Paul Tudor Jones rolls out “JUST” ETF with Goldman Sachs in effort to ‘modernize capitalism’

Today, June 12, 2018, legendary macro investor Paul Tudor Jones did a commercial free interview on CNBC to promote tomorrow’s rollout of the new ETF “JUST”. Jones is someone I have followed for decades and is someone worthy of respect as he has built a multi-billion dollar fortune while privately preserving thousands of acres of land around the globe. Jones has long had the confidence of life and business strategist Tony Robbins and recently opened offices on Palm Beach, Florida.

JUST Capital – Ranking America s Most Just Companies

“JUST” is based on backtesting the performance of socially responsible companies based on a nationwide poll of Americans to their definition of what it means for a company to be socially responsible. Based on that backtesting it is projected to outperform the Russell 1000 and the S&P 500. As one can imagine, there is a wide array of opinions about social investing and conscious capitalism.

First and foremost, there is nothing wrong with conscious capitalism and I personally would subscribe to many of its standards. Conscious capitalism is completely in tune with the base term of capitalism though some try and twist its true meaning. Before going further, I welcome JUST to the ETF stage so this is simply a brief examination of Jones’ interview and whether we need to “modernize capitalism.”

During the interview, Jones took issue with the Milton Friedman philosophy that the responsibility of a corporation is to return profits to its shareholders. Jones said, “When Milton Friedman said, that tax rates had just come from 91 percent to 70 and income inequality was one-fifth of what it is today. You can see how it was relevant at the time but fast forward to where we are today, it’s a different deal.”

I would argue that trying to redefine “capitalism” or “modernize” the word is an unneeded exercise. People need to understand what capitalism actually is as opposed to the distortions made by many. Capitalism is only the free voluntary exchange of value from one to another. That is it. There is no other valid definition. Where we run into the weeds is when we confuse cronyism and government force with capitalism. When a company uses government force or taxpayer money in the name of “economic development” to advance itself over its competition then that is NOT capitalism. When are corporate uses fraud and other deviant means to profit, then that is NOT capitalism.

An interesting fact not asked of Jones during the interview is that arguably the best investor alive today is Warren Buffett and he has long held through his Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) the same opinion of Friedman. Buffett holds that it is the duty of the corporation to profit well, compensate employees & stockholders, and through an employee’s personal income and investor’s profits of stock to donate to their preferred charity. It is not the corporation’s responsibility to be charitable, but to maximize profits. BRK and Buffett do not believe corporations should give charity directly but it is expected of their employees and shareholders to perform charity on their own terms.  So, while Buffett is personally the single most charitable man in America, one would be hard-pressed to find any meaningful charity from BRK. It is because BRK has grown to such a level that Buffett is able to personally be as charitable as he is.

It is important to bring up Buffett because he is mostly an equities investor as JUST will be as well, while Jones is more of a macro investor which extends far beyond equities. It will be interesting to see how JUST develops and performs over the coming years in its returns to investors and society as a whole. And by the way, although I hold Buffett in high esteem, he is not without his own flagrant crony capitalistic exploits.

Jones and Buffett do agree that the government is a horrible redistributor of capital and it is best to leave it to private business through voluntary exchange rather than forced government takings. Buffett has said, “The free market’s the best mechanism ever devised to put resources to their most efficient and productive use. … The government isn’t particularly good at that. But the market isn’t so good at making sure that the wealth that’s produced is being distributed fairly or wisely.” On the same issue of government redistribution, Jones said during the interview, “THAT’S THE WORST OF ALL OUTCOMES BECAUSE THAT’S THE WORST WAY TO REDISTRIBUTE INCOME.” Through JUST and his other causes, Jones is looking to redistribute wealth organically, outside the inefficiencies and force of government.

New Study Explores Crony Capitalism in Florida

The DeVoe L. Moore Center Blog

A new study published by The James Madison Institute by DeVoe L. Moore Center Policy Analyst Matthew Kelly and Center Director Samuel Staley explores two examples of crony capitalism in Florida’s government policy: sports stadium subsidies and film tax incentives. The authors urge Floridians to remain vigilant over the spending of their tax dollars by government officials and prevent the enrichment of special interests at the public’s expense.

Cronyism-Backgrounder-First-Page-2

View original post 215 more words

Tony Robbins’ new book is out this morning. Get this book!

It has been 20 years since Tony Robbins has released a book and this morning, 11/18/2014, is the debut of his new book “MONEY Master the Game: 7 Simple Steps to Financial Freedom.

robbins money book

Tony Robbins' new book is out this morning. Get this book!

It has been 20 years since Tony Robbins has released a book and this morning, 11/18/2014, is the debut of his new book “MONEY Master the Game: 7 Simple Steps to Financial Freedom.

robbins money book

Oprah and Libertarian Whole Foods Co-Founder John Mackey interview tomorrow

Oprah sits down with the co-founder and co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, Libertarian John Mackey, for a rare conversation about the mindfulness, creativity, adventure and love that goes into running his billion-dollar business. A strong believer in the adage “Follow your dreams,” John shares his inspiring personal story and why he believes it’s critical that we all strive to live more conscious lives. He and Oprah also discuss his New York Times best-selling book Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business.

Tune in Sunday, June 8, at 11 a.m. ET/PT on OWN. You can also join our worldwide simulcast on Oprah.comFacebook.com/owntv or Facebook.com/supersoulsunday.

Use this link to see a preview.

 

Gubernatorial candidate participates in March Against Monsanto in Miami today

Libertarian Party of Florida Gubernatorial candidate Adrian Wyllie will be in Miami, Florida today, May 24, 2014 to participate in the March Against Monsanto movement happening worldwide. Several Libertarian Party members across the state are also participating in the effort to educate the public about Monsanto’s political stranglehold on agriculture through crony capitalism. Libertarians support capitalism in its purest form; however are strongly against crony capitalism which perverts the free market from operating the way it should.


Read the rest of the story and details on the event in Miami.

The Education of a Libertarian

Link to original article: The Education of a Libertarian by Peter Thiel

Posted using ShareThis

by Peter Thiel
Reaction Essay
April 13th, 2009

I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.”

But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.

As a Stanford undergraduate studying philosophy in the late 1980s, I naturally was drawn to the give-and-take of debate and the desire to bring about freedom through political means. I started a student newspaper to challenge the prevailing campus orthodoxies; we scored some limited victories, most notably in undoing speech codes instituted by the university. But in a broader sense we did not achieve all that much for all the effort expended. Much of it felt like trench warfare on the Western Front in World War I; there was a lot of carnage, but we did not move the center of the debate. In hindsight, we were preaching mainly to the choir — even if this had the important side benefit of convincing the choir’s members to continue singing for the rest of their lives.

As a young lawyer and trader in Manhattan in the 1990s, I began to understand why so many become disillusioned after college. The world appears too big a place. Rather than fight the relentless indifference of the universe, many of my saner peers retreated to tending their small gardens. The higher one’s IQ, the more pessimistic one became about free-market politics — capitalism simply is not that popular with the crowd. Among the smartest conservatives, this pessimism often manifested in heroic drinking; the smartest libertarians, by contrast, had fewer hang-ups about positive law and escaped not only to alcohol but beyond it.

As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a libertarian politics appear grim indeed. Exhibit A is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and leverage, facilitated by a government that insured against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that the response to this crisis involves way more debt and leverage, and way more government. Those who have argued for free markets have been screaming into a hurricane. The events of recent months shatter any remaining hopes of politically minded libertarians. For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our education culminates with the knowledge that the broader education of the body politic has become a fool’s errand.

Indeed, even more pessimistically, the trend has been going the wrong way for a long time. To return to finance, the last economic depression in the United States that did not result in massive government intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom. The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”

The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it. Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom. Let me briefly speak to three such technological frontiers:

(1) Cyberspace. As an entrepreneur and investor, I have focused my efforts on the Internet. In the late 1990s, the founding vision of PayPal centered on the creation of a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution — the end of monetary sovereignty, as it were. In the 2000s, companies like Facebook create the space for new modes of dissent and new ways to form communities not bounded by historical nation-states. By starting a new Internet business, an entrepreneur may create a new world. The hope of the Internet is that these new worlds will impact and force change on the existing social and political order. The limitation of the Internet is that these new worlds are virtual and that any escape may be more imaginary than real. The open question, which will not be resolved for many years, centers on which of these accounts of the Internet proves true.

(2) Outer space. Because the vast reaches of outer space represent a limitless frontier, they also represent a limitless possibility for escape from world politics. But the final frontier still has a barrier to entry: Rocket technologies have seen only modest advances since the 1960s, so that outer space still remains almost impossibly far away. We must redouble the efforts to commercialize space, but we also must be realistic about the time horizons involved. The libertarian future of classic science fiction, à la Heinlein, will not happen before the second half of the 21st century.

(3) Seasteading. Between cyberspace and outer space lies the possibility of settling the oceans. To my mind, the questions about whether people will live there (answer: enough will) are secondary to the questions about whether seasteading technology is imminent. From my vantage point, the technology involved is more tentative than the Internet, but much more realistic than space travel. We may have reached the stage at which it is economically feasible, or where it soon will be feasible. It is a realistic risk, and for this reason I eagerly support this initiative.

The future of technology is not pre-determined, and we must resist the temptation of technological utopianism — the notion that technology has a momentum or will of its own, that it will guarantee a more free future, and therefore that we can ignore the terrible arc of the political in our world.

A better metaphor is that we are in a deadly race between politics and technology. The future will be much better or much worse, but the question of the future remains very open indeed. We do not know exactly how close this race is, but I suspect that it may be very close, even down to the wire. Unlike the world of politics, in the world of technology the choices of individuals may still be paramount. The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism.

For this reason, all of us must wish Patri Friedman the very best in his extraordinary experiment.

What about the poor?!

Link to original article: What about the poor?! by Davi Barker

Posted using ShareThis

Yes, my dear reader, it’s time to talk about that old objection. “What about the Poor?!” In my mental undulations through libertarianism that was the hardest objection for me to personally give up. In fact, to this day there is a little statist in my head who chimes in from time to time. So, for those statists who think that the best way help the poor is to elect a class of unaccountable people with a monopoly on coercive force, who put a gun to our necks and fleece our wealth, skim the cream off the top for themselves and then throw the bones to the poor I’d like to tell you about Larry Moore. There have been a handful of articles about Larry since March, but I’m not sure the state subsidized journalists at the San Francisco Chronicle fully realize just how instructive his story is. So, I humbly submit the following executive summary, and commentary.

For six years Larry was a homeless hapless drunk, living under a bridge, begging for “sp’ange” from strangers. Last September Larry acquired his own shoeshine stand, got himself a nice looking suit and starting earning $7 a shine. He hasn’t touched a drop of alcohol since. It’s not a lot of money, not a prestigious job, but anyone who knows Malcolm X’s story knows that shoe shining is the bottom of the economy for the entry level entrepreneur. Larry’s shoeshine business was so successful that the SF Chronicle did an article about him last March (1). They called him, “the best-dressed shoeshine man in the city.” And when they interviewed him he said, “I used to push a shopping cart in this town. Now I have my own business. I feel blessed every day!” You see Larry had a plan to save himself. He was squirreling away the money, and on his way to saving the $600 he needed to rent into an apartment.

Well, then some bureaucrat from the Department of Public Works saw the article and sought out Larry to inform him that he needed to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit. Christine Falvey, Spokesbureaucrat from Public Works, said the department’s contact with Larry was meant to be, “educational.” “We certainly don’t want to hamper anyone’s ability to make a living. Our educational efforts are actually meant to support that effort by making our streets an enjoyable place for people to visit.” Bollocks! So, Larry, this saint, dutifully attempted to comply with city laws and handed over almost every penny for this permit. Just one problem, Larry doesn’t have a valid CA driver’s license, and had to send away for a replacement birth certificate from Kansas. This bureaucratic SNAFU was described in a second article published on the 4th of June (2).

The response of the public was described in an article less than a week later (3). “Hundreds of customers flooded his make-shift stand with shoes and money in hand… After collecting nearly $1,000 from so many new clients, Moore is finally able to pay his way into some temporary housing.” Mabruk Larry!

So, why is this important? Because Larry’s story exemplifies perfectly exactly how the state (A monopoly on coercive violence) fails to help the poor, and the fair market (the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges) absolutely succeeds. In fact, it would likely be a better story if I could discover how Larry ended up on the street in the first place, but I can’t find that story. Let me explain.

In the beginning Larry is a broken man living in a nation with one of the most bloated federal welfare programs in the world, in the most socialist state in the union, in the most lefty pinko city in the state. If a violent monopoly was going to solve poverty anywhere it would be in San Francisco, and yet this guy slipped through the social safety net for 6 years. The state did nothing for this man, but people did. And if you examine it statistically you’ll see that the more tax money they take for the social safety net, the more bureaucratic and inefficient it becomes. So, we know no state solution is ever EVER going to solve the problem of poverty. However, we also know the fair market value of a homeless drunk to well intending strangers. This is the true social safety net, and this is a function of the fair market, the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges. At the very bottom, it is voluntary interaction in the market, not coercive redistribution of the state, that kept Larry fed for 6 years. So, despite estimates of 40-60% taxation in this country, the market is still providing for the poor. So, a coercive tax takes money out of the safety net that works and puts it into the safety net that doesn’t.

And now the little statist is screaming, “but without the government the poor will starve in the streets!” And I think that’s kind of funny. Is there some reason why you think people who wouldn’t give money to the poor would vote for a bureaucrat to take it from them by force? I mean, the fact that we continually vote for larger and larger welfare programs seems to me to imply that helping the poor is a pretty universal value in our society. If it’s a universal value we don’t need to be forced to act on it. If it isn’t a universal value… than we’re not going to vote for it. The very fact that nearly every single person I’ve ever had this conversation with instantly responds, “What about the poor!” tells me that we are good people. And we are able to help the poor without coercion.

Then enters the shoeshine stand. Entrepreneurship is how the fair market raises the poor out of the safety net. In a fair market absolutely everyone has value and can create wealth from nothing. With just a minimum of creativity and ambition anyone can begin earning money for themselves, and no one is worthless. Statism tells us that some people are worthless, which is why it usually results in some sort of genocide. By imposing a minimum wage the centrally planned economy raises the barrier of entry into the market and prevents people like Larry from participating under their own steam. People in Larry’s situation have value, and are prevented from earning based on that value because they have dropped beneath the minimum. They have to mow lawns, shine shoes, or wrap themselves in tin foil and put on a street performance. Why? Because these activities still exist in the fair market. Were it not for minimum wage laws Larry would have been allowed to prove his value to an employer by offering to work for a reduced starting wage. He could have swept hair in a barber shop for $4 and hour and earned $600 in less than two months. But no employer is going to risk $8 dollars an hour, and all the taxes, and liability that come with employing someone, on a homeless drunk. So, despite the raised barrier to entry preventing the homeless from rising out of poverty, the market is still finding value in the poor who have an entrepreneurial spirit. So, coercive minimum wage laws take jobs away from people who can prove their value in the fair market and gives jobs to bureaucrats who cannot prove their value.

And now the little statist is screaming, “but without government greedy capitalists will exploit the workers!” And I think that’s kind of funny. Is there some invisible difference between a capitalists and bureaucrat? We’re all human beings, motivated by similar needs, right? Yes? Ok, than what makes you think that a business owner, who interacts with people on a voluntary basis, must prove the value of their services, and must maintain a benevolent reputation or risk a boycott would exploit people more than a bureaucrat, who wields coercive force, has a monopoly on his services, and is only accountable to the public once in an election cycle? In your experience are violent people with no competition or liability more virtuous? I mean, the fair market boycotts products for exploiting dolphins.

Then enters the state. Can you imagine! The government that is supposed to embody the very social safety net completely ignores Larry for six years and then when they learn of his independent success swoops in and takes his every penny. Just when he was on the verge of actually lifting himself off the street he’s attacked by the third head of the hydra. Licensing laws. As I’ve said before, the ability of the state to license is the ability of the state to prohibit. If you need to ask for state permission it is not a right, it is a privilege. And I’m not sure what the reason for the “sidewalk vendor permit” is, but I know why it’s important to the Department of Public Works. Because everyone, the capitalist, the bureaucrat, grade school teacher, the celebrity, the poor, you, me, Barry Obama, EVERYONE acts upon market incentives. And the state acquires revenue through licensing laws. Plain and simple. The difference however is that the state is not required to prove it’s value. It is a monopoly on coercive violence. Willing to extort $491 from every sidewalk vendor, effectively keeping the poor poor.

And now the little statist is screaming, “…” Nothing. And I think that’s kind of funny. Because what’s he going to say? “Without the government poor people will all be selling stuff on the street! They’ll be providing value in the market, earning wealth, satisfying customers, and improving their condition!” And this is always the end result of any rational discussion about coercive violence. Eventually the statist runs out of arguments from fear and arguments from morality and has nothing left but irrational preference, which is a dangerous motivation when people’s lives are at stake.

Then enters the fair market. Larry was not saved by the state. Larry was saved by the fair market. All it took was a little advertising in the form of news paper article and there were hundreds of people lined up for blocks to get their shoes shined. Because the fair market is not only blind calculating heartless capitalism. The fair market is the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges. And in the fair market, in the hearts of people, the homeless have value, the down trodden have value, charity has value, Larry has value. And all that it takes for good to prevail to for people to live their values without coercion.

So I hope this has been helpful. Everything right and true is from Allah. Any mistakes are from myself. And I hope you’ll go to the corner of New Montgomery and Market Street in San Francsico and get your shoes shined by Larry Moore, the best-dressed shoe shine man in San Francisco.

Investment Guru Jim Rogers

By Tim Morrison

Tuesday, Apr. 28, 2009 As co-founder (with George Soros) of the hugely successful Quantum Fund, investment guru Jim Rogers had made enough money by 1980 to retire at age 37. Since then, he has spent his time jaunting around the world, writing books on his travels and investment advice with names like Adventure Capitalism and Investment Biker. In 2007 he moved to Singapore to get a front-row seat at Asia’s economic boom and also saw the launch of tradeable securities tied to a commodities index he created. His newest book, A Gift to My Children, is a compendium of advice — financial and otherwise — to his two young daughters. Rogers spoke to TIME about the book, why the Obama Administration can’t fix the economy and why he still thinks commodities are the best investment for the future. You have a lot of advice in your new book for your daughters, on money, education, travel, dating. Do you have any advice for boys? Well, my first advice to my daughters was to be careful of boys, and to be leery of boys, having been a boy myself. For the most part my advice for the boys is the same — be careful of girls. Be careful of people of the other sex. Be careful of wild promises. Just like on Wall Street. Let’s talk about Wall Street. Is there anything the government should be doing to fix the economic crisis? No, the government can’t fix the crisis. Everything the government’s tried for the past two years has been wrong. That’s why the crisis continues. The idea that you can solve a problem of too much debt and too much consumption with more debt and more consumption is ludicrous on its face. What they should have done is just let everybody go bankrupt, let the bankruptcy courts reorganize everything. The Japanese tried this approach of propping up zombie banks and zombie companies; it did not work. And it’s not going to work in America either. Do you think there’s anything to the argument that it’s just politically impossible to let all these companies go down? That it’d throw so many people out of work that it’d cause social turmoil? They’ll be out of work anyway, you know? In a way I don’t understand the logic. Whatever they’re doing, it’s not saving the day. We have the highest unemployment we’ve had in the U.S. in a few decades and it’s getting worse. You mention a few times the famous quote attributed to Mark Twain, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” What period are we rhyming with now? Is this an echo of the Great Depression or is there something else that would be more apt? The Great Depression started out with a stock market bubble that burst in 1929, as the world was going into a nice recession. Then the government started making mistakes. They passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, they raised taxes, they became very protectionist, and the next thing you know we had the Great Depression. In Europe they made solvent banks take over insolvent banks with the result that both [kinds of] banks failed. This has all been done before. History is — I don’t like saying it, but it’s repeating itself. Governments are making the same old mistakes. The market is up from its lows and the most recent unemployment numbers are slightly better; what do you say to people who say, ‘Well, we’re nearing bottom on this’? I think we’ve seen a bottom. I don’t think we’ve seen the bottom. If America’s determining its policy on whether the stock market is up for a month, America’s in worse shape than I’d realized. We could have a rally for who knows, six months, a year, we could have a rally for a while after having had the kind of collapse we did. In the ’30s the stock market rallied frequently. But in the end it was still the Great Depression. You normally say that you believe commodities are a better bet, but do you think now with asset prices pushed so far down that it’s a good time to start looking for undervalued stocks? Sure. Some companies are going to be screaming “buy” these days. In the 1930s there were people who made fortunes. If you’re willing and able to do the homework I’m sure you’ll find some great opportunities. But the only area of the world economy I know of where the fundamentals are improving are commodities. Many farmers cannot get loans for fertilizer now. The inventories of food are the lowest they’ve been in decades. Nobody can get a loan to open a mine, so it’s going to be at least 15 years before you’re going to see any new mines opening up. The world’s known oil reserves are in decline. All of what’s going on in the world is improving the supply fundamentals for commodities. And I don’t see that that’s true anywhere else. If the world economy is going to improve, commodities are going to be the best place to be; if the world economy doesn’t improve, commodities are going to be the best place to be. China has $2 trillion in U.S. debt. Do you think at some point these countries are just gong to say, “We’re done? We’re not going to keep underwriting your debt?” If so, what happens then? It’s not just China. It’s our own people who are starting to say, “Why would I buy something that’s being printed as fast as you possibly can print it, why would I buy something where debts are getting higher and higher by the hour, and interest rates are at historic lows?” Let’s not pick on the Chinese here. The reason I focused on China is you’ve said that the 21st century is going to be the Chinese century; you’re teaching your daughters Mandarin. Yes, well, we can pick on China, but remember, the largest creditor nations in the world are in Asia now — it’s China, it’s Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore — all the money is here. Even if the Chinese continue to buy, somebody’s going to stop buying that stuff. If I was the Chinese I wouldn’t buy it. I’m waiting to sell it short at the right time. Do you think this crisis is just going to solidify the advantages of China and these other Asian and Southeast Asian economies? Well, again, throughout history, the center of the world has shifted to where the capital is, where the assets are. You don’t see any period in history where things are shifting to the debtors, and America’s the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Unless something’s different this time, unless the world’s changed very very dramatically, the center of the influence, the center of power, the center of the earth, the center of the globe, is going to be shifting towards Asia, because that’s where all the money is. Have you ever heard of anybody saying, “Let’s go to where all of the debtors are”? It just doesn’t happen that way.

Enough Socialism! Capitalism is now dead in America

What is happening to the United States?

Our federal government and the Federal Reserve are rapidly dismantling the America we once knew in trade for a “quick fix” reminiscent of a heroin addict. George Bush was afraid we had an addiction to oil? How about an addiction to government bailouts.

Instead of letting companies fail we are bailing them out left and right with money we do not have. This is now going to cost us trillions of dollars at a time when our government is spending well over 25% of what is coming in from taxes. It is true that if the government did not step in to take over trouble investment banks, banks, and insurance companies that the economic system could potentially collapse as a result of both public fear and lack of trust in our currency, however these cash infusions & bailouts are only exasperating the problem. Whereas we were anticipating a very negative economic situation ten years from now (see I.O.U.S.A. documentary as an example), this year the government has multiplied the negative economic situation causing a more serious situation in five to eight years.

Looking at the spending demographics for the future…well…all I can say it looks very bleak with few places to put your money. So today, when the markets rise thanks to this new “solution”, people with a long term horizon of investing should be shorting the market. Oh, that’s right, I almost forgot, the government has put into effect some mechanisms no longer allowing you to do so! What a convenient way to falsely prop up the market – do away with things that could potentially pull it down and everyone can continue on in the blissful Matrix. Enjoy the market’s rally for so long as it lasts.

The smarter money is leaving this country by the billions. And when Warren Buffett pulls out of insuring bank deposits, you know the game is up.

It is a sad day when so-called Wall Street capitalists have traded in that hat for one that is socialistic, if not communistic. And why are they so willing to give in? To save their own hide.

Although I have used the blog for other things, look for more commentary on the financial markets in the future.