Stock Market Down - Dollar UP

The stock market took a huge hit yesterday and lots of people are screaming about it but they dollar is up almost 6 cents against the Euro since Sunday evening. That's a significant jump.

A stronger dollar is much better for this country than a falling stock market.

Oil fell on news of the bailout failure but has rebounded a bit.

We need to just let it be and not force a bailout through Congress. We'll endure the pain and recover. Not only will we recover faster, the rest of the world will too.

The Fed might be eying a rate cut to get things going. That will drop the dollar unfortunately. I know it's tough when business can't get credit lines to stay to stay afloat but we rely on credit too much as it is which is why we have a negative saving rate in this country.

Doing nothing will also cool demand for oil even further for a while as we enter in to a short term recession which will drive oil prices down even lower during the tough times to come.

The least harm Congress can do now is nothing. Let's just hope Bush doesn't declare a national emergency and sign an executive order and force the bailout over the objections of Congress.

Static Thinking About The Market

I've heard from several people who are arguing that the government must do SOMETHING to help us out of this "crisis" we're in with the credit markets, toxic assets, etc. If the people telling me this were normally of a socialist bent I could understand and I'd let it pass without comment but they're generally very conservative leaning Republican types.

Their thinking goes like this: We need some sort of government intervention in this market because it's so broken that the market can't fix itself. This is what we pay our taxes for. I don't like the bailout but its better than ending up in a depression. They don't care that there's no Constitutional authority for it, the market is too corrupt to be left on its own.

Is the market corrupt? Sure, sometimes. But ask yourself, what's more corrupt, the market or the government? Here's what people don't seem to get; if the government wasn't involved, the market would have a different nature than it does now. If we have a market that the government can so easily usurp, then we don't have a free market to begin with.

The government needs to step away and let it reform itself with a lighter regulatory framework. Risk will be priced in to the investments. If there is fraud, prosecute. But to break stupid regulatory rules that aren't actually fraudulent only inhibits the market and prevents true market reform from taking place.

I'm not just pointing to this crisis. Start thinking in terms of drastic change in the very nature of the market. Think of it as a swap meet for investments. Sure, some people are going to lose, but the market will take care of that by drying up funds for it. The competitors will keep an eye on each other and bark loudly when someone is out of line. The market would actually simplify and be easier for amateur investors to understand.

This is the problem when you're talking about reform of any system. We can only seem to picture tweaking how things are now. We can't imagine such serious change that the entire current model has to be thrown out. Who'd have thought 30 years ago that electronic trading would be available to people sitting at home in their underwear? Who'd have imagined that the transaction cost of a trade would be so low? Despite the heavy regulations, the market found a way.

Change your mode of thinking. Things can change. Government does not have to be involved to fix problems (even this big). We just have to stop accepting the lies and the vomitus spewing that comes from the media and the politicians. They don't know how to control a market, they only know how to destroy one.

Live Blogging - The Debates

Starting off.... Obama is an idiot

McCain answers... he's an idiot too.

Forget it. They're both idiots.

Write in Ron Paul.

Are You A Forex Trader?

If any of you are involved in the forex market, let me know. I'd like to discuss tips, techniques, strategies, etc.

Send me an email, my address is on the right.

Very Bad Doctrine

I attended a church the last few weeks that I thought was going to be really cool. Unlike the flashy churches that just seem to want to entertain us, this place was pretty laid back and didn't seem to care about being "culturally relevant."

The church is called The Gathering At Corona and the pastor is Ken Peters.

Week number 1 was fine. Good place. I decided I was going to go back.

Week number 2 was pretty good. Pastor claimed to be a prophet which I don't have any trouble with but I've seen to many false prophets in the church simply to take them at their word I was going to look for a bit of evidence. Skeptical yet optimistic. After the service, the pastor came up to me, we chatted for a few minutes and he suggested I call his secretary to arrange a lunch meeting so we could get to know each other better. Hmmm I'm thinking I really like this pastor. On the way home, I asked Little Dif what they talked about in Sunday School. This is where I got concerned. She told me that they were teaching them to speak in tongues. "What? What do you mean? How were they teaching you to do that? You mean they were teaching you about it?" She said, "No, we even practiced, first for one minute, then two minutes." RED FLAGS!!

Yet I remained calm and I considered this might be the work of an overly enthusastic, but obviously wrong Sunday School teacher. Since I was planning to have lunch with the pastor, I wanted to bring this to his attention and make sure the situation was dealt with. Certainly he would see the folly of teaching young kids (or anyone) HOW to speak in tongues. I had a busy week and didn't set up the appointment but I remained optimistic and so I went back for...

Week 3 which was today. Little Dif wasn't with me today but I remained optimistic and I would tell the pastor we'd definitely have lunch this week. It never got that far. About 15 minutes in to the worship, he started encouraging those with the gift of tongues to start speaking out. Just to be clear, he was encouraging everyone to do it at the same time. There was no order to it, there was no interpreter, just lots of shouting in gibberish. He explained right away that it was a misinterpretation of scripture that we weren't supposed to speak in tongues without an interpreter. So I sat down and right away opened my Bible and scanned through 1st Corinthians 14. Ah, there it is! Verses 26-28. NASB

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one interpret; but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

Really does it get any more clear than that? I took out my notebook and started copying those three verses on to my paper. I wrote a little note to the pastor on the bottom telling him that what he was teaching today was wrong and to please call me to discuss it and I left my contact info. I struggled for a bit with what to do with the note. I thought about going up and slipping it on the podium and walking out. I thought about giving it to an usher but I wasn't sure he'd get it. I thought about interrupting the whole thing and having a little debate with the pastor right there. I said a quick prayer and as soon as I did, I remembered seeing a sign in the parking lot RESERVED FOR SENIOR PASTOR. So I walked out (no one noticed, they were in the middle of worship), slipped the note in the slightly open window so it landed on the seat and I went home.

At first I hesitated to put the name of the church and the pastor in this post. But I decided I'm not spreading rumors or gossiping. People need to know where bad doctrine is taught. This pastor is teaching bad doctrine in clear contravention of scripture. The pastor might call me back but I'm not holding my breath.

**Note to Pastor Ken: If you happen to come across this blog entry and you are willing to correct your error, please contact me and I'll be more than happy to remove this post AND come back to your church. My email address is here on my blog, contact me there.**

Just Say No To Chrome

Google just launched their new browser to complete with Internet Exploder 8 and Mozilla Firefox (and I suppose to some extend Safari). Is Opera even a factor? I don't think so.

I tried Chrome. You can find it here. Initially there were some very loud complaints in the EULA that they could redistribute any content you created through their browser. They removed it. That alone would have kept me from using it.

Really though, the main reason I'll stick with Firefox for now is because of the sheer number of plug-ins available for Firefox. The best one of course is AdBlock. I've been using it for a while now and on that rare occasion when I have to use IE or I have to use another computer, I'm shocked to find ads on my favorite sites. I forget they're there. Apparently there is a much discussion over which plug-ins people want so I'm sure they're coming.

I think the main reason I won't switch any time soon is because I just don't trust Google enough. They've already got my email. I already use them for Blogger (I plan to switch one of these days). I don't need to have Google involved in my entire on line experience.

So, just say NO to Chrome!

An Unintended Compliment

Gloria Steinem pays Sarah Palin an unintended compliment.

Steinem said: Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.

Seriously, could she have given Palin a better compliment? I think not.

She goes on to say: She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Wow! What a way to make a woman proud! I think Gloria Steinem is on Palins payroll.

SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT!!

An Idea Who's Time Has Come

In response to a comment left by Ken P. to an old post related to big alcohol producers, I started thinking about a few things.

It occurred to me that we essentially subsidize the production of alcohol with tax money because the farmers who produce the grain receive tax subsides from FedGov. The alcohol producers then purchase this grain at what would otherwise be less than market prices.

So I had the idea that Congress should pass a law, (to help the children of course) that would end farm subsidies to grain producers that sell to alcohol producers. For me, this has NOTHING to do with the issue of consuming alcohol or protecting anyone from anything. The left has long used incrementalism to push their agenda and it's about time that we do the same.

I sent an email to MADD using the general inquiry form on their website. I have no love for this organization. They are authoritarian busy bodies and I'd like to see them disband for lack of funds. However, I'm willing to let them do my bidding on this issue.

Here is what I sent:

Please forward this to the president of your organization.

As you may know, farmers receive enormous subsidies from the government to grow their crops. In return, large quantities of grain are either sold to or already owned by alcohol producers. In essence, we, the taxpayers of the United States, are subsidizing alcohol production.

MADD is the perfect organization to spearhead a campaign to eliminate farm subsidies for grain intended for alcohol production. You have the resources and the clout to get a project like this before Congress.

Compliance might be difficult but not impossible and I'm sure your staff could come up with a reasonable solution that would not include a cumbersome new layer of bureaucracy. Compliance would include huge fines for falsifying purchase records, etc. I will leave the details to you and your legal team.

I would love to see this happen. With a new administration coming on board soon there will be children in the White House no matter who gets elected which would be an excellent background from which to approach this issue.

Thank you for your full attention to this matter.