Letters to the Editor
bostonMA
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 22
-
Free markets?
[Read the article: The crash in Republican economics ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These markets are far from free, though they are no doubt the result of current Republican policies and Alan Greenspan.
Free markets mean freedom from government, including today's policies born entirely of purchased influence and cronyism. Free markets mean freedom from taxpayer bailouts of risk takers like Bear Stearns and Countrywide by the government and Federal Reserve. How are we ever to expect different behavior by these firms and their peers if they know that there are no negative consequences to their actions, as if the government requires all of us to insure them against risks they take?
One step towards a free market would be abolition of the Federal Reserve and its monopoly on money creation. Why must we accept a currency whose value can be destroyed at will simply to prop up hedge fund investors and investment bankers, fund rampant waste in contracts to corporate America through coercion of the taxpayer, and even fund endless wars without consent of the citizen? The central bank and government money creation make all of this possible in the first place. Why do so few understand that this single mechanism, the Federal Reserve, allows for the simultaneous destruction of our legacy, global stature, and national wealth by allowing government a checkbook that never has to be balanced? To say nothing of the individual freedoms we have relinquished in the name of our security. If people had to fork over ten of thousands of dollars to fund these escapades in taxes every year no politician who supported them would survive.
This monetary system invites government abuse through the most pernicious tax of them all: inflation.
While the government can create all the money it wants, it can't create wealth and purchasing power, as we have seen in the price of oil, food, education, health care, and almost everything we consume. Ask anyone on a fixed income, or the majority who are trying to save for a retirement in US dollars.
The artificially low interest rate policy by the Federal Reserve under Greenspan was the genesis of the housing bubble, not lack of regulation. The Federal Reserve left rates at under 2% (and as low as 1%) for two years. If mortgage rates were 10% instead of the artificially-low 3% everyone "enjoyed", would people have been speculating on housing prices to begin with? Few would have been purchasing $500K homes with interest-only and teaser rate ARM's that cost $60K per year in payments instead of $1500 a month. At the time, let's not forget that homeownership among virtually every segment of society was hailed by politicians on both sides of the aisle. All of this subsidized buying did nothing but raise demand and bid up home prices, making homes less affordable for everybody. This low interest catalyst created incentives to create ever more innovative debt structures in the financial system - like subprime and Alt-A CDO's - and also spawned an orgy of consumer overconsumption from false home equity! Place original blame where it lies: with government, fiat money, and central bankers.
Count me among those who would like to see a return to true free markets. Free from the monopoly money that this government creates to bail out risk takers. Free from unchecked government spending. Free from politicians who purchase the next election with false entitlement promises to voters, only to pay for their power with trillions in debt for our children.
If the dollar had not been obscenely debased and simply kept a value like the Euro, oil would cost about $55 - $60 a barrel instead of the $105 we see today. If the dollar were pegged to a permanent store of wealth (like gold), oil would still cost $30. Oil prices have little to do with cartels, instability, or Iran's power supply... and everything to do with an immoral and unconstitutional monetary policy.
-
... and a lifetime of consequences
[Read the article: Five years of Iraq lies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is as well reasoned synopsis of the shifting justifications used by this administration to frame the dialogue and rationale for continued engagement in Iraq, and speaks honestly to this government's elusive definition of success in the region. It's a useful reminder of how a pliable press and apathetic public enable the worst forces in government.
While the administration has been highly successful in creating the boundaries of discourse on Iraq, defining the effort in terms of national security, democracy, and morality, in fact the United States has never been at more risk for retribution by highly motivated interests in the region as a result of these policies. To this growing threat we have only ourselves to blame. Somehow, our only answer has been to broaden the definition of "terrorist", "terrorist state", and demand new calls for actions against a broader set of "rogue" and "dangerous" powers in the region, like Iran.
Our policies are not only unjust, unconstitutional, and unwise, but have bankrupted our nation and our destroyed our world standing, our dignity, and the individual freedoms that generations before us fought so hard to achieve.
-
Mankind's disgrace
[Read the article: An Olympic disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the deliberate torture or destruction of a sentient, thinking, and feeling being demands only passing moral consideration, what construct protects humans from their fellow man?
What number of beings should one human be allowed to sacrifice for their pleasure before the taking is too great? 1? 1,000?