Your Vote?

I’ve been trying to educate people why voting for candidate A or B isn’t the only option.  This article  explains it nicely.

Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin recently published an article entitled “A Wasted Vote,” in which he expounds the virtue of voting on uncompromised principles, viz. voting for Chuck Baldwin, as opposed to casting one’s vote for what Chuck calls “the evil of two lessers.”

Here, I would like to offer an addendum to Mr. Baldwin’s points; I have a couple of observations of my own with regard to the old “wasted vote” argument I often hear when I make it clear to well-meaning McCain and Obama supporters that I do not intend to participate in perpetuating the American two-party duopoly this November:

1. In the grand scheme of things, in a national election, one’s vote is insignificant. That’s right, your vote is insignificant. The notion that a single individual’s vote might sway a presidential election one way or another is completely out of touch with reality. In reality, an individual’s vote has virtually no say over who gets elected president. With that in mind, on an individual basis, why would one not vote for a candidate one actually wants to be president, as opposed to a candidate one imagines has close to a 50% chance of winning and who kinda sorta represents one’s ideals, or who is perhaps a little better than “the other guy”?

2. Voting for a losing candidate has ramifications beyond the immediate outcome of an election. In other words, winning isn’t everything. Granted, as per the above point, the impact your vote will have is an infinitesimally small one, but nonetheless it will have an infinitesimally small impact. The support third-party candidates receive is duly noted by the Democrats and Republicans. Votes garnered by “far left,” third-party candidates–Ralph Nader, for example–are incentives for the Democrats to “move left” in an attempt to obtain those votes the next election cycle. Likewise, votes garnered by “far right,” third-party candidates–Chuck Baldwin, for example–are incentives for the Republicans to “move right” in an effort to secure those votes. On the opposite side of the coin, if you cast your vote for an establishment candidate, you are essentially assenting to the status quo via the voting booth. You are sending a message to the Democrats or Republicans that you accept the candidate, however lukewarm or otherwise terrible, that they have presented to you this election cycle, and that you will complacently vote for more like him or her in the future.

You just purchased AIG… Did you have a choice?

The Fed is Heralded as a savior.  

 

 

 

I’d like to present a dissenting opinion and it will only take a moment.  The Fed is a quasi-governmental entity — read private bank.  It is a very large private bank that oversees the money flows between banks with the exclusive privilege of creating and destroying money granted per the United States government.  I don’t know when the destroying of money has actually ever occurred since 1913 when the Fed was created.  

Tomorrow (9/17/2008) will be a grand day for the markets as they celebrate the saving of AIG, which if left alone would have hurt a many people and companies.  In the long run it would have been better for everyone and helped people realize that the income’s of taxpayers aren’t for sale <pillaging> if they were left to fail.  It would also have prevented a precedent from being created that the Fed can and will purchase anyone if need or desire be.

However, the Fed is able to say they are “rescuing” AIG, Freddie, and Fannie all in a very short period.  Here is a thought to ponder…

If I am able to create money out of nothing or thin air then why wouldn’t I want to seem like a savior and help out distressed companies in the name of helping the economy?  I don’t have a great answer why I wouldn’t.  If I can shave a few cents off of everyone’s dollar who will notice?  At first it won’t be apparent, but eventually there will be consequences, and at the end of the day I will be the savior.  The consequences won’t be traced back to me.  Like committing a crime knowing you won’t be caught… do you commit the crime?

Revisiting the notion of buying low (through fictitious money that is treated as real money)… I’m the Fed and create $85 billion dollars to purchase 80% of AIG.  Great so now I own 80% of its liabilities and assets. No, not so great because nobody knows what the actual value of the assets are. <Remember I can create money>  For someone who can’t create money this is a problem, and the exact problem AIG ran into.  However, with the ability to create money I can now continue to add more “cash” to AIG’s balance sheet helping it though the crisis.  At the end of the day AIG, Freddie, or Fannie have been saved all though Monopoly money.  They will once again be players in the “free market”, but purchased at a unbelievably low cost. FREE  

Conclusion:  You and I purchased AIG, Fannie, and Freddie… however we will never see a dime of profit in return.  Do you see a problem with this?  Yet, the Fed will be treated like a king for saving the financial markets.  Perhaps the right thing to say would be using someone else’s money to purchase a failing company and then profiting without ever returning that money to the “lender”.  

That is Default. Fraud. Theft. Robbery. 

Final thought:

Do you think that income taxes are legal and necessary according to the constitution of the United States?