Monday, December 17, 2007

The Rationality of Rational Irrationality

In the wake of the NIE concerning Iran's nuclear weapons plan the speculation has been arroused concerning the history, success and future of our foriegn policy visa vie Iran. So just for a lark let's summarize our Iran policy and see what we can make of it:

A statement:
As rational actors, the United States and its allies, trying to curtail the threat from an irrational actor, Iran; we must act irrationally to force them to act rationally.

Let that sink in.

Here's how I come that that conclusion.

1) The United States, et al. are rational actors:
The United States are rational actors, because we are for freedom. Since we have a positive freedom agenda we are also for Democracy. These are not two sepparate argumentative statements, because we propose that given freedom democracy always follows. And because democracy is proposed to be the only rational form of government and we are promoting democracy via our pro-Freedom agenda, we must be rational.

2) Iran is an irrational actor.
Iran desires a nuclear weapon so they may attack sovriegn nations without provocation and without regard for the consequences. This desire is irrational, ergo Iran is an irrational actor.

3) The United States must act irrationally
The attack of Iraq was not the result of a direct provocation or threat to the United States and was therefore irrational.

4) Iran will react rationally to an irrational act.
The United State's irrational invation of Iraq is what caused Iran to rationally evaluate their desire for a nuclear weapon and therefore cease their program.

We'll flesh this out more later.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

John Edwards

Hillary will not be the POTUS.

Barack will not be the POTUS.

If John Edwards is not the democratic candiate for President of the United States, in 2009 we will swear in to office a pro-theocratic phsychopath.

I just want to go on record with this prediction.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007


The mortgage industry is bigger than the construction industry. If the mortgage industry is actualized around the profitability of interest based lending and fees for providing lending services, how in terms of annual revenue, is the interest based lending market larger than the construction market?

Let's say a house is built for 100k and sells for 150k.
Some of the 50k goes to the builder.
Some goes to the real estate agent.
None of this 50k goes to the lender, in fact the lender buys the house. A mortgage is actually a rent-to-own system, where the lender buys the house and you're allowed to live in it provided you pay off the 150k plus some interest to make this worth the lenders time.

Now there are two "products" floating around, both of them owned by the lender. A tangible asset, the house, and a "collateralized debt instrument", the interest expected to be paid on the loan.

Now, how many times have you heard anyone mention the house in discussions of the credit crissis? Never. We only discuss the agreement to pay interest on a loan, meanwhile thousands upon thousands of tangible assets sit there collecting dust, because the lender makes way more money on the fees involved in mortaged lending and even more in "bundling" mortgages as investment vehicles for people who have nothing to do with the tangible asset.

What's happened to the houses? Are the prices comign down so the pool of potential buyers could increase, or rather so the people who bought them when they couldn't afford them now can afford them? No, becuase the neo-conservative free market has nothing to do with buyers of products, producers of products or even servers of services, it has to do with rubbing money up against money and producing more money.

The result being the pyramid scam that our global system has become.