As all my readers should know, I'm against deficit spending of any government in any condition. There is just no reason for it. With that said, people often say that "we're borrowing from the future". I do agree that the future will have to pay it back, but my beef is with borrowing from the future. Can you do it?

You Can't Borrow From The Future

People usually look at money the wrong way and the idea of debt. Money is just paper that is a representation of value. Just because you print more off, doesn't mean the world is more wealthy or that you "borrowed" from the future.

The proper way for the government to deficit spend is by offering the market bonds. What happens is that money leaves the economy and goes to the government to spend. The net change to the economy is zero.

Or if you need a real world example - borrowing money from a friend. If I borrow $100 from you, the net gain to society is zero. I have $100 more, you have a $100 less, so it all balances out.

The main point you need to understand is that government deficit spending requires money to leave the economy in order for things to balance out.

Does the government function this way?

Does the government really take out of the economy what it uses in deficit spending? IE: Does the government issue bonds for trillions of dollars worth of debt? No it doesn't.

Basically the government is just inflating the supply of money. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, money isn't value, but a representation of value. If a marketplace has 100 units of value, no amount of printing money is going to change that value.

Government Spending Can't Stimulate The Economy

There is no way for the government to do it, especially with deficit spending. No amount of money that is created through the banking system in the form of debt is going to change the fact that society has only 100 units of value. All the government can do is tax and redistribute wealth in the market, which leaves a net loss to the marketplace.

Essentially Obama, Bush and many of the governments around the world think that they can spend government money and everyone will be wealthier. Since it is impossible for the government to produce a net gain to the market, it is useless.

The real issue is with deficit spending to achieve this effect. You can't borrow value from the future because all that exists is value of today. When money is inflated, you get inflation. I understand that we don't have any inflation now because we are on a deflationary cycle. Inflation will come in the future, but economic growth will not.


Posted by Christopher | 4:55 PM | | 0 comments »

In today's society, religions don't pay any form of tax. Understanding a little history will show you how we got to this state. When you go back in time, you'll notice that state and religion were one. Governments and countries were created around a central religion. This ended up alienating others and most of them fled to North America to avoid this.

The idea back then was that religion and churches couldn't survive without the government. Soon separation between church and state was created in the United States after the revolution. We learned that religion could in fact survive without the state backing it.

It was still believed that religion was fragile and couldn't handle the burden of tax, so they don't pay it.

Religion Should Pay Taxes

This is my stance, even though I'm not a person that approves of taxes. I do believe that the government should treat everyone and everything as equals, so I don't see how it can view one entity as taxable and an other as no tax, depicted on the basis of a "religious" belief.

1. Religious Status is Vague/Unknown/Esoteric/Undefinable

My first argument for taxing religious institutions is on the very nature of how "religion" is recognized by a government. No one is really sure how it is done.

What makes Christianity more of a religion than a person that believes in the moons?

What separates a religion from a cult?

Can I form a religion?

Do I have to believe in God?

Do bureaucrats have to approve my "religion"?

Does the religion have to believe in mystic things or can it be based on reality?

Can my house be a religious temple and not be taxed?

There are no answers to these questions from a government. Since there isn't one, than it doesn't seem fair to allow a "religion" to not pay taxes since there isn't much on the subject of becoming a recognized religion.

2. It's a subsidy

Subsidy with a lack of taxes is very misunderstood. Lowering or even eliminating taxes is not a subsidy. Lowering or even eliminating taxes while others have to continue paying is a subsidy. There is no debate.

It's no different than living with your parents without paying rent. They're providing the house, food, warmth, electricity, etc and you're not paying. It's a subsidy.

Religion is granted protection with the police, national defense, fire fighters, roads, etc etc etc and it doesn't pay a cent.

3. Religious Agenda

The fact that people believe in a false reality with God(s), pixies, angels and any number of mystical beasts doesn't entitle them to a tax break. The real question is whether government should be promoting specific institutions with the attempt to persuade people. What the government is saying is that religion is important and that the government needs to help people find it by giving it an advantage in the marketplace of ideas?

If you want to "find" something, you do it yourself. We don't need a government promoting the concept of "religion" on the masses. We'd all be better off if the government would step out of the religion debate and stop trying to persuade people. If religion can't survive without a huge government tax break, than maybe religion needs to fail?


There are a lot of people that view religion as very charitable institutes and that is reason enough not to tax them. I'm questionable of altruistic intentions of "charity" since people are better off spending their money on themselves. Without creating a huge essay, I'll sum it up like this; Bill Gates as a cut throat greedy profitable business helped more people than philanthropist Bill Gates.

I'm off subject now. When you get down to it, religion isn't charity, but an irrational agenda. Charitable groups have gone to Katrina for example, but would only help you if you listened to their indoctrination. I suppose that prerogative comes with freedom, but that shouldn't warrant them a tax break.


Religion has also started to accumulate a lot of assets and real estate making them a very rich "religion". I have no problem with anyone or anything getting rich, but since these religions don't have to pay taxes, they invest their "earnings" and buy up real estate against competitors that have to pay them, this isn't fair. We're not talking about small assets, but hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it. Does it seem fair that competitors with the same balance sheet have to be taxed, while a "Preacher" does not? It isn't fair.


To conclude this post, religion doesn't deserve a subsidy in the tax code system. In the marketplace of ideas, you must compete and the government must not tilt the playing field in any one direction. Religion doesn't deserve to be tax free. There is no logical argument for it, unless every other person and business gets to go tax free as well.


Posted by Christopher | 2:12 PM | , | 2 comments »

I thought it was about time that I did a post on global warming because I'm disgusted with what is being done in the name of "science". There are a lot of things missing and I think anyone with their bachelors in any science degree would notice this.

Ordinary people seem to blindly accepted what is being told to them without fully understanding. Scientists are not Gods and what they say doesn't necessarily make it true.

Prior Belief

If a scientist believes global warming is real before they do a test on it, what do you think they will conclude? Global warming is real. If a scientist believes global warming is a farce before they do a test on it, what do you think they will conclude? Global warming is false.

If you have strong beliefs on something before you look at the data, than you're going to rationalize the data to fit your belief and conclude that your belief has been proven. You're going to make assumptions, all studies have assumptions, on what things mean and you'll inevitably conclude to your belief.

A lot of people don't understand this and that is why we're having a hard time getting anywhere. Prevailing belief has always been against progress of knowledge. It doesn't matter if it is religion or people that believed the earth was flat. Due to the massive global warming propaganda machine, people believe global warming is real and they'll do anything to rationalize it.

It's pretty apparent that if it is hot in your town, that's not an observation of "global" warming, yet it seems to be good enough for the likes of Al Gore to use it as data. Yet, if it is cold - you never see the double standard. Belief is a powerful tool in the area of science.

Josh Willis Global Warming Studies

Josh Willis is a NASA scientist that measured ocean temperatures. From 1993 - 2003 they came up with some warming values. From 2003-2006 there was a significant decline in these ocean temperatures. He published his paper and guess what his conclusion was... global warming is causing this. Essentially all the melting ice caps were cooling the water supply.


A few years later Josh Willis revised this paper. He ended up removing data he believes to be an error and this ended up showing that the oceans were indeed getting hotter. Guess what his conclusion was... global warming is causing this.

John Willis Rationalization

Does anyone see the inherent bias? Essentially in his mind global warming is real. It didn't matter which way the data was going to come out, he was going to rationalize it.

If the temperatures got colder, it was due to global warming.

If the temperatures got warmer, it was due to global warming.

You can also bet if the temperatures remained the same he would conclude some proof that global warming caused it.

Anyone that is a global warming believer should see the inherent problem with this type of thinking. Belief and bias will always exist, but if you're just going to rationalize your belief no matter what, than how is that science?

The Problem

This is considered the "science" of global warming, but it is apparently obvious that this isn't proof. We don't have people looking for the truth or giving an objective look at things, they are rationalizing a belief.

The Media, Government and Science

You have to watch out when these three entities get together. The media is always looking for the biggest and most sensational stories to run. Scaring people is a great way to keep people at home and watching the television. "We're all going to die" is much better from a media perspective than "everything is alright".

The government has one goal in mind, find problems and offer themselves as a solution. Global warming would be a big problem and would require a huge government presence to combat it.

Lastly, most scientists receive their funding directly or indirectly from the government. The only scientists that do not are engineers (the businessmen of science). Government controls their pay checks, the funding for their studies and can inevitably cut the funding to anyone that contradicts the government.

Environmentalist Ideology

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a driving ideology behind this. Most people aren't huge fanatic environmentalists, but most have been indoctrinated in some way by it.

The ideology is very simple; the earth/environment/mother nature/ecosystem is more valuable than human beings. This is why every single environmental group has some sort of leader that talks about the need for humans to die off or placing more value over a fish than a human being.

The average person doesn't think this way, but the average person does seem to feel guilty about the way we are. If we cut down trees to build a home, there is guilt. If we pump oil out of the ground to use for our benefit, there is guilt. This all inevitably comes down to one simple belief; man is evil.

You'll notice that most global warming believers are against capitalism, against globalization, against free trade because these are the very things that bring us wealth. Wealth is achieved through using the environment for our benefit, which is inherently evil.

I suppose I'm a bit off track there. My point is that when you have strong beliefs about something, you'll use any data to rationalize the belief. It doesn't matter if you're a creationist that sees Jesus in their french toast or a global warming scientist that is going to prove global warming no matter what the data says.


Posted by Christopher | 5:36 PM | , | 0 comments »

There seems to be a lot of so called "experts" on the economy that have been calling for the financial bailout, the bailout of the Big 3 and are for this massive government spending called "stimulus". It seems like everyone is panicking and doesn't have the first clue on what to do, so they just want to throw money at the problem.

Ideological Issue

I think a lot of the people that support this "stimulus" assume that as long as people are working, the economy will improve and get better. If you make sure people are making some doe, they'll spend it and the economy will eventually bounce back.

I used to think that way. I remember thinking when I was in high school, "Why don't they have a Jobs Political Party? They'd only have one goal and that's to make sure people can work and make money. As long as people are working and making money, things are great."

There's a problem I see with thinking like this...

Jobs = Value

That is a pretty big assumption and it is something that is incorrect. Just because people are working doesn't mean that it is something of value. Sure they're getting paid, but by who and what? The government. And how does the government get its money? From you.

The best illustration I can give is paying someone to dig a hole and pay someone else to fill it in. Both people are working and making money, but we all know that this isn't a good thing.

Here is how things work in reality...

Production of Goods and Services = Value

It isn't the fact that labor is working that is of value, but it is what is produced that is of value. This is what is inherently lost in the "stimulus" debate.

This "stimulus" is to spend money on infrastructure which happens to be something of value. I agree with that, but there is only so much that is needed. A road is value, but we don't need a road to nowhere. Most roads need the potholes fixed, and hundreds of billions of dollars is more than enough.

Ideally if the government spent just the right money on just the right programs it might not be a bad thing. But we all know what politicians are like, they build bridges to nowhere and fill it with a ton of pork.

Even if the government does it perfect, this still doesn't address the economic pressures facing the private sector. I think it is first to identify the main cause of this economic mess we are in - the government. Despite the attack on "greedy" banks, it is the government that created this by destroying market risk. Fannie and Freddie were the reason the collapse happened. These businesses are government created businesses. The government guaranteed all securities that went through Fannie and Freddie. Since all risk was taken out of the housing market to help people "live the American dream" and own a home, the market lost a sense of risk.

The first and important way to help get the market going again is to step out of the way. The government has to stop distorting risk to push through a political agenda of getting people to buy as many houses as possible.

The second thing that needs to happen is that we need to stop impeding business and investors by cutting taxes. A major cut in corporate taxes means that there is more money to reinvest in their business which results in more hiring. We also need people investing, knowing that the government isn't going to eat into their return.

Lastly, we need to let this run its course.Essentially the market was drunk on the last bull run. When the bubble popped in the housing market, this was essentially the first headache of the hangover. The solution to this problem isn't to get the government spending because that's essentially drinking to get over the hangover. Let it run it's course and things will go back to normal.


Posted by Christopher | 12:30 PM | , | 0 comments »