Things aren’t so hot on the US economic front these days.  Word is that mortgage giants, Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae - the largest backers of US mortgages - are facing serious finanical troubles.  Just as with Bear Stearns, a major investment banker, the Federal Reserve is being asked to make up the shortfall.  Don’t misunderstand, such an act will have a devastating impact to our economy and will send us into a downward spiral that will last for years to come.

Where the Bear Stearns bailout alarmed me with billions of US taxpayer’s dollars going towards preventing assured destruction of the US economy (from systemic collapse), this latest bailout has me in an absolute state of panic.  These two mortgage firms financially back nearly half of all US mortgages - trillions upon trillions of dollars of investment dollars.  We’re talking a multi-TRILLION dollar bailout here with the capacity to nearly double the US national debt overnight.  Yes, folks, that means our money will be worth nearly HALF as much once the trickle effect of that money being spent into the world’s economy is felt.

Oddly, after the news of the Federal Reserve backing the failed mortgage firms came out, the US dollar rallied back up.  This is completely counter-intuitive and clearly shows how well the market is manipulated and misinformed.  With multiple trillions being induced into the economy, the only *logical* result is for the value of the dollar to go DOWN.  More money in the economy, unbacked by anything of value EQUALS inflation.  Yet, mark my words, it will fall…and it’s gonna fall harder than I ever expected.

News reports are also saying that this bailout marks the last and final we will see from the Federal Reserve.  On one hand, that’s good news because US taxpayers are footing the bill - but on the other hand, it means that systemic collapse is a very real risk.  Once the collapse begins to occur, there is no stopping it - and we WILL feel an economic recession that makes the 1920’s look like child’s play.

As was expected, gold and silver rallied back up to levels seen several months ago - a surefire indication that things are in trouble.  I only expect these to continue their upward trend, despite being heavily manipulated.  Those who control the market can only do so much.  These two investments will be one of the few that can survive the up and coming disaster that is looming on our doorstep.

Have a great week. 

So, I’ve been seeing a lot about water powered vehicles lately. This technology has been around for some time (I have copies of patents going back to the early 80’s), but somehow the technology just simply wasn’t allowed to exist. Probably because it seriously threatens major oil profiteers and other interests that have billions of dollars to insure that you don’t hear about it. The cat’s out of the bag these days, though…we got it on video!

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

I was also thinking about this global warming problem, right? Now, I’ve researched both sides of the arguments and it’s clear that no one has any idea what’s going on. One side says there’s no evidence of humans causing global warming…and another side says, oh my God, look out, we’re all gonna die. Some even say there is no global warming, and yet even others would forget to breathe if it weren’t pre-programmed into our brains. While all these politicians and so-called experts doddle on what-ever-to-do about this supposed problem, I came up with a band-aid.

The world’s oil consumption is somewhere around 87 million barrels per day, or approximately 3.65 billion gallons *per day*. The proposed major problem with global warming is that sea levels might rise and cause major flooding of coastal towns, right?

So, to band-aid the earth of all it’s supposed global warming woes, all we gotta do is switch to water powered vehicles, start sucking that 3+ billion gallons of water per day out of the sea and we’ll neutralize the global warming threat. And since there’s about 326 million trillion gallons of water on earth, that’ll last us for the next 244 million years, plus or minus a couple years.

This method has some major benefits, aside from the obvious of using a clean fuel.

We can keep doing whatever the heck we want to do without worry…like driving our ten wheel diesel trucks to pull obscenely oversized RV’s, pumping cubic foot after foot of putrid nastiness into the air, and God-forbid, we can keep breathing without having to pay a tax just to be alive. To boot, we’ll eventually get more real estate to solve our burgeoning population problem. We’ll also get better weather unless you live in Arizona or Dubai - in which case, I hate to break it to you, but people were not designed to survive living in a desert.

I’ve been hearing about I2, or “Internet 2″ for several years now. Basically, the concept is a revolutionary redesign of the internet and it has been headed up by a consortium of universities, technology leaders, government officials and corporations. Critics fear that this somewhat obscure group could be responsible for regulatory acts over the internet in order to bring about systems of taxation, further surveillance and and greater control exercised over the global internet.

One arm of this has been the Net Neutrality legislation that has recently been discussed by congress. Essentially, net neutrality is the idea behind giving certain precedence to some websites over others, based on the ability of the service provider to pay the proper fees. So, for example, Google could afford to pay for massive usage and get fast speeds - whereas my site would be slow (or completely unavailable) because I am unwilling to pay or can’t afford such usage fees. This is bad stuff for the internet as it will completely favor large corporations and cause smaller, less-popular websites to suffer viewership because of such regulation.

Another branch of this is the technology aspects of Internet 2. There is great question over what this could encompass, however, concern is placed over what technologies would be allowed to exist over such a network. Most people think of the internet as “the web” - but it’s much larger than that. For example, IRC (internet relay chat) is a sub technology, like “the web,” that rides over the internet. Another example might be a voice-over-IP telephone connection. Little is truly known about what Internet 2 might actually look like from the technology perspective.

Now, I’ve been hearing “crying wolf” stories about the regulation of the internet so many times that I’ve almost become numb to it. However, just recently, another alarm has gone off on this front and I feel obliged to reveal it to you. Sources have uncovered what may be leaked information about some of the potential design aspects of this new internet technology, informally termed Internet 2.

Essentially, leaked information suggests that internet service providers may go to a “pay per view” model, as early as 2012, where users are charged based for their internet usage habits. Going even further, the information also suggests that a certain list of “approved sites” would be readily available for anyone to access, however, the millions of *other* websites out there would require pay-per-view type access accounts and/or a more costly tier of service to access them.

There is no doubt that a move like this would radically transform the look, feel and freedom of the internet. Many of the sites and things that we enjoy on the internet could be significantly threatened if a business model like this is allowed to come to fruition.

I’m still waiting for several independent sources to confirm this information and awaiting further investigation to be released, but this latest threat appears to be somewhat credible with the news that has been released so far.

This is bad stuff, folks. Please feel free to watch these videos to get some more information about the subject matter. There are also several web articles out there.

I Power Net Neutrality Analysis:

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Alex Jones Analysis:

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

I’ve been noticing a steadily increasing rise in news and information about global warming. It seems the majority is waking up to the matrix of the world and is beginning to understand our ecological footprint. In an ever increasing trend, I’m seeing news suggesting that “people” are the cause for this ever increasing disaster. While yes, the term “people” is technically correct, we must realize that “people” also means corporations and other for-profit enterprises.The world is about to come to an epic realization that we, as a society, need to change - both significantly and rapidly. People are finally coming to realize the ultimate flaw of capitalism; the unsustainable concept of unlimited growth potential. There simply are not infinite resources for infinite growth and as more countries adopt capitalism, industrialization and world trade agreements, the smaller and smaller the resource pool becomes. We must realize that we are at the crossroad of two choices: Either we change and push hard for and achieve sustainability or we face the consequences of a worldwide mass extermination of people. I hate to be blunt, but follow the logic.

As an American and reluctantly a consumer, I recognize that I have a fairly significant environmental impact as an individual. Even though I go out of my way to recycle, buy from “green” companies as much as possible, support organic farmers and so on…I still throw away a lot and produce a constant supply of carbon dioxide. I contribute to ecological decline, perhaps much less so than the majority of Americans - but I still have a significant impact, especially over the entire course of my lifetime.

I have a feeling, however, that this self recognition will be slammed down our throats and will justify additional taxation as well as rising prices in the years to come. It will unfairly put the burden and cost of sustainability on the consumer. I say “unfairly” because corporations have advanced beyond fulfilling the needs of society into creating needs, manipulating our desires and otherwise encouraging us to consume.

Corporations have made decisions based on the flawed theories of capitalism and complete disregard for anything other than profit and growth. These corporate entities have continually plundered the world for their benefit and purposefully, perhaps ignorantly, created unsustainable conditions. The ecological footprint of the corporation, no matter how you look at it, is far larger than that of the individual. They have made no effort to inform you of their unsustainable practices and have mislead people into believing that consumption is good. Their ultimate goal has been, and will continue to be, to have us consume more and more - that is, until we either face doom or revolutionize our concepts of capitalism, profit and growth.

The introduction of globalization, global trade and the creation of private interests that direct these concepts have insured that this system is growing increasingly larger and complex. Our government has not just paved the way for these unsustainable empires to exist and profit, but have also ignorantly perpetuated the “infinite growth”myth. Congress is just now waking up to ecological decline and they’re grasping at straws for the solutions.

My protest is not that we need “green” corporations, albeit this is of certain importance - but it’s one that I believe corporations should absorb the primary burden of ecological sustainability from their profit and gains. Corporations and their stakeholders are ultimately responsible for the continued advancement of natural deficit consumerism in America and across the globe. It is their very nature that has created the conditions we face and things are not going to really change until we make them responsible for their actions.

Forcing people to pay the tax of sustainability only allows the corporation to sustain it’s profitability and continued growth. I say we need to look at this from a much more fundamental level and that is, “Can the need be filled by sustainable technology ?” and subsequently, “Should we allow the unsustainable corporation to exist?” By creating a capitalist environment that is hostile to anti-sustainable means, we insure innovation of sustainable technology at a much more rapid pace.