Funny Thing About the Economy

If we don't move forward with producing alternative energy, we won't have an economy. FACT!

I'm not talking about the stock market specifically. I'm talking about returns on equity. It's economics.

Every real economic boom was lead by a revolution in technology. Steam engine? Assembly line? Batteries? What was our most recent revolution? Think carefully. It wasn't cellphones. It was the computer chip. The United States is far behind in most technologies now, and the cellphone as we know it is actually a dying breed. The future has been in portable devices (meaning that Blackberries and iPhones are closer to being computers than meager phones).

Here's the economic problem...it's been a loonnnnggg time now. We are reaching the near pinnacle of computer chip technology. I know this because I can only name 2 manufacturers: Intel and AMD. The earlier stages of any industry typically have several competitors scraping for their share of the pie. But as every industry matures, competitors get merged or beat out of the market. We've seen this in the auto industry (there was once a time when we had thousands of different car manufacturers...Pinto, Delorian, Saturn, etc., ring a bell?). Heck, we're even seeing this in internet search companies: Lycos, Ask, Yahoo, Google, Altavista, etc.

I'm a fan of software companies and believe there is great value in intellectual developments, but real economics lies mostly on goods not services. A strong and booming economy needs to produce a real tangible product. Why? Real products have predictable lifespans. We know with fair certainty how long it takes for corn to decay. We can't say the same for Javascript.

Our current economic crisis is not due to sub-prime mortgages per se. We have been screwed because of sub-prime credit. Everyone was loaning money in the form of credit cards, gas cards, and even mortgages. The flow of credit established a paper economy...an economy that only existed intellectually, and not physically. I'm not Ron Paul or Gary Schilling, and telling you that gold is the answer. Gold is actually a stupid investment in the long run.

The best prospect for lifting our economy is in alternative energy sources. Let the battles begin. Who will win? Will it be solar? Will it be nuclear? I'd bet on wind. Energy is in constant demand, and it's a real product with a predictable shelf-life. What most people don't know is that energy does not store very well, so it must be produced constantly. A short shelf-life means greater residual income, steady demand for workers, and scalable output. If we start with government funding to establish the infrastructure, it'll only be a matter of time until production costs become low enough to drive innovations in consumer products. Imagine having a cellphone you never have to charge. Imagine driving forever and never having to stop. Imagine imagining of imaginable possibilities. Wow goes the mind.

All jokes aside, bailouts and spending towards public goods is what the government is for. Governments are not supposed to exist to police the people. Governments are not for wiretaps, or even bans on civilian lifestyles. Government is here to stimulate industries that service the public good that the private sector overlooks. When people complain about our government getting too big, their concerns should refer to the development of a closed society. Stimulus spending is not big government...it's the reason for it. Don't be a stupid Republican, be a smart Republican. Stupid Republicans are the ones that believe Christians should be Republican. You can be a conservative Democrat. You can be a liberal Republican. You can be a moderate of either. There are groups of pro-life Democrats. Just don't be a fucking moron and squeeze your social policies through a narrow mind.



By the way, if you're interested...there's only one consistent distinction between Republicans and Democrats...

Republicans - believe resources should be given to the people at the top because they are the best at allocating resources (e.g. trickle-down economics).

Democrats - believe resources should be distributed to the people at the bottom because they know what they need and their consumption creates profit for those at the top who can later best allocate the resources.