a moral hazard. It will ultimately make us all unproductive.

The Lord's Prayer is not just sanctified sentiment for soothing the soul. It is a call to action!

Obama/Biden 2008!

Function of Crisis and Bailout

Interlocking the Directorate


The financial crisis and the bailout functions to organize a directorate that is otherwise illegal to avoid the tyranny of command economy.

Interclocking directorates is illegal because it is fundamentally anithtetical to democracy and a free-market economy, but is argued to be a necessary condition in theory and practice so that The People will not suffer tyranny by ensuring its organized practice.

The People are too sophisticated for this hoax!

The bailout money--the TARP--had no legislative directive because that would be socialism. The effect is to interlock the directorates in the private administration of power with the legitimacy of public authority. The difference is that the private administration will tend not to produce results that are favorable to The People, like ensuring a free market will, but to administer their exploitation in their self-interest by bureaucratic directive--by command.

Not using the bailout funds to ensure a free and unconsolidated marketplace in which The People are in command will result in forcing the legitimacy of the socialist alternative.

If you do not want socialism, do not organize the political economy as it is being organized now with the crisis-management funding from the top down.

The more consolidated the capital becomes, the more probable the switch to a socialist administration of the state and capital from the top down--a confirmed command economy.

McCain's economic plan will continue the consolidation of capital that causes crisis and the need for command and control. It is the elitist model of power that will not empower Joe Six Pack, but enslave him to the arbitrations of a bureaucratic command elit whether organized for state capitalism or state socialism.

Top-down legitimacy for the administration of power is always subject to an illegitimate administering and is not easily accounted for or made accountable. Isn't that the neo-conservative plan?

It is possible to secure the ends of freedom by ensuring its means.

Obama/Biden 2008!

Keynesian Crisis

Keynesian economics was an innovation for organizing production so that growth, success in the marketplace, could still be measured by the profit margin in the classical economic sense.

Monetarism allows the measure of legitimate success of the classical model into the neo-classical world of managing cyclical crisis that does not necessarilly produce legitimately pluralistic, free-market results measured by the profit. It allows for maximum profit with minimal growth, and a way to "successfully" manage the instability that causes.

The promise of the new technique for stabilizing the economy was to calibrate the money supply as needed to control inflation with growth, what a free market will achieve on its own if the capital, industry and markets are not allowed to consolidate.

If capital is always available for investment in profitable markets (buying the greed), the economy can grow with adequate supply to control inflation, and that added supply requires full employment, thus, full employment with low inflation. The effect is a declining rate of profits and return on investment that minimizes an accumulation of wealth and an income-class distinction. Aspiring to the "ruling class" requires a return on investment ensuring a free-market economic through the monetary system denies.

Monetarism was invented to largely stabilize the business cycle of a consolidated capital. It was not invented to finance the competition, but to provide liquidity (interbank lending) when the capital becomes so consolidated that it locks up and has nowhere else to go but to be redistributed to the consumer (spreading the wealth around) to reduce the inventory of overproduction. Rather than finance the competition, causing full employment with low inflation, the recovery is monetized (trickled down) through the central bank system and the treasury, allowing the consolidated capital--the problem--to persist.

The process of economic stimulation and stabilization we have now is the "monetizing of the debt" so that it is not quite as obvious that the business cycle operates to consolidate the capital. Consolidation is antithetical to a free-market legitimacy in which power is sufficiently pluralized to be self-correcting and requires little need for government regulatory authority.

Since monetarism is not used to pluralize, but stabilize the marketplace, there is a big demand for government. That demand has evolved in favor of consolidation of the marketplace, so we have The People's tax money being given to a healthy bank (PNC Bank) to buy an unhealthy bank (National City Bank). Public finance, and the power of legitimacy it represents, is used to consolidate, and not just the accumulated capital. The return on the investment comes in the form of the interest paid on the public debt which, you may have noticed, is a perpetual-debt (leveraging) machine that grows infinitely if it is paid with a regressive tax code.

Keynesian monetarism is easily switched to finance a genuine free-market economic system. The way it is being used now to keep the capital, industry and markets consolidated through an unstable business cycle, "the switch" will eventually become the socialist alternative.

Avoiding a global liquidity crisis, and general instability, is entirely possible. It is time for the political will to do it.

Obama/Biden 2008!

Selling the Greed

"Buy the greed, sell the fear," so the saying goes, but as we emerge from a period of our economic history in which this philosophy has been practiced to the nines, and the result has been to cultivate a culture of corruption and crisis, the small number of beneficiaries and their huksters now need to sell the greed and persuade The People to buy the fear.

"Greed is good," so the argument goes, and we must now manage the crisis component of this practical, utilitarian philosophy with the neo-conservative element, like the McCain camp, arguing that The People must buy into the fear of socialism in order to preserve what motivates the creation of wealth and, therefore, the privilege of determining its distribution.

Wealth shared is wealth squandered by not making the scarifice necessary to create it, so they argue, but The People are not seeing an empirical verification of that hypothesis. The utility is not verified, but disconfirmed by the clearly observable evidence.

Yet, we still have the aspiring non-elits that cling to the absurd belief that if we share the wealth, the wealthy will no longer be wealthy and the poor will still be poor. The result is a Non-Pareto Optimal, dead-weight loss in which everyone loses.

The argument is irrational because it is the product of greed, an emotion accepted, bought, as a practical philosophy instead of an indicator for behavior modification that avoids an impending crisis of a few that have too much at the expense of everyone else having too little--what we have now.

Conservatives argue that the criticism of the utility of greed is overly academic. We are thinking about it too much. That a sacrifice has to be made for the production of wealth, savings, is obvious, and the elite, they argue, are best suited to own and manage that sacrifice, the savings, so that we can have more savings by it being deprived of The People. It is, of course, illogical to claim the deprivation of value adds value. No, it redistributes the value to cause an easily avoidable crisis--a cyclical liquidity crisis characteristic of a debtor economy.

Since the elite are best suited for managing the capital (the savings, the sacrifice), they must be rewarded with the "privilege" of not having to share in that sacrifice, conservatives argue, because they will not, then, take the risk to organize the production of wealth we all enjoy. The privilege is the reward for successfully providing The People with what they want, and that is motivated by the emotion of greed with the result being an accumulation of wealth that indicates the value added in the form of the capital.

The problem with the conservative argument is that the value was not added, it was accumulated. The result is a debtor economy (a leverage economy in which more value is added than produced) that is always being managed, organized, to buy the greed and sell the fear even when it is illogical and empirically not beneficial for The People that give it both the value and the legitimacy of its power.

Conservatives argue recognition of the problem as socialism. The logic required to solve the problem is reduced to the fear, the emotion of it, which otherwise serves to indicate danger to protect and promote the welfare of the species. Conservatives are utilizing this primordial survival instinct to destroy its utility for The People. Reversing that would be to, as they say, think about it too much. Providing for their welfare, I dare say, is what The People want, and providing for recurrent crisis does not, then, fit the reward of privilege.

The privilege of accumulating value by leveraging it into an artificially added value is supported by the innovation of productive capacity. The more per-unit production added per dollar invested, the more value can be added, or accumulated, to be greedily reinvested for more accumulation through innovation. The problem is that the accumulation does not allow for a competitive reinvestment based on the profit margin. The result is to greedily innovate ways to add value without growth, which leads to the crisis of overproduction in which demand is overburdened with debt, like we have now.

The growth that occurred was largely in the real estate development sector, where you can get rich quick, but because the wealth is greedily accumulated, instruments of finance were innovated to allow the demand to be driven by debt that could not be paid. The result is the crisis of overproduction, or the inability to pay--the foreclosure crisis.

According to conservatives, the capital is greedily invested to innovate production which adds wealth. If the reward of greed is denied by sharing the wealth, it will not create it. If we do not allow the reward to be fully enjoyed by the risk taker, the risk will not be taken, and the reward will not be had to be unduly redistributed with a socialist model, or reinvested to cause competition and disinflation with full employment and maximum consumer choice provided by a free-market model.

Greed drives the incentive to risk the capital. Without it, risk, or innovation, will not occur. This equates risk of loss with productivity and innovation. If you are not productive and innovative--greedy, you lose.

So, the argument goes, we were much better off before we started flirting with spreading the wealth around. That has made the capital not willing to take the risk of growth and innovation. It becomes illiquid. If we do not allow greed to operate, we will self-determine, choose by operation of our intellect, an extreme deprivation. We are all better off if we all embrace the reality of our greedy impulses and ignore the latest fashion of intellect.

Never mind that greed is likely to result in the indifferent deprivation of others, which brought us to the crisis of illiquidity. It was the greed--the overwhelming, irrational, fearless passion for risk and reward, the supreme confidence in its virtue without thinking about it too much, not the lack of it--that caused the illiquidity. If greed is the problem, how is it the solution?

Now that the greed has been overbought into a major crisis, the fear is now oversold. The People are not buying it. It is illogical. It is unreasonable to accpet the problem as the solution.

Where The People once accepted the business cycle as a naturally recurrent event of undirected determinism, like the weather, We now know it can be the directed product of our self-determination, not driven by greed and fear, but the virtue of our intellect.

Obama/Biden!

Negative Equity

A Real Estate Reinvestment Act


The negative equity in homes is a positive gain for who?

Real estate interests.

This sector is in very large part responsible for wrecking our economy and has received very little criticism for doing so.

A Real Estate Reinvestment Act is in order to recapitalize the benefit into positive home equity toward building an economy that invests the homeowner not with just a fair and equitable mortgage, but the ability to pay it.

Accomplishing that is not by encouraging the leverage financing that makes the greedy rich with an inimical sense of status, but righteous value that comes with providing for each other rather than taking it in declaration of your class superiority.

Real estate is infested with people looking to get rich quick, and they did. The cost of this over-concern with one's personal worth, of class status, has been tremendous. To allow this value to be enjoyed without being retributed to, reinvested in, the hard-working Americans from which it was bilked is entirely wrong!

Instead of an economic sector infested with status-conscious frauds looking to con its customers into just making them rich, and leave the customer holding the devalued bag of goods, let's invest the real estate sector with the value The People deserve without having to borrow their way out of debt. That value exists in the net worth of developers, brokers, lenders, and their agents. That value needs to be reinvested to make the homewoner whole, not just a reward for unfettered greed and fraudulent practices.

Retribute that value with a Real Estate Reinvestment Act. It will very quickly help set our economy on a very sound fundament for quick and sustainable recovery.

Technical Correction to Tax Policy

McCain argues that the Obama/Biden tax plan will require the average income to write a check to itself because the tax reduction will have to be financed through the deficit, or monetized, by borrowing it from the upper class of incomes.

The argument is pure deceit.

The average income, under the current regressive tax code, writes a check to upper class incomes to finance what the rich do not pay in taxes but is borrowed in record amounts through a regressive tax policy that McCain not only wants to sustain but increase to ensure our productivity, or the creation of wealth.

First of all, regressive tax policy is proven pro-profit, not pro-growth. The policy is deflationary because it increases the tax libaility of The People, reduces buying power and increases debt. The result is deflationary crisis.

Regressive tax policy does not improve productivity, it decreases it.

Second, the tax reduction for the average income is offset by a progressive increase for upper incomes who can afford to pay down the debt, immediately improving buying power, reversing the deflationary trend and strengthening the dollar.

The Obama/Biden plan is a much-needed technical correction to tax policy and the macro economic.

Obama/Biden is change we need!

Economy of Innovation

President Bush says that regulatory reform of the financial sector should allow for innovation. The general suggestion is that regulation of industry and markets stifles innovation, including financials.

That is incorrect.

First, innovation is likely to occur where the capital is, and if the capital is allowed to concentrate as much as it is (not spreading the wealth around), then innovative ways to produce profit without growth are assured, has occured, and has resulted in general crisis.

Innovative ways to prevent crisis (optimal investment), instead of causing crisis, requires spreading the wealth around, or deconsolidating the capital.

Regulation can also produce innovation to control externalities, like pollution. Unfortunately, the capital is so consolidated, the innovation is resisted, considered a cost, not a benefit, so it suffers deficient investment (economic growth) and tends to be exported along with the jobs associated with it.

Neo-conservatives opt to keep the regulatory authority proactively cooperative, acquiescent, and a sycophantic satrapy organized to give the abuses of consolidated power the legitimacy of public authority, and to reactively manage the risk, the cost, to a minimum.

For the financial sector, the lack of regulatory authority produced negative innovations that are now being dealt with as negative externalities to be crisis-managed by the regulatory authority.

The negative externalities are the product of extreme misfeasance if not malfeasance of a public/private power structure called "The Iron Triangle." It is the bureaucratic model of power and political economy and it yielded a competence for corruption because its power is so huge and concentrated (non-pluralistic). The result is a systematic, structural, failure not seen since the Great Depression.

There is no reason to believe switching this bureaucratic form of power to a socialist legitimacy will be any less corrupt, and here is where the conservative rhetoric is focused to instill fear, loathing, and logical fallacy.

What needs to be innovative about the financial sector?

Innovative ways to lure consolidated capital out of its horded haunts yields crisis. We have incontrovertible empirical proof of that by living it now, but McCain still wants us to "believe" that innovation of leverage finance, encouraging it with a highly regressive tax code, will "create wealth." No, it creates crisis!

According to McCain, and what has proven to be a greedy, malfeasant, neo-conservative cohort, ensuring a very clear means of verifying class distinction drives productivity, innovation, and wealth. The argument is that if we do not subsidize the rich to stay rich, by not spreading the wealth around, we will suffer the effects of socialism--low productivity.

Policies and programs that encourage innovation of financial instruments yields low productivity and economic growth with the empirical proof of the current crisis. The employment we have had has been mostly to confirm ensuring class society of rich and poor so that we will be productive by exporting our good paying non-service jobs. A service economy, that is, an economy of servitude was created. Being assured A 2.50 an hour job serving food is not the model of innovative financing that assures creating the wealth. What it does assure is consolidation of the wealth and a workforce structurally enslaved to serve it up.

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin... NO THANKS!

We need our financial sector to very simply finance innovation of productivity in the marketplace. If the talent we have now--greedy, self-involved, incapable of seeing past their self-interest and the consciousness of their class--cannot identify the entrepreneurial talent that will pluralize the marketplace and cause productive capacity, full employment and low inflation, then let's get those that will, and we know all too well that will not be the party of McCain and neo-conservatives.

Tax Havens

European ministers of finance are suggesting they will begin prosecuting tax havens and the unregulated hadege funds that use them to evade tax liability.

Use of these high income class tax-evasive havens causes budget deficits by increasing the need for government while severely reducing revenues, and inflationary tax pressure on lower income classes with deflationary macro economic pressure that reduces their ability to pay it. In other words, because the trickle-down economic model of tax reduction for the top income classes does not work, despite the counter-empirical claims of the McCain campaign, but instead causes crisis with overwhelming evidence, it is time to reverse the policy based on that empirical evidence.

That is very bullish news for markets because trillions of dollars will be more available for macro-economic finance policy, like recapitalizing a recovery from the bottom up, that will hasten recovery and stability instead of being hidden and horded, only brought out to spike markets for a quick, zero-sum capital gain, that is not pro growth and just devalues the savings and pensions of non-upper class incomes.

The rhetoric is very strong positive for markets, the valuation of The People's savings and reinvestment of the capital to allow for economic growth and general economic security that will not only benefit The People, but elits as well. Policies that benefit the rich in priority are just to deprive The People. International markets fully recognize that and will not even begin to support a McCain presidency.

A McCain presidency would be, empirically, verifiably, bad for global markets.

Economic Stimulus

Analysis in popular media tends to attribute the retrace to deflation following the stimulus package in 2008 to the consumer paying down debt rather than spemding it. It is a fundamental misattribution that identifies the problem.

The stimulus money was inflationary. It went right to the profits of the corporate and was paid out to the shareholders who are largely, disproportionately, the top ten percent of incomes, which causes the need for the other 90% to incur debt borrowed from the very rich. The result was consolidation of the stimulus, or deflationary crisis.

According to Ivy-League analysts that pop media offers us as the experts that will lead us out of the crisis with the intimate understanding of having engineered it and having led us into it for the General Welfare, this is not a matter of Wall Street versus Main Street. It most certainly is and indicates where their leadership will lead us--crisis!

Without reversing the regressive tax code, economic stimulus just stimulates consolidation of the wealth and recession.

While stimulus will cause a steep V-curve in equity valuations, this will not indicate economic recovery. That will be a sell signal. If you do not sell, you will be left holding the bag, and once again Wall Street wins at the expense of Main Street. The People's dependancy on Wall Street is thereby supported through the credit economy in which paying down your debt means you are less likely to have a job which, of course, means you must incur debt, and who are you going to get that from?

Interesting how if The People are forgiven debt, it is taxed as income, while the capital organized to produce the debt is regressively taxed if at all by various accounting rules available only to the very rich. The People need to seriously ask why that analysis is not a part of the pop-media presentation. That it is not included defines the analysis of pop media as mere propaganda that cannot be trusted.

Consider that the trillions of dollars applied for a worldwide, coordinated bailout plan being administered by treasuries and central banks still yields the prospect of global recession. That measures how much value has been expropriated from The People by financial, Wall Street, interests and used against The People. Expecting financial interests to fix it is foolish. The "fix" is in, and fixing that is the political will of The People to identify leadership that will not use The People's value against them. That would not be a person like this Governor Palin that regurgitates Republican platitudes on cue.

Arguing, for example, that spreading the wealth around--that The People fully sharing in the value they produce--will deprive them of the value they produce because they are depriving the investors of the value they need to cause financial panic and crisis is a complete comedy of errors. McCain's bottom-up proposal to buy out bad mortgages at full value, for example, does not recapitalize the benefit which is what is required to allow the mortgage to be affordable with economic conditions that adds the ability to pay for it at any price.

If we consider that the Economic Stabilization Act leaves the use of bailout funds entirely to the discretion of institutions that are prone to cause crisis for The People--the kind of decisionmaking Palin says is good for The People, the probability for risking the funds to perpetuate the crisis and another stimulus package does not indicate recovery.

The recovery funds are likely to be used to buy back shares, pay debt, and buy smaller regional banks with the argument that such consolidation is to ensure stability of the banking system when it has proven destabilizing.

Stabilization and stimulus will produce only a short term recovery because the causal factors of recession are both left intact and reinforced. It does not imdicate a bullish trend till we decide to recpaitalize the benefit with a more progressive tax code and deconsolidate the financial sector. Otherwise, we are locked in short-term oscillations (volatility) indefinitely. Improved leading indicators will only serve to indicate the volatility.

An Obama/Biden victory is a sure bullish indicator.

The Stakes

The stakes are driving the "unthawing" of credit markets more than the action of coordinated central banking.

Commanding capital markets (top-down, trickle-down management) falsely suggests that management of the capital in a concentrated, centralized state is the solution and not the problem.

The capital that has been consolidated is detecting siginificant pressure to retribute the value. For concentrated capital, retributing the value is a cost to be minimized. Much better to lend the capital for a return on the accumulated private equity and lobby for keeping a regressive tax code to pay it than to allow the retributive value to accumulate with a credit deficiency. The cost, and benefit, however, is an increased debt burden.

The trick is to be sure you do not end up with the debtor (the payer) assignment, and with the regressive tax code we have now, that would be The People experiencing crisis.

The markets are sensing the sensitivity of policymakers to manage the retributive value with a quick turnaround. Another stimulus package in the U.S. (a bottom-up measure) is being floated and is likely. However, without a more progressive tax code, a bottom-up stimulus is inflationary because it swells the deficit.

Another stimulus package without a more progressive tax code, like the previous stimulus package and temporary middle class tax cuts, will not recapitalize the benefit toward a stable recovery. It reinvests the benefit to relieve the pressure for retributing the value, the power, of the benefit (accumulation of the capital) to its source, The People, without an economic rent (the interest on the debt The People pay through a regressive tax code).

The best another stimulus without a more progressive tax code will do for The People will allow for a very short-term recovery of financial assets that will likely be sold (shook out, or consolidated), still well below their highs.

Since Republicans can't win with an appeal to reason and logic, there is an emotional appeal to fear the logical tendency to a more progressive tax code as that scary monster, "socialism."

The obvious need for a more progressive tax code is not a call for socialism. The capital and means of production is not owned by the state, but is more apt to be reinvested for a more competitive multiplicity of the marketplace, pluralism, instead of consolidation of wealth and power.

If you want socialism, and you need something to fear, just stay the course of the last eight years and vote for McCain. If you want free enterprise and the fullest capacity for choosing what you want to produce and at what price: recapitalize with a more progressive tax code the high accumulation of capital that is causing, commanding, liquidity crisis, and pluralize the marketplace.

Not sharing the wealth, not "spreading the wealth around," not having an equitably distributive ownership of the capital, results in liquidity crisis and massive debt--what we have now. Stop and reversal of the deflationary trend in a timely and equitable fashion REQUIRES that the wealth be shared--recapitalized from the benefit of the last eight years. That is not socialism!

Capitalism does not require the capital be owned by a privileged few elits unless, of course, you want to deprive The People through the indirect means of crisis by establishing and maintaining a cycle of boom and bust in which The People's assets are devalued and consolidated--the business cycle.

If we are going to have socialism, it won't be because we have free enterprise, it will be because we don't. If you want the lack of free enterprise that results from consolidated capital, industry and markets causing crisis of liquidity and overwhelming debt, if you want to cause socialism, vote conservative, vote for McCain.

Obama/Biden 2008!

Organizing for the Conditioned Response

There are two types of behavioral responses to stimulus: reflexive and conditioned.

Reflexive is a physiological response like blinking the eye in response to an impact stimulus. Conditioned is a learned response that occurs with an event expected to correlate with the reflexive response.

Our conditined, learned, response to our current economic crisis, for example, is to regard what is recognized to be a problem to be solved as a normative cycle--the business cycle. We have a process, or procedural knowledge, of the problem that modifies our reflexive response, our behavior, with an organized learning that is operantly conditioned.

Even though the reflexive response is to retribute the value lost, the value of your work, your savings, which is being interpreted by the experts as being an arbitrary abstraction subject to loss, the conditioned response is to allow the solution to cycle into the recovery phase, creating an engram of organized memory that is associated with McCain's recent cue for recall of the memory trace by saying, "We are a nation for creating wealth, not just spreading it around."

While the diminished value is the factor of sharing the wealth, it is, however, the determining variable for solution to the problem. The organized memory trace, the conditioned response, is to allow for the problem to be applied as the solution in the form of a popular consent, or self-dtermination.

It is time for a self-determined re-cognition of the problem by reviewing it.

If the problem reoccurs, it has not been solved. If we are conditioned to believe that being subject to perennial cycles of deprivation and depreciation of our productive value instills the strength of our patriotic conviction, that is both true and false. We are likely to believe in something we had to suffer for, creating a cognitive dissonance that reinforces the conditioned response.

While the conditioned organizational response is for a top-down bailout in which The People must wait for the solution of the problem to "trickle down," despite that the theory and practice is antecedent to the recurring crisis, The People will learn that it is an effective solution even though the crisis cycles into recovery without it. Using the problem as the solution is falsely confirmed, or learned and stored in memory as knowledge. The conditioned response is mistakenly declared as empirical knowledge.

It is time to relearn, recondition, the response. Joe the Plummer is the classic condition where he expresses fear of what will free him to patriotically pursue life, liberty and happiness.

The conditioned response is to fear the real solution.

With productive capacity well in hand and soundly established into reliable organized technologies, the next step is to share the wealth it produces, which will prevent the recurring algorythm of crisis, not cause it. The natural tendency to pluralism is a threat to the consolidation of power, and that power relies heavily on the conditioned response stored in organizational memory as the experience, the knowledge, of the expected outcome.

It is time to recondition the response, and the expected outcome.

That starts with this election cycle.

Obama/Biden 2008!

Unanticipated Decline?

Commerce reported an "unanticipated" 4% drop in housing starts.

That's all? Four percent!

Foreclosures are at a high not seen since The Great Depression. New homes were unaffordable when credit was available. Even more unaffordable now, if not prohibitive, even with a massive decline in value. So, what is so unanticipated about the decline except that the real estate cohort is so stupid with greed that they will keep building houses nobody but the very rich can afford to buy. They apparently are graduates of the Ivy-League Bush/McCain school of economics! They apparently believe in not spreading the wealth around!

It is the same with reports on the oil and gas inventory data.

We can have these extremely complex derivative instruments of finance, but we cannot figure out how much oil and gas we have on hand? Well, you had to buy it, didn't you? It's just a way to manipulate the price for a capital gain. It is a fraud in the marketplace. It is what is wrong with it. It is why we don't trust each other to lend the money we need to operate the economy without a big crisis, without a big risk, without the sure probability of failure with entities that are too big to be allowed to fail and continue to operate our economy in a crisis mode.

Ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority sanctions the frauds in priority. If we are to be incredulous about it, so let's test it. What do we have to lose...fraud in the marketplace, a crisis of confidence?!

Invest the economy to produce innovative economic growth, not induce innovative forms of fraud!

If you believe in the General Welfare of protecting the concentration of capital, the results will be fully "unanticipated."

Obama/Biden...please!

Managing The Capital

Circunstances for the way The Capital is organized to be managed change, but the outcome is the same. Over the course of U.S. political-economic history, statesmen and entrepreneur-statesmen wrestled over whether the banking system should be public or private enterprise.

Where Jefferson wanted to keep the financial system small, private and parochial, Hamilton wanted to establish a national bank with regional branches under a central banking authority, much the way it is organized today, but our financial system is privately owned under private bureaucratic authority of the Federal Reserve Bank, allowing for a Jeffersonian legitimacy with Hamiltonian results.

For Jefferson, having a national bank was a sure way to consolidate power for exploitation of The People like the monarchs did. Hamilton knew that without a central bank with a common currency and coordinated action, economic development for nation building is severely restricted, and he was right, as Jeffersonian Republicans quickly realized.

After the War of 1812, a central means of finance was clearly needed and Jefferonian Republicans occupying the executive went to a national banking system to coordinate national production and build needed infrastructure. Western expansion beyond the Appalachians was financed by the central banking system. The financiers in the system leveraged the assets based on the appreciated value of the land (the labor being put into it to make it productive), so even land that was not productive became overvalued (a bubble).

Of course, that bubble burst and the leverage scheme, the pyramid scheme of borrowed money from the central banking system, collapsed, or as we call it today, unwound.

Banks could not repay the loans from the central bank and had to foreclose on the settlers. This was the panic of 1819. The workers lost everything and moved back to the cities in the East. Now, our Ivy League economists are telling us that the loss of value was just an imaginary value (the bubble). No, the value was collateralized by the labor value and was foreclosed on--it was consolidated, but we are not allowed to talk about that part of it without invoking the fear of socialism.

Instead of fear, and an apoplectic acceptance of the status quo, the virtue, the strength, of our intellect.

Management of The Capital needs to be decentralized for The People. This does not mean we are going to bomb ourselves back to the stone age! Neo-conservatives want us to believe that because it will preserve the power of concentrated capital to maintain a suboptimal sharing of the wealth, and power, or what is wrong with it, just as Jefferson anticipated.

Obama/Biden!

The Leverage Leviathan

The Computer Modeling of Leverage Finance


There is a description of the crisis we are in that attributes it to the computer modeling of profiteering. The implication is that the computer modeling turned capitalism into an out-of-control leviathan of leverage finance.

At the time of the Industrial Revolution, capitalists heralded the model of finance that produced profits exponentially by representing the value of risk of investment (growth) with the highest reward (profit). Since monetarism had not been invented yet, that extra value had to come from labor. This, according to the capitalist, is a non-zero-sum game because as long as the risk is not impeded, by government authority for example, the risk to expand the economy will always be taken and labor will always benefit from growth.

While the high return, the reward, was not assured, the prospect of the reward always drives the risk, and besides, you can buy insurance to hedge the risk, like credit default swaps.

Critics of the classic model noticed that while the model created wealth, it did not share it. Doing the math, the model was a zero-sum and the exponential value represented value lost, not really gained (not a win-win) so that after running the program the model blows up at the end, kind of like what we have now.

One sure way, the capitalist learned, to hedge the risk of failure and assure the high return is to be too big to fail. Monetarism was invented and the money supply expands to produce an innovation like computer programming to manage complex derivative instruments that produce exponential profit without risk, but blows up at the end. That's ok though, because you are too big to fail, and just as in the old days of classic capitalism, the competition is too small to survive.

To imply that the computer programmers created a leverage leviathan they could not control is perfect nonsense. The outcome is the product of classic empirical capitalism. You can paint a picture of it or snap a digital image of it and it is still a big ugly monster that blows up at the end!

The reason capitalism fails its pluralist, populist legitimacy is because, while it creates wealth, it does not properly share it. It consolidates it.

Not properly sharing the wealth is why the creative creature of capitalism always turns into a big ugly monster that just gets bigger and bigger till it just blows up at the end and causes a big mess...it causes crisis.

Since not sharing the wealth is what is wromg with it, sharing the wealth is not something to be afraid of. Would someone please explain that to John McCain.

All of us need to understand that it is the consolidation of power that is the determining variable. The capital exists as long as there is an economy in operation. We are not going to be rid of The Capital. The question is, are we going to manage it for The People.

Managing The Capital for The People is to share the wealth.

Don't buy arguments that are designed to make you fear doing the right thing, and do not allow those that will make you fear the moral imperative access to power.

Vote for Obama/Biden!

Volatility Indicator

The CBOE volatility index, the VIX, is over 80, at a new high.

As I noted recently, big volatility indicates the bottom valuation. It also indicates the inimical effects of a consolidated capital.

As capital, industry and markets continue to consolidate with the deflationary phase of the business cycle, valuations are uncertain and The People largely lose.

The benefit of the cycle is solely the top one-percent of income class. If you are not a member of this class, supporting the conservative agendae, be it economic or social, is not your self-interest, it is not the collective interest.

While the high VIX indicates an undershoot--an oversold condition, it also indicates what the institutions of high finance don't want to tell you. It means not only will The People lose their jobs, but as they dip into their savings to finance daily expenses, they lose net value to the VIX.

Even if you can average-in to the financial markets, the gain to restore your losses could be years away if you are not able to play the volatility. If you do that, the sole determinant of price movement is the money flow of consolidated capital and what side of the market your volume is positioned; that is, the market is rigged for you to lose because the concentration of capital allows for an inequity on the bid which manipulates prices against your position, whatever it may be.

Successfully playing the volatility requires you always be opposite the money flow indicators. Do not hesitate. Do not wait for the top or the bottom. Just bail out, or in, as the case may be. Big money on the bid will change the technicals at a moments notice, leaving you holding the toxic waste.

If you thought the bailout plan would be beneficial to The People... no, it is proving detrimental as I said it would, easily predictable because the plan fits the Hamiltonian model of finance which is to assure the welfare of the rich in priority.

The plan supports consolidation of financials, making them bigger and so will increase the probability of leveraging risk--what causes the crisis we are in. It is not the solution, it is the problem, short and long.

The solution we need is antithetical to the Hamiltonian model--a genuine bottum-up bailout by taxing the gain and reinvesting that gain in pluralizing, recapitalizing, the economy. Capital is made available for growth rather than just profits on an expanded supply of money and an increasing public debt with a declining ability to pay it with a highly regressive, no-groth tax code. The result will be an easily predictable, robust economic recovery both short and long.

Obama/Biden!

Flight to Quality

McCain says tax policy that will stop and reverse the current tax policy that has verifiably resulted in an extreme deflationary trend will result in a capital flight to quality.

That's wrong, Joe!

That McCain questions the propriety of raising taxes on anybody in a deflationary trend that is largely caused by a reduction of the tax rate for the rich, not for Joe who gets to pay the debt it causes, indicates some extreme analytical incompetence or a fatally blind belief to validate conservative "principles" despite the verified evidence that trickle-down tax policy causes economic crisis, and has been for over 200 years!!

Joe is worried about the wrong thing.

The regressive tax policy that McCain proposes, that we have had for the last eight years, is so bad that the capital has parked in nearly no-yield treasuries, hardly a flight to quality, occassionally coming out to spike equities to sell off for a quick capital gain that needs, according to McCain, an even more favorable tax rate to prevent it from being invested in growth (what is, by definition, a reversal of the deflationary trend).

The result of neo-conservative tax policy, McCain's tax policy, is a movement of money (capital flow) that is arbitrary and capricious, causing volatility that is the opportunity for short term capital gains to support leverage finance, not economic growth for Joe.

McCain, as prospective chief executive of the neo-conservative coalition, not only wants to continue the policies that depreciates the hard-earned value of The People, but magnify it.

Why, pray tell, would anyone, Joe, outside the top one-percent of income class--what McCain says we should not talk about--vote for McCain, or any other conservative?

The hedge funds we see collapsing because they cannot cover their leverages (having borrowed money to produce profit without growth--a sure formula for long-term failure), are selling off their equities to cover the margin calls (the money borrowed). It is supposed to suggest to The People that these people, receiving a favorable tax rate for their work over The People's work, are suffering the detriment of McCain and company tax policy together. That is an outright fraud!

These hedge fund entities and their managers socked away billions and billions of The People's hard-earned value for years and years. Yes, we're in this thing together alright--they win, The People lose!

Heaven forbid if we should make hedge funds and their self-satisified managers suffer an increased tax rate! Oh my word, please don't make them suffer billions of gains even after the proposed tax increase.

Hedge funds sold off equities yesterday (the index low) and bought them back today (an index high). Despite some of the funds declaring they are shutting their doors, they're still in business causing panic and uncertainty, being paid to do it beyond The People's wildest dreams and being rewarded for making our economy a complete wreck with a favorable tax rate.

This could not be more wrong, and we are supposed to vote FOR that!

Get the cowboy capitalists and the frauds out of the marketplace by reinvesting their ambition with a tax on there gains and a favorable rate to produce economic growth that fully values the worth of Joe The People instead of fully devaluing it.

Yes! Let's have a flight to quality for a change!

It's time we invest in you, Joe, not the people that will promise you the American dream with policies and programs that will deprive you of it. It's time to fully vest The People that share your dream with the political will to provide it.

Obama/Biden '08!

Investing the Talent

Organizing for Economic Growth


There is some indication that technocrats are having to admit that economic growth correlated with organizational size and efficiency means that the financial sector should be encouraged to consist of small firms.

The grudging implication is that a proper, fair, and efficient action plan for economic stabilization may be to invest a competitive multiplicity of the matketplace, or switching to a more pluralistic practical model.

That is very wise and will yield quick, strong-positive results for everyone.

The allowed consolidation of industry, markets and capital meant that most of the entrepreneurial, MBA, talent that our many business schools graduate have been employed to wreck our economy because that is where the money, the capital, is. It is very clearly, overwhelmingly, the model of inefficiency and has not only brought the world economy to the brink of collapse, but has questioned the practicality of the very fundamentals of power, making the risk too high to merely temporize the way to recovery with what obviously does not work.

Instead of entrepreneuring innovative leverage schemes to magnify the profits of a consolidated capital, our highly educated and innovative talent may be utilized to engineer, organize, for maximum growth and employment with minimum inflation.

Instead of organizing for the instability of providing for the least number of people by depriving the greatest number of The People, we will be organizing for the General Welfare.

The bureaucracy does not have to operate to apply the dictates of an elite ruling class. It can "choose" to apply the welfare of The People.

The interest of the self can be perfectly correlated with the collective will and wisdom of The People.

Rather than being slaves to our passions and emotions, greed becomes fufillment, fear is turned into confidence, and loathing is the object of freedom denied.

Very best wishes.

Bottom-Up Vs. Top-Down Bailout

The Fed says that the economy will take much longer to turn around than the financial sector that not only reaped huge profits from years of unregulated leverage finance that drove the general economy into the ground, but is also receiving huge money from The People to bail The People out.

A reliable evaluative measure on the effectiveness, and real confidence, of top versus bottom bailout is the equity index.

When the treasury used capital from the bottom up (the stimulus package), the Dow peaked. When treasury used the capital from the top down (the stabilization Action Plan), the Dow index hit the bottom, clearly indicating the empirically proper course of action for a quick and stable recovery for EVERYBODY.

So, how come we are not doing that?

It is because it does not fit the Hamiltonian model of political economy--welfare for the rich in priority that cultivates the practical philosophy of "buy the greed, sell the fear."

Greed and fear are not a healthy basis for buidling a just and equitable society. It is not a philiosophy of freedom. It is a philosophy of dependancy. It is not a philosophy that provides, but deprives.

If the model does not work for The People, The People should throw it out.

Application of the capital from the bottom up not only hastens a recovery of the broader economy but the net worth of The People as well so that the least amount of value is lost from The People to the elite.

Where the top-down application of capital produces stagflation, recession, and devaluation of The People's worth to service the greed of a few that, in turn, instills greed in The People, bottom-up application nourishes growth and adds value to the savings, the net worth, not the net greed, of The People, who then have "nothing to fear but fear itself."

Obama/Biden!

SEC Extends Ban On Short Selling

If you are not a financial manager, this measure to bureaucratically manage the economy seems unimportant. It is a significant indicator for the average voter nevertheless.

First, it indicates that the investment apparatus is not a free market. It must be bureaucratically managed to produce a fair market value, which is, of course, absurd because it is not the product of a free market if you have to command it in posterior to counter the command of prices in priority.

Short selling would be the price stabilizer that short sellers say it is in the public interest if the capital was not consolidated (a free market), but it is. Hedge fund managers account for most of the short selling. They take the shares you are not using and sell them, using the value of those shares against you in your best interest?

No! The massive volume that consolidated capital wields manipulates (commands) prices. Thus, it is not a market price or a "fair" value. That's why price manipulation is a crime, because the wisdom of the collective will, a free market, is not ALLOWED to operate. A technical bureaucratic correction is an inferior substitute for fair market value. It is not a market value, it is value on command--the Hamiltonian model.

The SEC's bureaucratic command of the marketplace fits the Hamiltonian model and indicates that our economic recovery, and recovery of The People's net worth, will be unfairly slow and volatile, to shake out as much of that volume at a loss as possible, with the uncertainty of whether short interest will be high or low on command.

The Hamiltonian model needs to be put on the museum shelf right next to the buggy whip.

Everything. for example, Paulson, the treasury secretary, has done to manage the crisis has been wrong. That's because he is using an outmoded model of political economy when The People are demanding "fair" results that the model is not designed, by definition, to produce without commanding it (an elitist command economy).

Even if the outcome is commanded to the satisfaction of The People, it has not been "determined" by The People. It is not the product of a Constitutional self-determination in which BOTH the means and the ends of power are thoroughly legitimate, legal, and proper.

The People must re-Declare Independence!

Obama/Biden!

Too Small to Survive

McCain, in a continued attempt to give a populist tone to neo-conservative policies and programs that ALWAYS lead to crisis, is now saying that his economic plan, despite that it will make the rich richer and the poor poorer (the formula for crisis economics and politics) will not be to merely support businesses too big to fail, but too small to survive.

This is to validate a classic elitist argument that can be found in the discipline of organization theory in the area of organizing to manage risk. McCain is using it to support a populist sentiment. Is he really that incompetent that he does not realize that it is a pro-elitist, not a pro-populist argument?

Elite-model organization theorists advocate that the bigger the firm, the more capable of surviving risk, like running the economy into the ground with the least capable to survive beimg, of course, the smaller firms.

The classic illustration of the argument is this: since a small firm is more likely to drown in shallow water, it is at a higher risk, and so it is also unlikely to take risk. The implication is that economic growth is more likely to occur if firms are more able to survive risk and, therefore, take it.

Adhering to the elitist model of risk managememt was applied by hiring quantum physicists to fashion imploding models of debt-structured finance (high return, no growth). The model is just the classic pyramid scheme where the first in, at the top, are highly profitable which lures others into the business model. The result, of course, is classic economic crisis--deflation--and the pyramid comes tumbling down threatening the entire economy if it is not bailed out; an outcome that has been verified, once again, in a very up close and personal way.

Understand, despite what the Ivy League experts tell us, that the model eventually imploding and collapsing, taking small firms down because they are too small to survive, is fully anticipated and intended. That eliminates the competition and consolidates power. Despite the neo-classical innovation of means (algorythms of quantum physics and computer programing), the result is entirely classic.

While it appears to be counter to the pro-elitist model and argument for hedging risk, the effect of McCain's plan is to keep the causal factors of the crisis intact to require the need for government in the future (to socialize the loss-=the risk--by preserving the element "too big to fail"). So much for his stance on limited need for government...very similar to Ronald Reagan's nonsense.

McCain's attempt to give the Hamiltonian (elitist) model of political economy a populist face is just another laughable attempt to put lipstick on the pig. It is just another deceit.

I prefer to go with a genuine intelligence and conscientiousness that can be trusted.

Obama and Biden for President, and David Boswell (D-KY) US House.

Healthcare Costs

According to a recent economic study, the cost of healthcare is pushing Americans into poverty!

It isn't because we live an unhealthy lifestyle. It is because there is an unlimited supply of funds available to drive the price, and a professional class of people so greedy they are glad to impoverish its clientele... in our best interest, of course.

Remove these costs from the public dole or set prices to an affordable level. Another measure is to tax the value added: the higher the charge, the higher the tax, both controlling costs and returning the high-margin motivation (the greed premium) to the treasury.

As long as medical professionals see an unlimited source of revenue--the federal government--costs will do nothing but go up without price controls.

Taxing people with so-called risky behaviors (choices), for example, just forces up the costs as doctors just see more money available to be raided. Then there is more need to tax. If you think they will not drum up a syndrome associated with a lifestyle they claim is driving up the cost of healthcare that you choose to do because it makes you happy (otherwise called the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness), you are wrong! They will be very clearly focused on a surgical extraction of your wallet!

Setting prices to an affordable level does not mean a person can't choose a doctor or not get treatment. If it does, the patient is not what is wrong with it. So. then, fix what is wrong with it.

The other cost control measure is ensuring a free market. Trust bust the AMA and make the medical professionals disclose prices. If they collude to fix prices, like through the AMA, prosecute them for price fixing. It is a crime!

If these greedy professionals with a perfect piety for their purses were more concerned with providing healthcare than getting rich, they would not be impoverishing their customers which. I dare say, will make them sick!

The Passive Investor

Bush, Paulson and company, and that includes John McCain in that company, say that the government's passive investment in the critically decisive economic sector of finance is not a long term commitment.

The rhetoric is laughable. Validation of a system of finance with a commitment to returning it to its former condition as soon as we are out of the crisis it creates is an absolute farce! Should we laugh or cry with this deliberate ignorance, avoidance, of the empirical method of verifiable hypothesis?

The trickle-down hypothesis and the consolidation of wealth into organized entities too big to fail does not even remotely resemble the free-market capitalism these neo-conservatives say works by, not allowing for it.

One very famous classical economist said that the farcical contradictions of capitalism will indicate change to a socialist legitimacy of government--a switch from state capitalism (not a free market) to state socialism (not a free market). In both cases the critical element of freedom is compromised for the greater good, the General Welfare.

For those that think socialism cannot happen because consolidated capital is too powerful, we see very clearly the strong tendency for consolidated power to switch its legitimacy to maintain a bureaucratic relevance to its clientele in order to survive. This is the bureaucratic model of power combined with the task of administering the political economy (the capital).

Empowering the bureaucracy with the primary task of ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority, of keeping the means of power unconsolidated, is an easily testable, verified, hypothesis and a practical alternative to the other two classical alternatives that we erroneously think is the inevitable fate of our freedom.

Considering that details of the buy-in Action Plan do not exclude the possibility of the taxpayer paying the shareholders a dividend by determination of its directors, effectively paying the corporate to receive the bail-out money, and that the decision would not include the government, The People, as passive investor, effectively suggests Hamiltonianism isn't dead yet. If the legitimacy of the socialist solution can be corrupted, this is exactly where it would start, by directive.

Saving the Free Market

Bush says the federal government's buying shares of private banks is to save the free market.

Paulson says he is against any socialization of the biggest private firms of the banking sector, but it is necessary to ensure liquidity.

Nowhere is there any mention of what causes the lack of a free market: allowing industry and markets to consolidate. Why?

The solution is focused on "effective" measures deemed necessary to achieve the sufficiency of a false free-market legitimacy.

Ensuring a free market in priority prevents this crisis, and the benefit of it--ensured consolidation of power. The new boss will just be the old boss with a new legitimacy of power to be corrupted for despoiling The People in the name of the General Welfare.

Bush, Paulson, McCain and company are saying they are engaged in preserving what we did not have to begin with, thus the crisis.

Allowing consolidation of industry, markets and capital causes socialism, and that is what happened.

Government ownership of private sector enterprise is the definition of socialism. If you don't want socialism, then don't do what causes it--allowing industry, markets and capital to consolidate. Bush/McCain and company are for measures that will allow, preserve and support, "too big to fail," which is what is wrong with it.

If you are afraid of Barack Obama because he will cause socialism, you are afraid of the wrong candidate! You should be trembling at the very clear and convincing evidence right before your eyes that it is the Republicans who are sure to cause socialism.

Socialism will not deconsolidate power. It will confirm it without any reason to believe it will not be any less corrupt than what we have now.

There is a sure way of structuring for freedom and accountability, easily, affordably and without reliance on a corruptible technocracy. That is ensuring a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority. That is NOT what we are doing now and most certainly will not be doing with a McCain presidency.

Obama/Biden 2008!

The Disinflationary Phase

The false peak-oil price driven by leverage finance, deflating the world's economy, reliably resulted in the phase of the business cycle we are now in: the disinflationary phase.

Classically, the phase results from overproduction as buying power is reduced by a consolidation of capital on a limited supply of money. A distribution of that value must occur in order to pull the economy out of recession (liquidity) to produce more wealth and, at the same time, preventing an overaccumulation of retributive value that could result in a complete recapitulation of the value and the power it inherits.

The neo-classical measures to prevent recapitulation of capital, and power, by increasing the supply of money (the coordinated effort we see now of central bankers to recapitalize financial markets with electronic credits in addition to the capital consolidated and illiquid) is, of course, inflationary. It allows the gain from the loss to be consolidated with minimal retribution (repayment), and that includes a regressive tax burden that finances the increased money supply by borrowing it from the wealthy and repaid by the not-wealthy in the form of the public debt, conserving the proportional zero-sum gain and distribution.

So, at this point of the cycle, the capital consolidated was neo-classically "free" to massively move into (liquidate) the equities market today for a record one-day inflation of prices and, of course, the price of oil, the primary means of causing the deflationary trend through leverage finance (futures contracts volume), also increased.

The volume of The People's capital that was sold off in a panic will now be enticed to chase the value. When there is sufficient volume to achieve a substantial capital gain, at a favorable tax rate, the volume will be massively sold off for another loss and gain (market volatility that indicates "the bottom" or the level at which the distribution must occur). The micro-cycle of accumulation and distribution is repeated until the volume of non-elit net worth has been maximally consolidated to be retailed to its rightful owner for a profit, completing the macro cycle of loss and gain, and that will be called economic growth.

The process can hardly be characterized as an abstraction of value lost and gained, as our Ivy League experts maintain. It is a real zero-sum game. The loss is not a figment of The People's arbitrary and capricious imagination.

While disinflation is charaterisitic of a free and unconsolidated organization of economy, it does not necessarily indicate proof of a free market, as argued by pop economists.

Disinflation can be a positive or negative effect depending on the organizational model. It indicates affordability of maximum supply at minimal price when there is a pluralist operational model; maximum price on a minimal supply, or unaffordability, with an elitist, command model.

The disinflation we have now is the result of economic activity that has dispossessed the vast majority of The People. Not only has the capital been organized (consolidated) to devalue The People's buying power (recession), but net worth (savings, the distribution of capital). The loss is not an abstract value of perceived worth, it is a real devaluation, a loss, that has been gained (consolidated) into a privately-owned capital called "private equity" and falsely justified by means of a free enterprise.

This redistribution of savings valuation, net worth, is in keeping with the Hamiltonian model that capital should be managed (owned) by the elite, and there is no better way to ensure its most efficient management for society than to rig the financial system, and the economy, to ensure elite ownership of capital in priority (primarily a regressive tax code). That is what has transpired--trickle-down economics--and it is a verifiable failure, once again!

Hamiltonian propenents must, however, maintain a pluralistic, free enterprise, legitimacy--a product of the collective will (an agreement between buyers and sellers of what to produce at what price) that defines a self-determined General Welfare. While the legitimacy is partially fulfilled with what to produce, the price, and the profit, is illegitmately determined largely by elite control (by means of organized consolidation in priority). While it may be "enterprising," it is hardly "free." President Bush, for example, today spoke of the rescue effort as a confidence in free markets to technically (naturally) correct for what was a willfully determined, fully intended, organized elitist outcome in which he is chief executive.

A free market economy is self-correcting if it is ensured (willfully determined) in priority--just exactly the opposite of what Bush and John McCain advocate in both theory and practice (trickle-down economics).

Bush, and McCain, extolling the value of free markets is like having a pyromaniac fire chief. The fire department shows up with inadequate liquidity, and the liquidity it has is applied in all the wrong places.

The disinflationary trend we see in fuel prices indicates a stop-and-reversal in the deflationary trend caused by the application of a highly consolidated capital (the problem) in a high-profit,low-growth strategy that feeds on a limited supply with minimal competition (low growth) while falsely arguing a peak-demand fundamental price (a fraud in the marketplace).

There is nothing free market about the cyclical trend we are experiencing. It is not the collective self-determination, the legitimate collective will, of The People. Rather, it is the product of a command economy with a false pluralisitic legitimacy (a false free-market economics). It is the Hamiltonian model of finance, and the administration of power, in peak form. It is a practical model being applied by neo-conservatives with the tools of neo-classical economics, like the economic stabilization legislation and bureaucratic action we have now, to be asserted as the pinnacle of socio-economic organization into the 21st Century.

What we see is a paroxysm of elitist power as a new century heralds in the hope of a new age of progressive change. The regressive tendencies of taxing and spending that secures a stable maldistribution of the costs and benefits of political-economic organization are clearly outmoded with tired. disconfirmed legitimacies that indicate change long overdue.

The neo-conservative proponents of pop media analysis are desperate to defend policies and programs that are nothing but a complete failure by the most casual observation. They are clamoring to disparage the Obama/Biden economic agenda of late. That agenda indicates a deconsolidating of the capital, not just a deleveraging of the capital that causes crisis.

The Obama/Biden plan sets us on the road to realizing the fundaments of freedom genuinely idicated by full-employment with low inflation (positive disinflation).

A business cycle of economic growth in which disinflation is a sign of a healthy pluralism of the marketplace is entirely possible instead of a malignant phase of a deflationary trend designed to dispossess The People of value that rightfully belongs to them if properly organized for a true, legitimate, self-determination.

The Obama/Biden economic plan will restore The People's value and build on it. A vote for Obama/Biden will yield the very highest return for everybody. It is Strong Pareto Optimal.

An Obama/Biden executive is a strong buy signal! The value of your productivity will not be securitized into a worhtless debt, but into a genuine confidence of an easily verifiable legitimacy with an easily executable and exacting accountability of a free market economics.

Wishing us all the very best!