Nothing is more motivational, nor creates more efficiency, than self-interest. This is why democratic capitalism is the leading world economic system. Government's role in this system is to assure fair play among the participants and to facilitate the development and maintenance of infrastructure elements necessary for commercial activity. The question in the instant crises is whether the financial services industry constitutes an infrastructure element, or a participant.

The financial services industry overextended itself by offering credit to people with insufficient motivation to pay back the loans. In so doing, they created false value in real estate for which there was inadequate demand. Like any other business that overestimates their market, they got caught holding too much inventory. In strict free-market terms, this would simply mean a discounted sell off of that inventory, perhaps by a bankruptcy court, or otherwise. If the entire industry failed, as so many have in the past, it would be unfortunate for those directly involved to be sure; but, historically speaking, a new, more highly evolved version usually emerges that better meets the needs of the consumer.

Our current problem is based on the fact that this excessive inventory has been passed on to our big money institutions. They have been left holding an inventory that has lost its value in the free market, and shows no signs of coming back. As a taxpayer, I'm not sure I want to buy something that I know is overpriced, and that I won't be able to sell at a reasonable profit.

On the other hand, the credit industry is a vital part of national and global free market economics. Loaned money creates a contract between the providers of goods and services, and their customers, that could not otherwise exist in an enforceable state. In local terms, if the bank on the corner fails and closes (rather than being bought out), I can't get my paycheck cashed. Consequently, the little guy has a vested interest in the survival of the big money institutions.

Some have said that there is plenty of private capital sitting on the sidelines waiting to scoop up these financial instruments when the price is right. The free market economic view would dictate that the government stay out of the mess and lets the private money step in when they see a bargain.

The question now for Congress and the President is not only what to do, but how much. They must protect the financial infrastructure, but sending too much money at the problem only continues to overvalue financial instruments for which the market is rapidly declining. If they stand back and wait for private capital to intervene based on bargain shopping, the institutions that support commerce my cease to exist

Loud Noise Productions

In the interest of full disclosure I should start this off by letting everyone know that I am a registered member of the Republican Party.  So, as I’m sure you can understand, I was a little disappointed with the outcome of the election.  I like to consider myself a glass half-full kind of guy, though, and in that spirit, I now find myself excited about the prospects and possibilities for our country under the incoming administration.

As we come to the end of what can, arguably, be described as one of the most demoralizing presidencies in our nations history (not to mention the only one during which, the vice president shot somebody since 1804) I choose to be excited by the fact, short of a mass union succession, there is really no where to go from here, but up.  Also, I think President Bush could use the break.  Between 9/11, wars on two fronts, and almost choking on a pretzel, it’s been a rough eight years for him.

So why can’t some people move on? There has been fierce debate among the citizens of this country since it began.  Even the men who fought together to form our nation, couldn’t agree on what direction it should go in.  So why can’t some people suck it up and call it a loss?  Why do some republicans act like they’re the first ones to disagree with the outcome of an election?

In the 1780’s there was nationwide political dissidence over the role and level of control the government of this newly formed union of states should have at the federal level.  Appropriately, those in favor of strong federal oversight would go on to call themselves federalists.  Cleverly, those in opposition were known as anti-federalists.

The anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry, strongly opposed the ratification of the constitution in 1787.  Wanting to avoid the same type of tyrannical chains they had recently thrown off, they supported instead, the “Articles of Confederation” which gave the states more individual authority.  They were troubled by the possible danger of such a dominant federal system that could infringe upon the rights and laws established by the states themselves. 

The Federalist Party wasn’t officially formed until 1793, but in 1787 many of its future members assembled in eastern Pennsylvania to form what’s now known as the Philadelphia Convention or The Constitutional Convention.  Presided over by General George Washington, it was there that, the document we currently refer to as the United States constitution was written.  Later, led by several other founding fathers and future presidents, the 55 delegates who drafted the constitution would go on to drop the political peoples’ elbow on the anti-federalist party.

The point is that, from the very beginning, we’re fought among ourselves about the form and function of governance; but, we came together to face our shared challenges.  As a republican, I know that most democrats don’t wake up each morning and say, “How can I screw the republicans today?”  The parties disagree, sometimes adamantly, but I think we can all get together on the idea that each is only arguing so fiercely because they believe that their idea is what’s best for the people.  Isn’t that the ultimate goal of our system of government; to do what’s best for the people?

For the first time that many of us can remember German citizens waved American flags at the President-Elects arrival in Berlin.  People around the world are elated to see that the United States has, for the first time, elected a black man as president.  Yet our own citizens plot to kill him, not because of his ideas but because of the color of his skin.  We must all learn to be more accepting of our neighbors’ beliefs and ideas; or, as this experiment our ancestors have given us evolves, we may find ourselves the cause of its destruction.  The people have spoken.  It’s time we rally behind our nations’ leader as we move toward the future.  Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!