In case you want to keep track, here is the U.S. debt situation on one page. These figures are conservative compared to other estimates I’ve seen.

The top section of the site shows the national debt. It also shows the current year deficit which is added to the debt. The section at the very bottom is equally important. It shows the total unfunded liabilities. That is, this is what the government is short now to meet promises of future payment for entitlements.

I’m reminded of something Dennis Miller said 25 years ago (as the figures will indicate):

Federal deficit figures are in for the last decade, and the deficit for those ten years topped the trillion-dollar-mark. A trillion! And it goes up all the time. You know what that means, somewhere out there, there’s somebody who still insists on lending us money. I don’t know about you, [but] somebody runs up a tab like that on me, [and] I get a call from him hitting me up for more, I think I’m gonna go, “Hey, my man! You got that trillion you owe me!”

The only politician in Washington who is really worth listening to is Ron Paul. I think he may be the greatest single politician of my lifetime. Ron’s son Rand is now happily running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky. Father and son are both physicians. Listen to them talk about health care.

Ron Paul makes a point in this video that I think is key: the entire government is broken. Barack Obama is attempting to apply a wrecking ball in the form of Obamacare and Cap and Trade, but the edifice has already crumbled. If John McCain had won the election (or if a “Ronald Reagan conservative” had won it), the “reforms” wouldn’t be as disastrous as those proposed by Obama, but at best they would be no better than the status quo. The status quo is unsustainable. We have the colossal and unpayable debt I’ve written about ad nauseum. We have a central bank (the Fed) that steals our money and has doubled the monetary base in one year. We have a massive system of taxation. We have states all over going bankrupt. We have a massive federal bureaucracy. We have a deficit that will probably be at least $2 trillion this year. The entire system militates against prudence and fiscal soundness. It’s way too big. There’s just no lipstick that’ll make the pig attractive.

The only solution to is to drastically cut spending, let interest rates rise to market levels, eliminate regulations, and let the market restructure the country through a painful depression. However, the Republican Party, our supposed party of limited government, whose liberal members even claim to be “fiscal conservatives,” has no will whatsoever to cut spending. They never have. Spending always increases. It went up throughout the Reagan administration. It went through the roof when the Republicans controlled both the presidency and Congress during Bush’s first term. Nothing has changed. Many Republicans voted for the stimulus programs. One-third of House Republicans voted to extend Cash for Clunkers this week. Meanwhile, the utterly reprehensible Democratic Party has the fiscal soundness of a young child.

It’s amazing to hear people say that they support “bipartisan solutions.” How do you think we arrived at our current state of bankruptcy? It took two to tango.

Both parties are just looking for soundbites and leverage over the other one to get the upper hand in the polls. Since neither party will do the right thing, all they can both do is look to escalate the borrowing and spending, and put off the collapse as long as possible. That is what’s going on right now. While anyone with sense should hope that the Republicans stop Obama’s lunacy, understand that Republicans will continue to refuse to take the revolutionary steps needed to replace our house built on sand. Just as they always have.

Nothing will change until the collapse.

“…instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit.” -Henry Hazlitt

I don’t like to overwrite about this topic, but few Christians write about economic issues. This Cash for Clunkers program announced by the government is just too rich to pass up. It is a classic example of Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy.” This fallacy was restated concisely by Henry Hazlitt. If you understand the Broken Window Fallacy, you’ll understand the majority of the economic errors made by the government. In fact, Hazlitt’s classic Economics in One Lesson should be read by every child and adult. It should be read by elders and deacons. It helps you to understand how to think about economics.

Cash for Clunkers allows people to take in their old cars to a dealership in exchange for a maximum $4,500 credit toward a new, more fuel-efficient car. The old car must be crumpled up and destroyed. People take an old car that likely works and is likely paid-for and affordable, and exchange it for a new car that costs a lot more money. Most people will go into debt. They won’t be able to purchase something else. They won’t be able to save and invest the money that they spent on a car (I haven’t looked at car prices, but I’ll bet they are going up as a result of this policy, much like college tuition or anything else subsidized by the government). After each transaction, the government goes that much further into debt and society as a whole has one fewer, functioning car, and as a result is that much poorer. It’s a persistent fallacy that prosperity comes through destruction (e.g “World War II got us out of the Depression!”). Need I go on?

The media reports on this numbskull plan as if it’s a pretty swell idea. It’s working! Look at all the people in the showrooms! In reality, Cash for Clunkers is really nothing a handout to political interests (car companies and unions) and a bone for thoughtless consumers. It’s corrupt corporate welfare. It is an attempt to “goose” one sector of the economy. Since sales will fall off if it is discontinued, expect it to continue for a long time. The government doesn’t have any money and is going further into debt to pay for this handout. Its costs, like all the other debt the government is taking on, will be paid through the debasement of the dollar.

When you hear of a government program like this, it’s wise to ask questions like: Does the government have the Constitutional right to do this? What does it cost? How will it be paid for? Does it really benefit everyone or just a small number of people? What powers is the government assuming, and will it lessen my political and economic freedom? The last question is particularly important to get us beyond looking at immediate self-interest (“hey, I need a car, this is great!”). It’s easy to be corrupted by the state.

Everyone complains that the government spends too much and bureaucracies overregulate us. They do this inch by inch, program by program.

One other thing about the health care situation… When the wife and I returned from Russia a few years ago, we connected through Atlanta Hartsfield International airport. During the layover, we were struck by the juxtaposition of the trim bodies in St. Petersburg with the obese girths of the Americans waddling through the Atlanta airport.

People have long had easy access to doctors in our dollar-fueled economy. They have insurance through their employer that pays for most of their doctor visits (a relic of government laws stretching back to WWII). People can stay fat and know that the doctor is always there to provide low-cost medications to alleviate high cholesterol and other aches and pains that are often caused by carrying around an extra bowling ball or two in their gut or fanny. Given that health care rationing is inevitable even if we are spared Obamacare, I doubt many will feel the same way when it takes a year to get an MRI like it does in Canada. Just as people started saving when they realized that their house wasn’t a source of wealth any longer, they will probably start eating better and exercising when they realize that it will keep them out of an unpleasant health care system. Americans will be forced to do more in the area of prevention. I suggest everyone start doing it right now.

Of course, prevention isn’t 100%-effective. Accidents happen. People get cancer and have heart attacks despite healthy living. However, in general it’s a truism that eating right and exercising is healthier than being sedentary and overweight. A lot of medications would not have to be prescribed. People would get sick less often. They’d have fewer aches and pains. They won’t be tooling around the grocery store in those motorized carts because they’re too out-of-shape to walk the aisles.

Paul says in 1 Tim 4:8 that while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way. This is true and we shouldn’t make idols of our bodies. At the same time, when I see an obese preacher, I wonder how they can have self-control in their spiritual life if they lack self-control in their eating and exercise habits. I say this not as a superior life form: I’ve been 30 pounds overweight and I’m now about 15 points overweight. A box of donuts has often sounded tastier than chicken and fruit. However, one way we can love our neighbors is by staying out of the cluttered health care system once it becomes heavily rationed. We can show that our belly isn’t our god. We can have self-control.

It’s not rocket science to know that eating right and exercising (and I might add, using the means of grace) are part of living a healthy lifestyle. The trick to eating better and exercising is to find things that motivate you to do both.

Programs like Weight Watchers help you understand what you are eating. This motivated me. Weight Watchers has a formula where you count points based on the number of calories, fat, and fiber in a food. You get a certain number of points per day based on your weight, and can use the points in any way you please. You soon find that it’s better to spend 8 points on lean meat and lite bread than 12 points on a sliver of cake if you want to avoid your stomach growling all day. Weight Watchers remains with you after you move on from it. I still use its concepts. It’s second nature to do the math in my head (using the formula) on just about any food.

One of the consequences of our bubble economy was that people were eating out a lot during the boom. It’s surprising to see the extreme unhealthiness of most restaurant food. Check out the calories and fat in the foods at your favorite restaurant. It’s really hard to imagine how a restaurant can squeeze 141 grams of fat into a single burger, or 128 grams of fat into a chicken and broccoli pasta, and yet they manage it (a McDonalds hamburger has a paltry 9 grams of fat by comparison).

Exercise is the same as food: find something that motivates you. The best exercise is the exercise that you can and will do regularly. You may have to change it up every few months. Some people like to run. I don’t. Some like to power-walk or bike. Some like going to a gym with an ipod. Some like classes. There are tons of workout DVDs. My wife and I are doing P90X right now. It is kicking our behinds on a daily basis, but we have grown to like it and the instruction. I like its focus on ensuring that one gets plenty of protein. To survive it though, you have to follow the nutrition plan… French fries and pop tarts just don’t give you the fuel to get through it. The P90X people have other programs too, including a less-strenuous version of P90X called Power 90. It isn’t easy either, but real exercise isn’t. Get a heart monitor so you can ensure that you really are exercising. And get busy.

“Obamacare” is a disaster in waiting. There is no way that tens of millions of people can be added to a system while achieving cost savings (unless there is heavy rationing). The cost estimate I’ve seen for Obamacare is $1.6 trillion. As Ron Paul has noted, you can triple that with most government programs (case in point, Bush’s prescription drug plan). The U.S. simply doesn’t have the money for “national health care.”

Few have noted that the existing system, although preferable to Obamacare, is also doomed. Fewer indeed have noted that the health care system is already largely socialized; more than half of health care spending is Medicare, Medicaid, etc. And even fewer than that have noted that Medicare and Medicaid account for the majority of the unfunded entitlements (i.e. the difference between benefits promised and what will be collected in taxes and premiums). Medicare, not Social Security, is the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

In fact, according to these guys, Medicare’s future liabilities are $89 trillion. Let me repeat that: $89 trillion. To give you some perspective on how massive that sum is, total federal tax receipts for 2007 and 2008 averaged around $2.5 trillion a year (so far this year, receipts are down over 30%). Obviously there is no way the U.S. will ever pay for future Medicare liabilities. It couldn’t do it if it taxed everyone 100% of their income. The figures keep climbing, too. The government is adding another ~$2 trillion to the debt this year alone.

What the government should do is repudiate (or at least restructure) its current debt. It should use this framework to overhaul the health care system. The government should phase out all entitlements– all of them– because all of them are unconstitutional, unsustainable, criminal Ponzi schemes. For all of you who were expecting your Social Security and Medicare benefits, well, what can I say? The government already spent the money and then some. Don’t shoot the messenger. The treasury is empty except for a colossal mountain of IOUs. It is simply immoral for us to find more foreign government suckers to buy our debt (which we can’t ever pay back) just so we can have our “right” to costly health care. We don’t have a “right” to ride the backs of Chinese peasants who are forgoing their own consumption to fund ours.

So I’ve outlined what the government should do. What will it actually do? I’m guessing that it will do what it always does and take the path of least resistance (i.e. the one that’ll get politicians re-elected). The Republicans and Democrats will compromise on an awful non-solution or things will remain as-is. In either case, the government will keep trying to find suckers — the Chinese government, the Japanese government, mom’s mutual fund, etc. — to buy escalating piles of treasury debt. The promises will remain: “Don’t worry folks, your programs are safe.” Eventually there won’t be any more suckers to buy our debt, or perhaps escalating unemployment will trigger massive inflation as the government encourages the banks to start lending out their reserves (the reserves they gave the banks in exchange for worthless “toxic” assets). Don’t be surprised to see a full-fledged dollar crisis and massive inflation. Things will get ugly in a hurry. Eventually rationing will begin in earnest. People will slowly realize that all that Social Security and Medicare they were expecting just isn’t going to be there. Their money won’t buy anything. They’ll have full health care, but they won’t be able to get in to the doctor or get the treatment they want.

And the lies will continue until the bitter end.

[T]he Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. -1 Cor 9:14-15a

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. -Romans 12:18

Liberals and progressives like to talk about harmony and peace and unity, and yet their philosophy is by its nature divisive because it involves spending other people’s money. It involves the use of involuntarily-provided funds. If I have a bad experience at a restaurant, I can avoid it. However, I have to continue supporting government-funded schools. I have to continue paying for other people’s abortions. I resent this greatly. If you talk to people, they resent their money being used against their will, too. They resent having to bail out GM. They resent bailing out banks. They resent lazy state workers in their plush offices. It wouldn’t bother them if they didn’t have to pay for it. Harmony is the fruit of emulating the Apostle Paul. Resentment is the fruit of liberalism.

If it were only that easy to just blame liberals, though. Alas, we have seen the enemy… Let me explain.

The state of Ohio has a $3.2B deficit. The majority of Ohio’s budget is for Medicaid and Education. Revenues are declining and the bills for all the big spending are coming due now that the bubble has popped. Half of the people I know have jobs that are either directly or indirectly funded by the government. My own family is included. One sister works in health care and says “Help Medicaid!” Another, a former teacher, is averse to education cuts. Another works at a library: “Don’t cut library funding!” I responded that the state is deeply in the red, and cuts around the edges won’t get it done. Deep cuts are needed. They listen, but they still don’t want their favorite program cut.

This is why I have resolved, as much as possible, to never again work for the government or in a heavily-regulated industry (i.e. one that will get bailed out when it gets in trouble). It is corrupting. Those who support limited government make exceptions for their pet area. It’s usually an area that benefits their own wallet or one where they have emotional attachment. Their defenses always stumble over the same rock: they want funds that many people, in some cases most people, would never voluntarily supply. This will always create disharmony and resentment. Everyone is ripping everyone else off, and no one is happy about it. The guy who wants his car company bailed out doesn’t agree that farmers should be subsidized. The farmer doesn’t agree that bankers should get a bailout. The banker doesn’t agree that college professors should live high on the hog at the expense of others. And so on.

They’re all correct. They just need to apply it to themselves. Until this is done by enough people, the budget problems will continue. It’s easy to blame “liberals” — they fully deserve it — but budgetary problems and resentments will never cease until “conservatives” and “libertarians” stop being part of the problem by desiring to protect their own state-funded filthy lucre. This is what really props up big government.

The late libertarian, Harry Browne, ran a memorable campaign for president in 1996. I didn’t agree with Mr. Browne on everything, but among his keen insights was a question: “Would you give up your favorite program if it meant you never had to pay income tax again?” It’s a question more people need to ask themselves.

Beware the corrupting influence of the state.

We don’t burn our draft cards down on Main Street / Cause we like a livin’ right and bein’ free. -Merle Haggard

The late libertarian Harry Browne once called the Defense Department “the Post Office in battle fatigues.” I believe his point was that people often romanticize the military brass, but really these are just government bureaucrats.

After World War II, the Cold War arose, and conservative-minded folks became suspicious about opponents of war. Didn’t they want to fight communists? This divide deepened in the 1960s, when all the dopey hippies came along preaching free love and flying high. My late father, a WWII vet who fought under MacArthur, despised hippies. He rightly saw them as irresponsible cretins. When I was young in the 1970s, America was still fighting aggressive communism. Those who opposed the fight were distrusted, especially those who told us that if we were just nicer to dictator xyz, then they’d listen to reason and we’d all sing Kumbaya together (we see their descendants today who think Obama some sort of demigod). Middle American conservatives don’t like these people. They distrust those who oppose military involvement. They prefer Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

This was my own thinking on wars for a long time– I favored every war up until Iraq. It was then that my views started changing. I still can’t stand hippies, but I took a second look at the serious anti-war libertarians (as opposed to the liberal posers who’ve suddenly quieted down since their guy was elected). If we don’t trust the government in anything it does domestically, why should we trust its foreign policy wisdom? Perhaps the things they do there backfire. Perhaps they are motivated by non-altruistic concerns.

Consider these problems with wars:

• People get killed. Our soldiers, their soldiers, and civilians. It sounds simple, and it doesn’t mean that there aren’t instances where wars can save lives, but the fact that people are being killed should invite questions about the necessity of any war.
• Wars waste a lot of money. The government spends huge amounts of money to create weapons. Then it uses those weapons to blow up bridges and buildings in other countries. Then it spends still more to rebuild all those homes and bridges. Where does this money come from? It is stolen from the private sector. Debt and inflation attack the savings that could have funded real investment. A labor force that could have produced useful items instead is diverted to produce things that will be blown up. (This gives lie to this idea that World War II “got us out of the Depression.” This conventional wisdom is a fallacy, as historians like Robert Higgs have pointed out.)
• Wars divert resources from the private to the public sector. Any dollar moved from the private realm to the public realm enervates private society and strengthens the the public sector.
• Government grows bigger and more powerful on the heels of popular support for wars. This leads to new laws that expand government and lessen social and economic freedom. The late conservative Paul Weyrich noted that one should never give to your friend power that your enemy might one day inherit. If Obama’s popularity persists, will anyone be surprised if its administration eventually use all the new security powers given it by the Bush Administration to persecute all you 2nd-Amendment “terrorists” out there with your guns, or you unpatriotic elements who won’t hire unrepentant homosexuals? It wouldn’t surprise me. As we continue toward a cashless society, it becomes easier to ensure that no transaction goes unnoticed. We usually are told it’s all about “national security.” I guess it’s all just a coincidence that it eases auditing and taxation, and eliminates privacy.
• Randolph Bourne put it this way: “War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. … Minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion bitter and satirical. Loyalty — or mystic devotion to the State — becomes the major imagined human value. Other values, such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed, and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.”
• Empires are brought down by expensive wars. The US is, conservatively, $65-100 trillion in the hole now depending on which estimates you believe. Debt and inflation always accompany wars. The U.S. simply does not have the money to be blowing stuff up in Iraq or to be occupying bases across the globe. Necessity will eventually force many of these troops home in lickety-split fashion. Empire is the last stage before collapse.

I am not anti-war in blanket fashion, but I hate big government. I do not trust the state. Why should I?

Why should you, my conservative friends? I am not saying that all wars are evil. But be very skeptical.

When Peter Schiff goes on TV and spreads his bearish message, it’s never long before he’s called “Dr. Doom” and people joke about what a downer his message is. The idea seems to be that if you see a train wreck coming, you’re either suicidal or a doom-and-gloomer who needs to lighten up. Most Christians I’ve talked to seem content to “trust God” and do nothing. Many Christians have bought this triumphalist idea that “we’re America” and economic laws don’t apply to our “shining city on a hill.” Or they believe that something will turn up. I call it Mr. Micawber Syndrome.

Of course, we do need to trust God, but that doesn’t free us from acting. If you are mowing the lawn and you see a tornado coming, you don’t keep mowing and “trust God.” You run into the basement and then trust the outcome to the Lord. God works through means. A lot of warning bells are sounding. Will you heed them?

Folks, you need to get prepared now, mentally and materially and tell others who will hear to do the same. This brief talk provides a good start on practical ways to prepare for economic disruption. It won’t tell you to build a bomb shelter out by a creek. It isn’t going to tell you to buy a shack full of emergency meal kits. It will tell you to get a few months of canned food ready and start rotating it and making it a part of your lives. My brother-in-law has started a garden and learned to can. These are good ideas. Even if nothing happens (which I doubt very much), you’ll be prepared for temporary disruptions. You’ll have new skills.

The talk will tell you to get your, er, personal security in place. I’m a believer in concealed carry. If you can do in your state, then get your license and get in the habit. As the dude from Argentina will tell you, the place you’re likely to get attacked isn’t inside your castle, it’s outside your castle. Also, you’re doing a public service by creating a more dangerous world for criminals to inhabit. You can carry a lot more places than you might think. Oddly, in Ohio they put a silly exclusion in so you can’t carry in churches unless the church expressly allows it (hint hint, elders and deacons), whereas with most establishments you CAN carry unless prohibited (unless you’re drinking there) or unless (surprise surprise) it’s a government facility.

The collapse that seems likely won’t be a post-apocalpytic world where we wander through junkyards with shotguns. It’ll be more like Argentina. Savings accounts and retirement plans will be wiped out by a monetary crisis (debts will probably go with it, which is good for debtors and bad for creditors). The government will default on its bonds via inflation. Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs will show themselves to be Ponzi schemes and empty promises (You know all that FICA money they collected from you? Well, they’ve spent it.) There will be a period of crisis where things could get ugly, but then reality will set in. A lot more businesses will close. Office parks and buildings will be abandoned. Cities will see revenue sources dry up. We’re seeing it already. Tax receipts are WAY down. Capital-intensive businesses that can create stuff to export won’t be started because savings are depleted. The personal debt spigots — credit cards and home equity loans — are drying up as people’s credit limits are reduced or eliminated altogether. The government’s deb spigots are being slowly turned off by those who are tired of lending to our spendthrift government. The government, meanwhile, is busy attacking the foundations of prosperity (savings and production). They are spending like madmen. Due to the lack of work, and to escape taxation, people will start more of a subsistence style of living. They’ll grow their own food, make their own clothes, and do odd jobs for the neighbors. This has already started happening. Crime is going to more prevalent. The standard of living will be much lower. Material things will start looking shabbier because people can’t replace them. It’s going to be a long road out of what Mr. Schiff calls “our phony economy” based on debt. Those who saved and acted wisely won’t be spared; inflation will see to that, as will (likely) a more aggressively criminal government.

You get the point by now. Maybe it won’t be all bad, though. Maybe we’ll be blessed to see government and education bureaucracies collapse. Maybe we’ll have more freedom. Maybe we’ll be forced to learn how to make things and grow things again instead of just consuming things other countries make. Maybe people will realize that we don’t have “rights” to things that burden the backs of people in other countries (i.e. our creditors who are going to be paid back in devalued dollars). Maybe the government and popular culture will become more irrelevant. Maybe people will stop believing the false prophets (and false profits) in Washington. We can hope.

It’s a good idea to get in shape, too. That doesn’t guarantee our health, but in a world where health care is going to be rationed it’s best to try to stay out of the hospital.

We got used to a boom world and thought it was normal. The bust is now upon us. Get ready and spread the word as the opportunity permits. Don’t be the proverbial person battling someone at Walmart for the last bottled water on the shelf. Plus, if a panic hits, the last thing you want to be doing is helping to increase the panic by picking that moment to start hoarding resources. There will be a million people jamming the stores. They won’t need a million and one.

And remember: you’re probably going to need extra to help those who are blindsided or who foolishly refuse to prepare. A church can be a great blessing if its members are exhorted to be prepared. It may be worth talking about with your pastor, elders, and/or deacons.

Here’s a thoughtful article on McDonalds, one of my favorite dining establishments. The article makes keen points about elitist snobbery and the moral aspects of capitalism. A sample:

One of the reasons that the elites loathe places like McDonald’s, or Wal-Mart, or Target, or any of these places that cater to Everyman – and you might suppose that the champions of the workers and peasants would love these places – is precisely their capacity to rob the rich of their distinctive social markers. One day it was a sign of class and distinction to drink a latte; the next day, every construction worker is doing it.

There is a group on Facebook called “Cancel Student Loan Debt to Stimulate the Economy.” The group has just under 200,000 members (!). Its arguments are absurd, but no more so than any other arguments for bailouts.

At best, public stimulus is inefficient. At worst (which is where government decision-making normally resides), it’s downright destructive. Not only does it remove private savings that would’ve been used to create or expand real enterprises, it’s used for handouts to groups that stifle innovation, that regulate, that create bureaucracies, etc. We’d be better off as a country if the government just printed up all the stimulus money and drove it off a cliff.

I was reminded of this great old article by the late, great economist Murray Rothbard. Rothbard posited that the the answer to an unpayable public debt is outright repudiation. He distinguished between public and private debt:

If I borrow money from a mortgage bank, I have made a contract to transfer my money to a creditor at a future date; in a deep sense, he is the true owner of the money at that point, and if I don’t pay I am robbing him of his just property. But when government borrows money, it does not pledge its own money; its own resources are not liable. Government commits not its own life, fortune, and sacred honor to repay the debt, but ours. This is a horse, and a transaction, of a very different color.

What about the savers, the elderly fixed-income holders, and the foreigners hold these IOUs? Rothbard’s words were stern:

The public debt transaction… will be paid back not out of the pockets or the hides of the politicians and bureaucrats, but out of the looted wallets and purses of the hapless taxpayers, the subjects of the state. The government gets the money by tax-coercion; and the public creditors, far from being innocents, know full well that their proceeds will come out of that selfsame coercion (my exmphasis).

I for one had never really thought of it that way. Why hold ANY government debt? First, there’s no way they’ll ever pay it all back, and so, for example, the kids out there with unpayable college debts will likely make off with cheap and probably worthless educations (the government is the “creditor” for most college loans, but it borrowed that money from someone else). Second, why should I loan the government the means to extend its own power? Third, and most important, isn’t it immoral to hold debt in hopes of receiving interest that is forcibly extracted from others? I’ve concluded that yes, it is immoral. (That said, there’s no real way to get around holding some government debt since every Federal Reserve note i.e. dollar in your pocket is debt courtesy of the government’s counterfeiting operation, and legal tender laws force us to hold these false weights and measures. We have to swim to some extent in the cesspool.)

To those who argued that no one would loan to the government again if they repudiate the debt, Rothbard responded with a thumbs-up:

Apart from the moral, or sanctity-of-contract argument against repudiation that we have already discussed, the standard economic argument is that such repudiation is disastrous, because who, in his right mind, would lend again to a repudiating government? But the effective counterargument has rarely been considered: why should more private capital be poured down government rat holes? It is precisely the drying up of future public credit that constitutes one of the main arguments for repudiation, for it means beneficially drying up a major channel for the wasteful destruction of the savings of the public. What we want is abundant savings and investment in private enterprises, and a lean, austere, low-budget, minimal government. The people and the economy can only wax fat and prosperous when their government is starved and puny.

Anyway, it’s a great article on a topic that will be increasingly prominent in coming years.

Years ago, I worked with a software developer from the Ukraine. We were talking about something related to Russian politicians, and he abruptly looked at me and said: “They’re all creem-een-als.” Those of you who’ve known Eastern European emigres or read their materials know that they possess a certain biting wit. But this guy wasn’t joking. He meant it. He’d seen it. At the time, I laughed it off as hopeless cynicism.

Now I think I finally understand. I’ve really come to see politicians as largely a criminal class. Here’s yet another example.

There’s really no difference between this congresswoman and a thug in an alley with a switchblade.

This speech is to my ears an instant classic. Peter Schiff is not (as far as I know) a Christian, but he’s speaking the truth on the economy and the criminal actions of our government. It’s funny and pointed, with priceless reminiscences (MP3 version of the speech is here). Can anyone deny Schiff’s outrageous logic on how our government will proceed? The big ripoff is ahead– first for the Chinese and our other creditors, and then for anyone who holds dollars.

Such thievery by our government is downright embarrassing. Even though God uses even evil men in government for his purposes (Romans 13), I see more and more the truth in Murray Rothbard’s aphorism with each passing year: “The state is a band of thieves writ large.”

I’ve noted before that I believe that our debt-laden economy is headed toward collapse, and that this collapse will be worse than the Great Depression.

To digress a bit, I’ve noticed that churches that believe strongly in word, sacrament, and godly discipline attract solid, godly people. They also attract the occasional oddball, the kind of person you just won’t run into at your average (worldly) megachurch. Similarly, principled political movements attract great people, but also a few folks who are off-kilter. You’ll see eccentrics at a Ron Paul rally that you wouldn’t have seen at a McCain rally.

In Intellectuals, Paul Johnson noted Karl Marx’s journalism background and his apocalyptic, melodramatic tendencies. If you’ve read boards about surviving a crisis, you’ll find similarly apocalyptic folks who spread (imo) as much chaff as wheat (e.g. Alex Jones). Folks whose imaginations seem a bit overheated, who’ve maybe watched a few too many zombie movies and read a few too many novels. Just the other day I came across a thread where a man polled others to ask if they would eat another person if things were bad enough. The majority of the poll respondents would not rule it out. Alrrrrighty.

How do we approach the topic of “surviving an economic collapse” which is so attractive to crackpots and unstable people? First, one should be discerning, because history shows that strange people attract followings in hard times (a good church will aid in your discernment). Second, though, don’t throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater by closing your eyes to the real possibility of economic collapse. The road we’re headed down– the destruction of the currency– is a road other countries have taken. The result isn’t pretty. Although I don’t agree with everything this guy says, including his occasional profanity, posts like this are instructive (note: not for the squeamish) as we face a possible time of troubles in the next few years unlike any we’ve known.

After this post I will move on to other topics (at least for a little while), but one final addendum to previous posts. The U.S. House passed a corrupt and horrific bill yesterday whose final passage seems only a matter of time. Note how even the most conservative Republicans don’t have a counter-plan that drastically (or even nominally) cuts spending from current levels. Instead they want to add debt-financed tax cuts and construction projects. This is better than what the House passed, but worse than doing nothing at all, and much worse than doing something responsible such as cutting spending drastically. The last thing the country needs is more debt.

There is simply no political will to “act like men.” The populace has no stomach for it either. There will be more insanity to come. This is why I now think the end game, barring a powerful act of God, is economic collapse.

Since I first read it 15 years ago, a few lines always stuck with me from Nock’s Our Enemy the State. Before I get to them, here’s a little background in Nock’s own words:

Instead of recognizing the State as “the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious, and decent men,” the run of mankind, with rare exceptions, regards it not only as a final and indispensable entity, but also as, in the main, beneficent. … Instead of looking upon the State’s progressive absorption of social power with the repugnance and resentment that he would naturally feel towards the activities of a professional-criminal organization, he tends rather to encourage and glorify it, in the belief that he is somehow identified with the State … When the mass suffers any ill fortune, or simply feels some strong appetite, its great temptation is that permanent sure possibility of obtaining everything, without effort, struggle, doubt or risk, merely by touching a button and setting the mighty machine in motion. … [This attitude is] the life and strength of the state … When once the predominance of this attitude in any given civilization has become inveterate, as so plainly it has become in the civilization of America, all that can be done is to leave it to work its way out to its appointed end. … [Quoting Ortega y Gasset] “Spontaneous social action will be broken up over and over again by State intervention; no new seed will be able to fructify. Society will have to live for the State, man for the governmental machine.” -p.113

And then we come to Nock quoting Ortega y Gasset’s words, the ones I’ve long remembered:

And as after all it is only a machine, whose existence and maintenance depend on the vital supports around it, the State, after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a skeleton, dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome than the death of a living organism. Such was the lamentable fate of ancient civilization. -p.114

One can quibble with things here and there in Nock, but I believe this is where we are headed. At the height of its power and breadth, the American State as we know it will become a dead, rotting hulk of a machine. Woe to those dependent on that rotting hulk and its goodies (Social Security, Medicare, welfare, and a thousand other things). It’s time to make other plans.

May God have mercy on America.

They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another,We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep. -Luke 7:32

Watching clips like this makes me think that option 2 is the most likely scenario. The silliness will not end until it is forced to end through collapse.

Imagine a town near a volcano that is certain to erupt soon. The citizens go to a wise man and say “What do we do?” The wise man replies, “Send your gold reserves to a neighboring town. Pack up what you can take and get out of town.” The citizens reply: “But then we’ll lose our homes, silly! Imagine the upheaval! How can you be so cruel?” So the citizens decide instead to spend their gold reserves on fire hoses and shovels to combat the volcano, and they borrow money from a faraway town to build a wall around their homes. In the end, the volcano erupts, the lava wipes out the shovels and the hoses and the homes and the wall, and the residents flee with only the clothes on their back (and their debts).

This is roughly what is going on here. Ron Paul is telling people what they do not want to hear, namely to allow the market to liquidate debt. He is saying “act like men.” Be a grown up.

In the end, the debt will be liquidated. Many people will be unemployed. There will be upheaval. And the more we try to avoid it, the worse it’ll be. The jig is up.

The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it. -Proverbs 22:3

Many posts the last few months have been on economic and, by extension, political topics. This isn’t really typical for this blog, but the events of the last year have been game changers. I believe we have experienced a fundamental shift in this country. We have perhaps seen the end of Pax Americana. The worst is yet to come, because all indications are that Il Duce Barack’s worshippers will receive the shovels from King George’s men and widen the “borrow & spend” hole even faster.

The reason I’ve written about economics so much is that when the economy is fundamentally altered, everything will be altered with it: the church, political movements, social policy, the work force, our lifestyles, our neighborhoods, etc.

How will people react if our standard of living reverts to what it was in the 1970s? That may be a best-case scenario. What if it reverts to the WWII years? We could see the rationing of those years, but this time with the decaying remains of the boom years: vast swaths of vacant commercial real estate, abandoned cars, and neighborhoods filled with boarded-up homes.

If the dollar collapses, which is what the government’s policy of printing money and providing cheap credit is encouraging, we could see a return to subsistence living in a country where most citizens no longer know how to “live off the land.” Unlike in the WWII years, we have tens of millions of people who are (sinfully) living mainly off the declining assets of other citizens. Tens of millions more are receiving government money for everything from health care to retirement. What will happen when that money can’t buy anything? What will happen if there’s no food and no purchasing power to obtain it in the inner cities? Riots? Government confiscation of property and assets? Looting of the suburbs? What if cities cannot afford their police forces?

Men, this may be a good time to stock up on supplies and take the dust off that pistol or 12-gauge and relearn how to shoot it (as an aside, ammo and guns have been flying off the shelves, possibly because people expect the Democrats to find ways to achieve gun control via the back door of taxation and other regulation). Different perspectives will provide you with ideas for increased financial diversification. The mainstream financial industry mechanically tells us to buy and hold a mix of U.S. stocks, bonds, and cash, but what good will that do if the dollar collapses? “Safe” investments — fixed income, cash — aren’t safe any longer. I’m guessing the same is true of many annuities and pensions (those with government pensions will be safer, of course, since the government can borrow, spend, and extort from the private sector).

Whereas from my perch in IT I believed that the Y2K stuff was silly, I think today’s situation is decidedly different, and those who think this is nothing but Y2K-style fear-mongering are being foolish. There will always be those trying to make a buck or a name for themselves, and there will always be “black helicopter” crackpots, but the fiscal problems are real. Disregard both the right-wing talkers who defend the disastrous Bush administration and Obama’s idolaters. While we may see short-term rallies in the markets, we will have to pay our piper for the fiscal insanity.

That said, hopefully the posts on this blog over the past few months have not come across as fear-mongering. Fear not! (Ex. 14:13). In 100 years all of this stuff will just be evident to all as part of God’s plan, and there is no need to panic with our Lord in control. Instead I hope in some way these posts help you prepare for what may well be coming. I hope they will encourage you to observe and discern as events unfold. It’s good to keep our eyes on the effects of this.

These will be times that try men’s souls.

I’ve yet to hear anyone (other than libertarians) mention the absurdity of Congressmen, who preside over the largest Ponzi schemes in world history, acting irate about Bernie Madoff. Bernard Madoff Investment Securities is a piker compared to the U.S. Government. In fact, Mr. Madoff’s adeptness at swindling is probably just what the Social Security Administration could use to improve its own shell game.

Anyway, here’s one positive side effect of the whole Madoff situation. According to Illinois Right to Life, foundations investing through Madoff gave Planned Parenthood $734,000 in 2007. Now Child Murder, Inc. will have to deal with a cut in their blood money.

Who knows, maybe we’ll also see financial institutions who’ve long supported Planned Parenthood go belly-up, too. I’ve been wondering how long Chase and Bank of America have left on this mortal coil. Most banks are already bankrupt thanks to fractional reserve banking, but these two also appear to have lethal deriviative issues. But that’s a topic for the economists.

I’ve thought a lot about this issue over the years: In a general election, do you vote for the guy you believe in who will get .1% of the vote, or do you hold your nose and vote for the best major party candidate who can win? Lately I’ve leaned toward the latter because civil power comes through coalitions. But it depends on the candidate.

I no longer expect much of political parties anyway. Power attracts power-mongers like manure attracts flies. Obtaining power is all that really interests the parties that have a chance of winning, and I think that’d eventually be the driving force for a minor party that breaks through to replace one of our major parties (meet the new boss… same as the old boss).

An election like 1994 or 2008 may bring a temporary change, but a more powerful tsunami — the market — could well wash a whole lot of political parasites and their allies (e.g. the massive education establishment for one) out to sea. It will wash a lot of bystanders out to sea too. Government will have no choice but to shrink. The parasite won’t give up, but the host is weakened.

The year 2008 really showed me the bankruptcy of the Republican party on economic matters. Philosophically, it (finally) became all too clear that that the party sits on the same foundation as the Democrats: Keynesian counterfeiting, fiat currency, and massive government spending. Oh, the parties may disagree on who gets the money and how — farmers instead of welfare queens, health care accounts instead of the single payer model, a meaningless tax cut for taxpayers (since it’s occurring without any cut in spending) instead of a meaningless tax cut for non-taxpayers, a different type of Ponzi scheme for Social Security — but the premise is the same. The premise is the right of the government to spend trillions of dollars. Republicans can rail about big government all they want, but the cuts they support won’t make a dent in the trillions that our government continues to borrow and spend each year. Republicans don’t want to risk short-term unpopularity even if it’d position them strongly down the road.

America didn’t get to its current state of bankruptcy without Republican complicity. They say that they support the free market, but even the most conservative Republicans tell us that the government needs to smooth the business cycle, it needs to liquefy the markets, it needs to create incentives for home ownership, it needs to protect us from a greater meltdown, it needs to extend SEC regulation, etc. These phrases all mean “more government intervention.” In other words: We’re for the free market, but we’re not. Republicans are the Michael Corleone to the Democrats Sonny Corleone. They want to create mayhem, but in a more orderly and controlled fashion.

The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have been more fiscally irresponsible than the Clinton Administration and its Republican Congress. If you don’t believe that, look at the charts. George W. Bush has pretty much killed what little remained of the Republican “brand,” and Congressional Republicans spent whatever moral capital they had left when many of them voted for the bailouts. None of them (save one, more on that momentarily) have demanded that the Treasury and the Fed cease their irresponsible actions. They are working with the Democrats to hamstring future generations.

How will the Republicans ever recover? One way might be due to the sheer incompetence of Barack Obama and the Democratic congress. It’s too early to tell if Obama will be a popular fraud a la FDR, who charmed the public even as he greatly damaged the country, or an unpopular Jimmy Carter type who wears out his welcome quickly. The other way Republicans could return is the better way. There’s one guy who has had a principled voice in this mess, and he just so happens to be a Republican! Ron Paul understands that sound money is the basis for sound fiscal policy. Mr. Paul isn’t getting any younger, so the window for Republicans isn’t open forever.

We need a major political party in this country that stands for sound money. Look again at the charts to see the explosive growth in spending and expansion of the money supply since the U.S. completely abandoned the gold standard in 1971. This ability to spend via inflation (i.e. by increasing the money supply) has enabled the explosion of entitlements and programs that have done enormous damage to the social fabric of the country.

A friend of mine who supported the Iraq War (which I did/do not) has long said that if you don’t defend our country, then nothing else will matter. This crisis may show us something different: If you don’t defend the currency from counterfeiting and defend the economy by reigning in spending, and that includes the trillions the Iraq War will cost us before we get out of there, then you’re not going to have a country that has the money to defend itself. The days of buying everything on credit, including our armaments, appear to be numbered. How many empires have fallen due to bankruptcy caused in part by wars?

Friends, we will never drive a stake into the heart of Big Government without killing fiat currency. The parties used to argue money policy in the 19th century; they need to do so again. When powerful people can enrich and further empower themselves and their friends by stealthily (and legally) devaluing your savings, they will do it.

If the dollar collapses in the next few years and 200 million Americans end up back at zero, which could very well happen, those Americans may be quite willing to listen to what once seemed arcane. Experience is a harsh taskmaster.

Pastor Matt Timmons has a good post that informs this one and expands on a past post.

Has anyone else noticed that there are fewer Christmas lights at stores this year? It’s like retailers’ joy is snuffed out. Mine has increased; I wish there were more lights!

My 81-yr old mom told me recently that she sort of welcomes this economic downfall and a “return to what is important.” Despite the criminality of what the government has done, I think I understand that sentiment. I’m tired of conspicuous consumption: $5 lattes, BMWs, $300 toys, etc. These things may be considered blessings, and of course I heartily oppose forcing consumers to act as I see fit, but does anyone else think we’ve gone a little overboard? I’m tired of the Starbucks culture. I’m tired of the shallow, authoritarian movements that hatch from idle prosperity (e.g. the green movement, animal rights, etc).

Americans won’t be making economic decisions to buy paper that has the little recycling thing on them; they’ll be buying it based on what is affordable. It’s laughable that paper is considered “litter” that needs to be recycled anyway. You can cover old newspaper with dirt and it’ll soon break down and feed the soil.

Maybe people will start getting real jobs that build and push the economic wagon rather than the public-sector and non-profit jobs that simply consume what’s on it (not that there aren’t vital jobs in these spheres- e.g. the ministry- but they are in my opinion the minority). Maybe they’ll realize what an expensive joke our education system is and simply stop funding much of it, which will send a lot of people from the public sector into the private sector and lower education costs.

We may learn firsthand why our Depression-era forefathers were such cheapskates. If that doesn’t sound like happy news, well, we’re alive and we have warm homes and families. Most of all, we have a Savior who isn’t phased by any of this. The “things” are being shown for what they are– unreliable vanities. In relief the kingdom of heaven shines ever brighter.

Merry Christmas.

Just to give you a pictorial idea of what federal government has been up to this year, check out the graph on this page showing the expansion of the monetary base.

You watch this financial situation unfold and about all the Republican leadership does is (1) meekly fight to spend 75% as much and (2) call for tax cuts. Republicans who believe in tax cut salvation need to get it through their head: every dollar the government spends has to be paid for somehow. If you don’t cut spending, then anything you gain in tax cuts is simply going to be inflated away. Both taxes and inflation lower your standard of living and you are still all the poorer for it (in fact, economists argue persuasively that inflation is MORE insidious than taxes).

Let’s take an example. Say dad gives his son a credit card. The son spends $5,000 a month. To the dad’s complaint about this spending, the son retorts: “I’m going to keep spending that $5,000, dad (in fact I will be increasing it as we go), but don’t worry, I called the credit card company and they agreed to halve your monthly minimum payment.” Now, is dad any richer thanks to the son’s action? He’s still going to have to pay the tab. The measure of a politician on economic matters isn’t their support for tax cuts, it’s how much they want to limit spending.

Liberals and “moderates” have long told us (disingenuously, given their complicity) that we can’t “afford” to cut taxes. This may be why we so often hear Republicans reply with the supply-side canard that says when we cut taxes, more revenues come in to the government, and thus we should focus on tax policy rather than spending policy. However, while tax cuts may spur greater revenues in the short-term, all that does is encourage a spendthrift government to spend more. And again, every dollar the government spends must be paid for. Revenue isn’t the problem; spending is. Conservatives need to ditch supply-side nonsense and cross the Danube.

The government has no pot of gold, as Peter Schiff is fond of saying. It produces no wealth. It simply redistributes and destroys it. What we need are massive spending cuts that allow us to make massive tax cuts. We need to phase out programs that can never be paid for. Above all else, we need to abolish the central bank and get rid of the pestilence of fiat currency which is the greatest enabler of Big Government.

Not gonna happen, you say? You’re probably right. But until this country resolves to live within its means, we will be be prey to these horrid downturns and tax cuts will be meaningless.

The government is currently doing its best to destroy the dollar. Remember all the survivalist talk during the Y2K nonsense? I think we’re closer than we’ve been since the Civil War in seeing a massive disruption in this country. I’m not saying that you will be buying stuff in a few years with .22 rounds and cigarettes, but it would no longer surprise me if we hit that point. I also foresee the government taking drastic steps to deal with unpayable entitlement liabilities: nationalizing (ie. stealing) 401Ks and IRAs, repudiating debts to foreign countries, sudden currency devaluations, etc. They could do the wise thing instead, but when do they ever do that?

I believe that this country will be — financially speaking — significantly poorer in a few years than it is now. Obama will be the caretaker for the depression. And, like the abysmal FDR, its nurturer.

Returning from a wonderfully pleasant Thanksgiving gathering, my lovely wife and I discussed something Peter Schiff wrote in his The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets. Namely, the basic uselessness of most college degrees. Liberal arts degrees are little more than an expensive job screening mechanism. A huge education bureaucracy benefits while countless middle class families take on a boatload of debt.

We lamented how much useless stuff was involved in our own education. The typing and computer classes were certainly useful, but we sure spent lots of time learning junk like social studies instead of dirty-fingernail things like home repair, construction, appliance repair, car repair, hunting, gardening, survivalism, etc. Why aren’t practical things considered part of education instead of just theoretical (and perhaps effeminate) pursuits? The practical stuff will prepare people for any economic environment, including a forthcoming depression that appears more likely with every massive Keynesian attempt to avoid it.

Schiff is blunt. As a liberal arts major, I have to say the “ouch” that one says when the truth hits close to home:

In the past 30 years or so, our government and business leaders collectively shot the U.S. economy in the foot by encouraging a major transition from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one. Today, more than two-thirds of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is produced in the service sector.

Many U.S. residents see this as a good thing, and no wonder. A service economy has many lifestyle advantages for the people living in it. There are no smokestacks to interfere with the view from million-dollar-mortgaged homes, and no need to follow a demanding factory schedule. College graduates with useless humanities degrees can always find work pushing pencils in an accounting, legal, or financial firm. Best of all, no more calluses on hands or aching muscles from the physical labor many factory and agricultural jobs require. Plus production jobs are capital intensive, requiring major investments in plant and equipment; service sector jobs, by contrast, require relatively little in the way of capital– perfect for a nation devoid of savings. It sounds like a good deal, but there’s a basic problem. Just as an individual can’t survive by only consuming and never producing anything, so the United States in the global economy must produce as well as consume. The only way to do this is to export, and services, for the most part, can’t be exported.

… As Americans are forced to curtail their spending, demand will fall sharply for services like manicures, therapy sessions, and legal advice. p.189-191

During the years that the United States was dominated by a service economy, it didn’t really matter if students graduated with degrees in political science, communications, or other liberal arts. There was always some sort of clerical or administrative work to be found. With the service economy withering and the US. job market shrunken, those options will not longer exist by the time today’s students become graduates. For some, trade school might offer a more useful– and much less expensive– alternative. For others, a degree in a practical field such as engineering, geology, animal husbandry, or computer science will provide a fighting chance at a good job in the tough years to come. In addition, don’t neglect the foreign languages portion of your education. p. 202

There’s an episode of Star Trek where people on a planet walk about like zombies. Then the clock strikes 6pm and the zombies… go nuts. This is what our nation seems to be doing right now. The government is responding to a crisis it created by just… going… insane.

So GM, you snowed yourself under with absurd labor contracts and bad management? Have some money. AIG, you need another 40 billion? Here you go. Today we learned that the Fed refuses to identify the receipients of two trillion in bank loans. That’s two thousand billion.

I never expect Democrats to have sense, but that almost no one in the Republican party (other than Ron Paul) gets WHY all this is happening, and I just have to think that this is mass delusion. Is God bringing America to heel as he brought Nebuchadnezzar to heel?

We’re headed toward major inflation. It’s already way understated, which is pretty obvious when you look at how much more even stuff like fast food costs when compared to how much purchasing power you have. I’d rather be holding gold than dollars now.

I suggest everyone go out and buy a wheelbarrow. You may eventually need it to cart around your worthless dollars. Also, this book may help as you consider how to react.

People are finally cutting back and beginning to save, but the government is making up for that by spending an unbelievable amount of money that it does not have. Any savings people gain by prudence is being destroyed by government counterfeiting (what you save will purchase less because the currency is being devalued). It’s a like a guy who has five maxed out credit cards, and he says to himself, “I need to stop charging stuff. It’s time to start working and saving.” And our government, bearing stimulus checks and artificially low interest rates, responds: “No, don’t be irresponsible, we’ll give you another credit card, just keep the party going. Keep spending.” It’s like a national impoverishment wish. The government is slowly and effectively destroying this nation’s wealth. The Keynesians will never get it: spending doesn’t create prosperity. Instead, it’s savings and production, both of which enable you to spend money you actually have, that create prosperity.

And now we have Obama and all his brilliant ideas to look forward to: card check, more “stimulus,” more spending, fully nationalized health care… just what we don’t need. Change apparently means “more of the same on steroids.” (And more abortions). George W. Hoover seems to be making way for Barack Delano Roosevelt. Despite what the history books tell you, that’s not a good thing.

My pastor — perhaps the most thoughtful person I’ve ever encountered– believes, I think rightly, that the utterly irresponsible policies this government continues to pursue will have repercussions for the next 30 years. He believes that we may be entering a period where the church will not be a collection of free agents, but a community who will– out of economic necessity– have to really rely on each other. And that this may well used by God to empower the church’s internal unity and its witness to the world.

Jim Rogers is a hoot (and full of sense, too). They may have to relocate the Starbucks and other upper-class enclaves to the cornfields of the Midwest!

OK, it’s not over yet, and John Milhous McCain may still win, but if he loses he need look no further than to the week the financial blowup occurred. These bailouts are the federal government’s way of propping up artificially high housing prices, bad debt, and connected friends and associates at insolvent banks. Most of all, they are an attempt to pump life support into a system that is geared toward protecting the ongoing financial irresponsibility of the federal government.

If the race had a real fiscal conservative (e.g. Ron Paul) who flatly opposed these ongoing bailouts from the beginning, I believe that guy would be well ahead right now. Instead, McCain played the consummate insider and went to D.C. He couldn’t do otherwise; it’s just not who he is.

Despite being a self-proclaimed “maverick,” McCain, like George W. Bush, Dole, Ford, and Nixon before him, is an establishment Republican. It’s no surprise that his hero is Teddy Roosevelt. McCain’s “maverick” status was mostly built on taking liberal stands on environmental and economic issues. Anyone remember his silly campaign finance reform bill that liberals (and George W. Bush) were only too happy to support? How about his support for Kyoto? How about the prescription drug boondoggle he trumpeted a few years ago (also supported by W)? Yes, John the Maverick is against some earmarks and pork, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to, say, his prescription drug plan or the 300 billion he recently promised to back up bad mortgage debt. He rarely mentions the largest Ponzi scheme in world history, America’s social security system, which is where any serious reform needs to start (along with abolishing the central bank). McCain spends dollars while fighting to save pennies.

McCain’s “conservatism” was pegged long ago by R.L. Dabney:

Its history is that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at least in the innovation. It is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition.

The sad part is that as bad as McCain is on economic matters, Obama would be even worse. That’s saying something.