The other night watching TV I saw an advertisement for a new reality TV show. Don’t care, won’t watch it. However the premise of the show made me think a little and hence spawned this rant. The show was called something like The Greatest American

I got to thinking about whom I would choose as the greatest American. It’s a difficult question. I keep coming back to the writers of our Constitution. That may be a cliché answer but that doctrine they wrote was truly amazing and all of the freedoms and the life we enjoy today is due to them. One attribute that these gentlemen posed that few today do is a sense of what should be law. I have written at lease two posts about this but it is a strong issue for me, especially since the vast majority of people don’t understand what I am talking about. Consider a controversial issue such as God in the Pledge, gay marriage, illegal immigrant’s rights, etc. Most Americans have strong opinions on these subjects. Good, I would hope so. Tell others, convince others. However, present them with a law on the subject and they will immediately vote their opinion, never pausing to ask about the legality of the law. Never once asking what the law would do to personal rights. Never once asking how the law would effect other Americans. Never once asking if we even need a law on that subject. This “big picture” sight is what the authors of our Constitution had and why this country is as great and as free (for now) as it is. The Constitution was not written based on their opinions of what was right and wrong. Rather it was written to create and protect people’s freedom. Therefore, I believe the authors of the US Constituion to be the greatest Americans.

Now I would like to know who you believe is the Greatest American….

I would like to continue from the last post by responding to Andrew’s statement “The whole reason we have Government is to protect the common man, right? The common man can’t always be trusted to make the most beneficial decision to themselves and their community, thus there is government intervention to aid common man’s demise.” However I would like to move that response forward and discuss the purpose of government.

I disagree with Andrew. It is the interaction of every common man with every other common man that ensures that the most beneficial decision (for everyone) is made. Remember, just because you feel one decision is best does not mean it is for everyone. The Wal-Mart conflict centers around the plight of the small business vs. discount stores’ cheap commodities. A community, as a whole, may be made better off if it has access to affordable commodities, rather than being forced to do all the shopping at small locally owned businesses. It is only your (or possibly your) opinion that it would not.

Moving on from Wal-Mart I would like to say more on the purpose of government.

My beliefs follow closely to what Adam Smith had to say in Book IV Chapter IX of his master work The Wealth of Nations. Allow me to quote:

“According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to … first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain…”

Paraphrasing:
The responsibility of government’s existence should be and should be limited to three duties:

1. To protect its citizens from other countries.
2. A create and enforce a defined legal system that establishes property rights and personal rights for its citizens.
3. To undertake endeavourers that are too large, costly and grand to be undertaken by the private industry.

I would argue that number three has become obsolete. In the past, infrastructure such as sewers, highways, airports etc. would never have existed unless a government built them. However, today’s private industry has proven its ability to fund any project regardless of scale or grandeur. In fact not only has private industry proven its ability to take on these endeavors, the gains from competition ensure that these endeavors are completed and maintained more efficiently. I feel recent endeavors such as The X Prize proves this fact. What capitalist venture lies before the human race that is larger, more expensive or grander than space exploration?

That leaves two purposes for government

1. An Army
2. Creation and enforcement of a Constitution that includes defined property and individual rights.

Disagree? Then justify any other purposes. Can you justify denying a business the right to open?

I walked into a conversation the other day in which a lady claimed she hates economists because they or their beliefs are bad for the environment.

Think back 100 or 200 hundred years ago. We the United States cut down just about every tree on this continent. We polluted the environment more than any entity ever. We sacrificed species of animals left and right and finally caught an entire river on fire. Everybody that partook in those practices knew they were harming the environment and knew that doing so was not good. Trust me any person knows it is bad to outflow your petro waste into a river. So why did they do it?

Because they were poor! This country did not start off as the richest in the world. We started off struggling the same way many countries are today. When our forefathers were faced with the choice between putting food on the table or saving the life of a spotted owl, (logging has endangered the spotted owl yet many of our forefathers made a living through logging) guess what they choose? And probably rightly so.

Because of this exploitation and past lack of concern for the environment our country prospered and our standard of living was elevated considerably.

Similar stories can be told of any industrialized and developed country.

We, citizens of these fortunate countries, are now able to sacrifice production and economic advancement to be more environmentally aware. Our choice is no longer "spotted owl or dinner". It is more like "spotted owl or bigger SUV". We have chosen to raise awareness and pass environmentally protective laws. These laws have slowed the continual rise of US per capita income and standard of living (bigger SUV) but we have all decided it is worth it, now.

But do not kid yourself. The difference is not that we are more environmentally aware than before, it is that we can now afford to be environmentally aware. So you can thank economic development and the economist working so hard for you. Economic development is the reason we have come to be environmentally aware.

In addition, economic development is the only way to get other countries/all countries to be environmentally aware. Citizens of developed nations look to developing nations such as Mexico, African countries, and other underdeveloped nations and ask: "How can you clear-cut your rain forests?" "How can you pollute the way you do?" "Why do you not have environmental laws?" Remember that they are only asking those questions while they are sipping on their Passion Fruit and Kumquat blended juice at an outdoor cappuccino/sushi bar. These developing nations are doing exactly what we did 100 years ago. They will continue to do it until they can afford not to do it. Therefore if you want to help the environment then help these nations develop economically (become an economist).

BTW, A new McDonalds creates available jobs, which in turn raises employees standard of living, which in turn helps the environment. So save the environment and build a McDonalds in Rabat, Morocco

Where are you from? Down North? Up East?

Next time someone is giving you directions and they tell you to go North, pay attention. They will point up towards the sky. Vice versa, when they tell you to go South they will point downward. Why? North is not up, South is not down. Most likely it is because of the typical world map. I was recently given a world map by an educational software vendor. I hung it on my cubicle wall and looked at it with some coworkers. It was very similar to the map below. Examine it. I think most would agree that this is your every-day run-of-the-mill world map.

View a larger image

When I looked at the map that was given to me and then this one above, I saw nothing odd. It looked like any other world map I have seen. Then my coworkers and I took notice to where the equator lined up on the map. It cuts the map in half right? Nope. In fact the equator lies somewhere around here:

View a larger image

So I said, "Okay they just cut the Southern 20% of the map off. Antarctica is boring." But that wasn

The previous discussion of deficit spending leads nicely into this rant about my feelings on tax cuts.

Spending that is carried out by a government is funded by two things: 1) government revenue and 2) debt financing. Capitalist governments, such as that of the United States of America, raise revenue by taxing its citizens. In my previous post I addressed the ills of deficit spending by personifying the US Central Bank and economy. I asked you what you would think about a person (in this case, the US Central Bank) who keeps borrowing more and more money every year. Lets expand that analysis: What would you think about a person who continues to borrow more money and then asks their employer for a pay cut, hence decreasing their revenue? Now consider if, with all of these ill-advised financial decisions, this individual decides to spend/buy more things then they ever have before. Wow! Welcome to President Bush’s Tax Cut 101.

President Bush’s tax cut is a reduction in government revenue. Now that is fine with me. Let the government collect fewer taxes from me and decrease their revenues, as long as they decrease their spending also. That would be the logical thing to do, right? If you lose your job/lose your revenue, you have to decrease your spending. The Bush Administration has told the American public (and the public’s congressional representatives) that government revenue (i.e. taxes) can be reduced while government spending can be increased. They must have good reasons to assert such a thing, right? Well these are the two main reasons that I have heard: 1) The taxpayer needs this tax cut 2) We need the tax cut to help our struggling economy.

The Taxpayer needs this tax cut
Everyone wants something for free. If I were to offer you a Segway for free, you would take it. Do you need a Segway? Probably not. Would you buy a Segway? Probably not. But if it is offered to you for free, you will take it. I feel that a tax cut is similar. When a politician offers you a tax cut you say, “Sure”. It is your free Segway. Did you honestly need it? No. I have not seen the American public cry for it. There are constant demonstrations, protests, marches, and rallies for numerous causes, yet I have not seen a single one for a tax cut. This indicates, to me, that the American public didn’t/doesn’t need a tax cut. Let me also mention that tax rates in a lot of other industrial nations, especially Europe, have much higher tax rates than we do*.

Its good for the economy
This one is fun. First of all, refer to my previous post on deficit spending The Bush Administration’s tax cut has increased our national deficit so all the negatives from that post can be applied here. Here are some new points. Common sense will tell you that debt must always be repaid eventually. Common sense will also tell you that cutting taxes without cutting spending will only increase the debt burden. In other words, in a few years a politician will recognize our astronomical national deficit and they will do the fiscally responsible thing: Raise taxes to balance the budget. So a tax cut today will be followed by an increase of taxes in the future. Think about it. A tax cut gives you money in hand today, but (due to steady spending levels) the inevitable tax increase will take that same money out of your hand tomorrow. Sounds like a loan. In fact that’s exactly what it is; a short-term loan. So with the “perfect” credit markets in the US why does the government need to issue personal loans? (I call the US credit market “perfect” because of its ability to assess risk and supply endless amounts of money to worthy recipients and causes.) The backbone of President Bush’s argument for a tax cut is that this tax cut will increase consumer spending. Why would it? If consumers wanted to spend more they would just take out a loan (think “credit card”). In fact, the point of all points is this: Our taxes have been cut and yet the economy still struggles and consumer spending continues along normal (not accelerated) trends. The increase in deficit spending has hurt the economy (see “Deficit Spending”).

So in other words, I see no positive effects of a tax cut, only negatives. So why, WHY would a politician push for one? Are they just malcontent? No, I do not think so. The fact is, a tax cut is always a positive thing to talk about. It is a free Segway. Remember, politicians are always looking to please or gain constituents. The tax cut topic is also a distraction from other less pleasant political issues. One of President Bush’s main goals for his second term is making his tax cuts permanent. Trust me, President Bush would much rather talk about tax cuts then his secret plans for world domination J .

Be wary when someone offers you a free Segway.

If any economist is reading this post, I know a discussion on the IS-LM curves, and the US’s floating exchange rates interaction with monetary policy would strengthen my argument but this is not an econ textbook! (But I haven’t forgotten J ).

Most agree that the value of our national debt is astronomical and should be dealt with. The debt is increase by both interest and deficit spending. So when most all people would agree that debt should be dealt with many less are concerned about deficit spending. The following are my thoughts on deficit spending.

First I would like to ask how the US can afford to run such high deficits? A deficit means the US has spent more then the revenues (taxes) it takes in. How is this possible? Well the US funds it’s deficit spending by borrowing from you the public. It does so though bonds. So for every year of those large deficits there has been large years of bond issues. A bond is an IOU which eventually has to be paid. Now if you had a friend or even a bank that was continuously lending more money than it was taking in people would begin to question the stability of that institution. Is it possible that the stability of the US economy as an institution could start to be questioned? Well for the most part that has not been an issue.

Why is there such trust in the stability of US economy? The American greenback is the foundation not only of our economy but most of the world. Many foreign countries back their currency with American greenbacks and when they maintain their exchange rates they do so with greenbacks. This adds a lot of backing to the United States economy.

So how and why is the greenback the foreign reserve currency of choice? Simple, it is because of the foreseen security in the US economy. It is the largest and most trusted economy in the world.

But has anyone caught on to the problem? This is a circle. The more we deficit spend the more we throw doubt into the strength of our economy. If we start losing that strength and hence the perceived security could the world stop using the greenback as the backing of their own economy? Well guess what:
http://www.rense.com/general27/rec.htm
http://www.eubusiness.com/imported/2003/06/111858
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/12/could_the_euro_.html

This is the first signs of trouble. Never before has the US Greenback been in decline as the foreign reserve currency.

As the US losses its standing as the reserve currency and hence its perceived strength and security the circle will come full circle. We won’t be able to enjoy deficit spending like we have. But now we have a large national debt to pay without the luxury of deficit spending. Could this downward spiral continue until the US couldn’t afford to pay it bonds? Fortunately I don’t have any links to post on that question. We are still far away from that situation. But the warning is there and the trends are in place. Fiscal responsibility is a must. It is atrocious to me to think that in 4 years this country has gone from a surplus budget to a one year – half of a trillion dollar deficit (http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2004/Feb/02-225146.html). Not to mention a 2.75 Trillion dollar deficit projection for the next decade (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4401126/). The largest ever! Even in times or war and there have been many other much longer and harder times of war.

This isn’t doom and gloom. The US economy has plenty of strength and is still the majority of the world’s reserve currency. However the next time a politician sells the idea that deficit spending will help the economy, increase jobs, have limited negative effect etc. tell them to shove it. They just can’t manage their finances.

On Saturday September 18th, President Bush said he was “pleased with the progress” in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/bush.iraq/index.html

So lets review recent events,

On Friday September 17th, 2 Americans and one Briton were kidnapped from their home at gunpoint, http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.main/index.html

On Friday September 17th, an independent intelligence report predicted the best-case scenario for Iraq in the next few years would be “tenuous stability” and the worst case is civil war. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/17/us.iraq.intel/index.html

On Saturday September 18th, 10 employees from a US-Turkish company were kidnapped with their lives being threatened in 3 days http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.main/index.html

On Sunday, September 19th, three people where killed and 7 injured including four US soldiers in a suicide car bomb in Iraq. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_bombing_4

On Sunday, September 19th, three people were beheaded in a taped video in Iraq http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostages

So what is Bush so fricken pleased with????

And Why is Kerry not blasting him on this? Where is Kerry, is he still running for President? When is he going to start his campaign?

That’s why I am fed up why aren’t you.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/south.carolina.reut/index.html

Bravo Gov, Bravo!

I have discussed this article with DRJ (who has commented on my other posts).

It is my understanding that Governor Sanford’s heavy use of vetoes and his latest shenanigans are in response to the legislator’s use of tack-ons to current legit bills. He is attempting to fulfill a promise and be a more fiscally responsible politician, imagine that. I find it noble and a strong stand to veto a bill that you proposed because the legislators tacked on special spending projects. I know that addons/tackons (whatever the correct term is) are very common and a fact of politics. However, I believe if something is worthy of tax payer funding then lets purpose it, vote on it, and pass it. Tack-ons always seem like they are trying to sneak something by. Thank you Sanford for attempting to bring accountability and trust into politics (at least in this instance ).

Pork, That is why I’m fed up, why aren’t you?

I want to address two topics in this post. I will start by presenting my opinion on a current and very controversial topic. I feel strongly in my beliefs on this topic but know that many people will disagree. I hope you read it with an open mind and examine the issue not the emotions. As I said, my opinion is strong on this topic but it is not the important issue in this post. Rather my second proposition is the one that I want people to walk away thinking about.

My first topic is my opinion on homosexual marriage; my second topic is why my opinion is arbitrary and you just wasted your time reading it.

Homosexual Marriage,
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only argument that I have ever heard against homosexual marriage concerns the “sanctity of marriage”. A lot of people consider marriage a very sacred bond that they define as a union between a man and a woman. There are two ways to get married; in the eyes of your church and in the eyes of the law. When talking about the sanctity of marriage, by definition, you can only be referring to marriage in the eyes of the church. The new laws that seek to allow homosexual marriage only apply to marriage in the eyes of the law. No one is suggesting that we should force churches to marry homosexuals. Considering the religious views of most denominations, churches probably should not marry homosexuals. They have the right not to. These laws are simply stating that legally, homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage and all of the advantages of marriage.

Food for thought:
If we should not allow homosexual couples to marry because it devalues the sanctity of marriage why do we allow a heterosexual couple that are Satanists to get married in a court of law? These satanic heterosexual couples have been able to marry for decades. Now don’t misinterpret. I am not making any implication or connection between homosexuals and satanists. I don’t think there are similarities. Rather I am taking an extreme case to push a point. It seems in the eyes of religion, (and I think most of the Religious Right will agree to this) blatant and deliberate worshipping of Lucifer is far worse than homosexuality, yet they have the right to marry without any argument from the religious right. The point is they have been marrying for years without devaluing the sanctity of marriage because they do so in the eyes of the law not in the eyes of your church. Period.

The Meat (and this following point addresses a lot more than just homosexual marriage):
As I stated before you just wasted your time. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what my opinion on homosexual marriage is. It doesn’t matter what your opinion on homosexual marriage is. It doesn’t matter what the Pope thinks, it doesn’t matter what George W. Bush thinks, it doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans think. Only one thing matters and many many people have forgotten this. In fact I very seldom hear anyone mention it but … the assessment that matters is that of the Constitution of The United States of America (which embodies the spirit of the United States).

When our Forefathers settled this country they wrote a Constitution to govern it. They were brilliant writers and wrote a brilliant Constitution. I want to address two aspects of the Constitution that I feel make it so brilliant; it’s openness and foresight.

These Forefathers knew what it was to be discriminated against. They had experienced not having the right to practice their religious beliefs or be represented in the government. That is why the United States was founded. Accordingly, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they did so with great care to make sure that everyone that lives in this country will live free and never be discriminated against.

Many people, especially the Conservative Right and the people who would disagree with the beginning of this post, love to point out that our Founding Fathers were very religious, very Christian and not ashamed to show it. These Forefathers spoke of God a lot, they prayed a lot. I agree and that is what makes my point so strong. They were very religious and Christian. Yet they only mention religion twice in the Constitution, both times banning its role in government (legal) issues (religion was mentioned once in Article IV when it states “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” and again in the first Amendment when it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”.) Our Forefathers did this very deliberately. They acted out of an understanding of what it’s like to be discriminated against, they knew it was wrong, it should never happen again, to any one, for any reason. They also did this because they had foresight. They knew that without provisions in the Constitution that Americans (human nature) would soon forget and would start pushing their views (some of religious merit) on others, they would slowly start using religious arguments in government, and would start discriminating against others that were not in the majority.

For instance, here only 200 hundred years later. People think that in order to pledge allegiance to this great country in which we live everyone should have to declare their belief in God. People believe that our legal system is one and the same/based on the Christian Ten Commandments. People think that marriage is an exclusive right granted and governed by their religious beliefs.

Wait… Don’t yell at me yet… Bravo, Bravo, to all of the people above. For this Constitution that I have spoken of grants you the rights to believe and proclaim these opinions.

I may agree with you, I may not; this is not the issue here. What is this issue is the people that think our legally recognized pledge of allegiance (which we require all immigrants applying for citizenship to repeat) should contain a line that declares a belief in a God. What is at issue is the people who think we should blatantly display Christian documents at the entrances to our courts which symbolically proclaim that in this country, with freedom of religion, you will be judge by Christian standards. What is at issue is people who think that laws should be passed so that we can legally discriminate against people who are homosexual, not allow them to marry even in the eyes of the law, because they are different from the majority and some religions do not agree with them.

Pay attention This next part is the point.
When considering an issue do you ever stop and ask yourself “what is my belief, what is the belief of this country and the Constitution it was founded on?” Do you ask these questions separately? You should. To me that is the true test of being an American: the ability to see a bigger picture than yourself and your opinion. To be able to say to yourself “a lot of people live in this country, a lot of people are different from me and we all deserve the same freedoms, regardless of my opinion”. That is what makes this country great; it is what makes it different and better than the rest. Most importantly it is the reason you can have your opinion.

I meant for the this post to have this impact on you; remember the freedoms of this country and what they mean, remember the Constitution and what it says. The democratic values that we enjoy in this country are not there as a means to enfource our opinion but rather elicit decisions that benefit the whole. I started this entry talking about homosexual marriage, so let me return to that subject briefly and as an aside. In the United States’ past we have discriminated against many people. We have discriminated based on Race, Sex, Age and probably many other attributes. Each and every time we have tested those practices with the Constitution and found them illegal. At those times there were people that believed we should continue with our discriminatory practices. To us those people seem to be from a different era and much unlike ourselves. We are not racist or chauvinist and we are not prejudiced to the elderly or the young. Yet here again we have a group of people being deprived of the same legal rights endowed to everyone else. This time we are discriminating against people of different sexual orientation. Trust me the Constitution and America has been asked to discriminate many times before, it will recapitulate its answer again. This country, based on freedom and equal rights, will refuse to discriminate on any basis. We extend our freedoms to all, even homosexual couples. That is what makes us the United States of America. Will you stand for equal rights and freedom or will you be one of those people that the future will fail to comprehend, just like those who fought to keep African-Americans or Women subclass Americans?

In Conclusion:
Yes we all have the right to vote and have our opinions heard. They are heard and are acted upon. However, these elected official’s major decisions, the ones that affect the character of this country, are governed by the Constitution and I for one am glad. The Constitution is a doctrine that, rather than based on emotional views, is a guideline that will align decisions to benefit the welfare of the whole and protect the freedoms of each and every one of us. I hope we all stop, reflect, comprehend and embrace these ideals. Too many people feel strongly about a topic (the answer to “what is my belief?”) but never consider or care about “what is the belief of this country and the Constitution it was founded on?”

That’s why I am fed up, why aren’t you?

I, for one, am becoming annoyed by the media and public complaining about gas prices. We all like to pay less for more but sometimes things have to come back to reality. I believe gas prices are not too expensive but instead have been too cheap and possibly could still be too cheap. A number of points on this issue:

1) Every gas price that you hear quoted in the media today is the nominal price of gas. The media and public will then compare these nominal prices with past prices. Comparing nominal prices to historical prices is inherently flawed because it fails to adjust of the effects of inflation. Throughout the history of the United States we have experienced inflation (inflation increased dramatically after the fall of the Gold Standard which started with FDR in 1933 and finally collapsed with the end of the Bretton Woods system under Nixon in 1971). Inflation is defined as a persistent increase in the average price level in the economy. By definition this means not only that prices have increased over time but also wages. It is unfair to say that a $.89 McDonalds burger in 2002 1 is more expensive than the $.15 burger in 1956 2. For one, because per capita income was $2,016 in 1956 compared to $30,941 in 20023. However, if you adjust these burger prices for inflation you find that the $.15 burger in 1956 is equivalent to $.97 in 2002 dollars4. All of a sudden we realize that the burger has actually gotten cheaper by about $.08. The same applies for gasoline!

The Media and public keep stating how gasoline is at its record high. From the Consumer Price Index complied by the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics I gathered the average monthly US city price of gasoline per gallon from 1978 (first available date) to April 20045. I then adjusted the prices into 2003 dollars, compensating for inflation. According to this data the average gas price for April 2004 was $1.875. The all time record high occurred in March 1981 when gas cost $2.8093 per gallon of gas. The average price of gas since 1978 has been $1.7637. Feel free to look at all of these prices and data at http://www.clemson.edu/~jaredh/gas.htm. What this means is that gas prices are quite far from their record high. In fact they are only slightly above their average price. This is expected for April since gas prices are seasonal and always spike as we enter the summertime. Compare the average for 2004 (smoothes at the seasonal spikes) of $1.7585 and we are below the historical average price of gasoline per gallon!!!!!!!

So why all the belly aching? Well I believe it is because gas prices have been too low for the past few years. Consider that the all time record low since 1978 was $1.1195 (adjusted for inflation of course )and occurred just a few years ago in Feb. 1999. The reason gas prices were this low is because President Clinton, in an effort to help Al Gore get elected in the 2000 presidential race, tapped our nation’s emergency oil reserves to artificially lower the price of gas6. I feel it quite dangerous to spend our emergency reserves to play politics and to simply cause slight effects on gas prices. Especially considering that most of the oil the US depends on is provided from countries that the US has strained ties with. If we were forced into a conflict with one of these countries we would not only lose that oil source but we would be forced to use more oil because of the military efforts (tanks, fighters, and battleships use a lot more gas when in war than they do when in storage). Therefore, our emergency reserves should be just that, reserved for an emergency.

2) My second complaint regarding these complainers concerns the War on Terror and the War in Iraq (trust me I separate them for good reason, more on that in another rant). An overwhelming majority of Americans and American leaders supported the Bush Administration when they decided to declare a War on Terror and A War on Iraq. I am not arguing that choice. I am asking, what did you expect? The War of Terror is a War that is predominantly focused on Muslim nations and more importantly oil abundant Muslim nations. The war on Iraq has led to fear and instability in the entire Middle East. How naive it would be to think the US could invade or at least threaten these countries and yet expect that the prices of an export that predominately comes from these countries remain unaffected.

3) My third insight comes from a practice that I partake in but I find few others do. I like to stop sometimes and ask, “What about the rest of the world?” On this topic I hear all of the American complaints about high gas prices. So I ask “what are gas prices around the world like?” Well please, have a look here, http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html. All of a sudden these high gas prices in the US look pretty nice. England is paying ~$5.55 per gallon, German ~$5.29, Italy~ $4.86, and Japan ~$3.84. On the bright side, if you want cheaper gas prices you can always enjoy the standard of living in any of these resorts Thailand, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan. They are all cheaper than the US average.

In conclusion, I feel that gasoline prices are not too high. They have been artificially low and now as they return to normal they seem high. The media sensationalizes this story reporting of record highs while knowing that the data they are reporting are nominal prices, which are misleading and blatantly false. I know many news channels are aware of this because I have emailed them and told them (believe it or not I have not gotten a response). Considering we are at War and sitting pretty sweet compared to the rest of the industrialized world, I think everyone should calm down, stop believing the hype of the media, and write me a thank you letter. After all, if gas prices were that high would you not expect more of an effect on travel?7

That’s why I’m fed up, why aren’t you?

(1)I called McDonalds
(2)http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/mcdonalds.htm
(3)http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/research/casden/research/data_folder/us_pcinc.pdf
(4)http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
(5)http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
(6) http://www.iht.com/IHT/BK/00/bk092500a.html
(7) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/175364_memday28.html