Ron Paul Forums - Liberty Forest Forums - Blogs - Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/blog.php?1874-Brian4Liberty Discussion forum for supporters of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, liberty, freedom and a sovereign limited constitutional Republic. en Fri, 24 May 2013 10:33:05 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/rss.jpg Ron Paul Forums - Liberty Forest Forums - Blogs - Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/blog.php?1874-Brian4Liberty <![CDATA["Shelter in place" becomes martial law]]> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?853-quot-Shelter-in-place-quot-becomes-martial-law Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:36:00 GMT We have all witnessed hours of media discussion revolving around the Boston terrorists and the subsequent manhunt, but there is one aspect of the... We have all witnessed hours of media discussion revolving around the Boston terrorists and the subsequent manhunt, but there is one aspect of the manhunt that has received little attention. It is the use of the “shelter in place” protocol. First of all, let's review the intent and definition of “shelter in place” warnings.

Per the Red Cross:

One of the instructions you may be given in an emergency where hazardous materials may have been released into the atmosphere is to shelter-in-place. This is a precaution aimed to keep you safe while remaining indoors. (This is not the same thing as going to a shelter in case of a storm.) Shelter-in-place means selecting a small, interior room, with no or few windows, and taking refuge there.

http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA...terinplace.pdf
Per Wikipedia:

Shelter in place (SAME code: SPW) is an emergency procedure for people affected by a chemical accident or terrorist attack. It entails taking immediate shelter in a readily accessible location, such as a small room, and sealing it from outside contaminants and shutting off all HVAC systems. Depending on the exact situation, everyone within a specific distance of the incident may be ordered to shelter in place or people within a closer range may be ordered to evacuate while everyone else shelters in place. Sheltering in place is generally only used for a short period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelter_in_place
Clearly, “shelter in place” is not appropriate for the situation of a manhunt. It is specifically intended for hazardous air-born dangers. Has the definition of “shelter in place” changed? As used during the Boston manhunt, “shelter in place” morphed into something more akin to martial law. Is this an example of a slippery slope? A misuse or expansion of power?

The “shelter in place” process is intimately tied to the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and other technologies such as Reverse 911, which allow authorities to make emergency announcements. Do those announcements now translate into specific orders or commands, to be obeyed under penalty of law? Is this an abuse of the system, and does it violate legal boundaries? Obviously this would be a question for legal scholars and the courts, but the question must be raised.

Some would say that the Boston situation was extraordinary, and that it required extraordinary measures. Was the actual situation which led to the “shelter in place” declaration really that extraordinary? Perhaps a breakdown of the events would be helpful:

  • The lock-down of Boston was extraordinary.
  • A hot pursuit chase for a criminal is ordinary.
  • A relatively small, Police perimeter, where a fugitive is hiding is ordinary.
  • Shoot-outs with the Police happen occasionally, but are not daily occurrences. These will always generate a much larger Police response. Not really "extraordinary" though.

The only thing that was truly "extraordinary" in this case was the initial crime, and the subsequent over-reaction of the authorities to nearly shut down a State. Hopefully neither become ordinary. A new type of martial law is certainly not warranted, especially not one that evolves from an emergency warning system into a government command and dictate system. ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?853-quot-Shelter-in-place-quot-becomes-martial-law Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong to uphold Obamacare http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?694-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-was-wrong-to-uphold-Obamacare Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:30:19 GMT The verdict is in. The Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which narrowly passed Congress in a purely partisan... The verdict is in. The Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which narrowly passed Congress in a purely partisan effort. The swing vote on the Court, and thus the decision, lay with Chief Justice John Roberts.

In the decision, Chief Justice Roberts ruled the law to be Constitutional if the individual mandate portion of the law was interpreted and characterized as a tax, rather than as a penalty. This opinion in and of itself is questionable, as this "tax" would be based on not purchasing a product from a private business. This would be a brand new type of tax; a tax forcing a person to engage in a transaction, rather than a tax on a transaction. All existing taxes are based on activities. This new form of tax is a precedent, and a dangerous one at that.

Back to the law in question, it is apparent that this tax is better defined as a penalty, as it was written, and as it was intended. This penalty was not to be construed or interpreted as a tax. This was the very specific language used by lawmakers when this Bill was written, debated, and voted upon.

Chief Justice Roberts has re-characterized this penalty as a tax, and for that reason, he sided to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law.

It should not be the role of the Supreme Court to re-characterize or modify law. This is legislation from the bench. When a law is in violation of the Constitution, the appropriate course of action is to strike down the law. If the opinion of the Court includes information on what language and intent might pass Constitutional muster, so be it. It is then up to the Congress to revise the legislation, debate the revision, and vote on the new version of the law. Finally, the new version would have to be signed by the President.

It is a sad day when new precedents are set in the laying of taxes and of legislating from the bench. Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong not to strike down Obamacare as it was written, and as it was intended. The initial intent and wording of a law is very instrumental during the debate and passage process. It should not be re-characterized or changed after the fact by the Court. ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?694-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-was-wrong-to-uphold-Obamacare Is there a mainstream media conspiracy to ignore Ron Paul? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?424-Is-there-a-mainstream-media-conspiracy-to-ignore-Ron-Paul Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:09:54 GMT The question often arises, "is there a media conspiracy against Ron Paul"? Conspiracy is a loaded term, often used as an ad hominem attack to discredit people, so perhaps it is better to take a common sense approach, and focus more on human nature, and less on terminology.

Political entertainers such as Jon Stewart on The Daily Show have made compelling cases that the treatment of Ron Paul is less than fair and balanced. Jon Stewart's commentary on the Iowa Straw Poll results, where Ron Paul virtually tied for first place with Michele Bachmann, yet was ignored by the media, was not an isolated incident, and similar examples are abundant.

The mainstream media, by it's very nature, has a day to day relationship with those who occupy the corridors of power. It is run by huge corporations, and much of it's purpose is reporting on and interacting with politicians, government officials, powerful business interests, and lobby groups. All together, this large group of loosely related people could be labeled "the establishment".

It is not a conspiracy to say that there is an establishment. The establishment is no more or less coordinated and conspiratorial than any other large group. It is made up of individuals, who often have overlapping agendas, mutually beneficial agreements, and back-scratching arrangements. The one thing that a group can instantly unite over is a perceived attack on that group. There is no conspiracy about it, it's just human nature.

For instance, the same dynamics are often found when it comes to race or ethnic relations. Are you in a conspiracy with others that you deem to be the same as you? Is there is secret plan? The answer is no. Do you tend to interact more with that group? Do you tend to share ideas, communicate and work more within your group? The answer to that is probably yes. You meet at family gatherings. At your religious gatherings. At social gatherings. At neighborhood gatherings. At any number of events. And the one thing that will instantly unite a group is a perceived threat. No secret meetings or conspiracies are required.

The establishment knows when it feels it is threatened. They feel threatened by Ron Paul and libertarianism, which could potentially result in a reduction of the massive power structure that has taken centuries to construct. The mainstream media reflects that perceived threat, even though in reality, it is no threat at all. A reduction in the size and scope of government would probably not have a negative effect on the individuals who make up the establishment. Quite the opposite, it would probably be a net positive for them. The perception of a threat, and the predictable reaction is purely visceral.

In answer to the original question, no, there is no mainstream media conspiracy against Ron Paul. It is simple human nature, manifested from the bully pulpit of the mainstream media. ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?424-Is-there-a-mainstream-media-conspiracy-to-ignore-Ron-Paul Osama Bin Laden and The Ends Justify the Means vs. the Rule of Law http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?333-Osama-Bin-Laden-and-The-Ends-Justify-the-Means-vs-the-Rule-of-Law Fri, 13 May 2011 17:25:43 GMT With the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, an unusual majority consensus has arisen, and it is not pretty. The majority of Americans... With the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, an unusual majority consensus has arisen, and it is not pretty. The majority of Americans have, at least temporarily, subscribed to the philosophy that "the ends justify the means". The death of Osama Bin Laden (the "ends") was so important that it should be accomplished at any price. The Constitutional limits on executive power can be ignored, due process can be ignored, international treaties can be ignored, and acts of war can be ignored. In other words, all rule of law, and with it, all morality, should be tossed out the window in the pursuit of the death of Bin Laden.

A famous quote from the Christian book of Romans 12:19 comes to mind "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord." But in the case of Bin Laden, it appears that vengeance was due even if it was at the cost of secular and religious law.

Does this mean that Osama Bin Laden should not have been brought to Justice? Absolutely not. It is imperative in a civilized world that justice be served through a due process. In the aftermath of 9/11, US Congressman Ron Paul proposed a Constitutional solution to capturing Bin Laden: the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This would authorize the capture of Bin Laden, across any international borders. Appropriately, the authorization would consist of passing the Letter of Marque through the Congress, and then the President would sign it. Just the same as any other law, or even more appropriately, the same as a Declaration of War.

In the aftermath of the death of Bin Laden, Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has suggested that while the death of Bin Laden served a form of Justice, there were other options that would have both served Justice and utilized the rule of law. That suggestion has resulted in some criticism, as unfortunately, we are now in the age of "the ends justify the means". Consistently following the law, and modifying the law when necessary appears to be an old-fashioned concept; the concept that separates civilization from barbarism. In regard to this, Ron Paul is notoriously consistent, and a staunch advocate of the rule of law, which is not always a popular stance. But popularity is not everything.

Once the rule of law is abandoned, the only law left is the law of the jungle, where Consequentialism and Egosim are the only rules, and that is the equivalent of no law at all. ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?333-Osama-Bin-Laden-and-The-Ends-Justify-the-Means-vs-the-Rule-of-Law <![CDATA[The Creature from Johnny's Half Shell]]> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?329-The-Creature-from-Johnny-s-Half-Shell Wed, 11 May 2011 18:36:17 GMT A review of a book by Charles Gasparino: Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street... A review of a book by Charles Gasparino:
Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street
http://www.amazon.com/Bought-Paid-Un.../dp/1595230718

The Creature from Johnny's Half Shell

Johnny's Half Shell is a popular gourmet restaurant located in Washington, DC. In June 2007, representatives of the Financial elite from New York were called to gather there for a secret meeting. It was a small affair, held in a private room over an expensive dinner, with an exclusive guest list. The purpose of the meeting: an employment interview. Present at the meeting were top executives Dick Fuld (Lehman Brothers), Greg Flemming (Merrill Lynch), Larry Fink (BlackRock), Paul Volcker (Former Fed Chair), Gary Cohn (Goldman Sachs), and Warren Spector (Bear Sterns). The subject of the introduction and interview, Barack Obama, was also present. The job he was seeking: President of the United States of America.

Some might ask why would the "Wall St" people back a Democrat? Isn't big business in bed with the Republicans, and don't the Democrats look out for the little guy? Well, that's just so much false left/right propaganda. Obama has been a much greater friend to Wall St. than the Republicans, and it doesn't hurt that these high-level CEOs and Executives are all hard-core limousine liberals; put simply, they are Democrats. And it's not a surprise that their "ideology" conveniently dove-tails right into their business profits. What these Wall St. Banksters and Obama know is this: big government means big debt. They are partners. Debt is the drug, the Banksters are the pushers, and politicians are the drug addicts. Obama wants to spend money, and he doesn't care how high the fees are or how much debt accumulates. The Banksters push the debt, underwrite the debt, resell the debt, package the debt, make markets out of debt, and advise on how to hide the debt with accounting tricks. Ask Orange County about it. Or Greece. Companies such as Goldman Sachs were at the center of those spectacular collapses, driven by debt and accounting fraud.

Obama gives speeches about the "Fat Cats" and Wall St. excesses. Simultaneously, he has a party and a good laugh with those same people. The jokes on you; the taxpayer, the saver, the producer, the consumer, and the future generations of Americans saddled with debt and a worthless currency.

More info:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-s-Half-Shell/ ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?329-The-Creature-from-Johnny-s-Half-Shell Government Shutdown: Who is buying this theatrical farce? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?288-Government-Shutdown-Who-is-buying-this-theatrical-farce Sat, 09 Apr 2011 02:07:11 GMT Let's call it like it is: the controversy surrounding the government shutdown is pure theater, being performed by the establishment Democrats and Republicans. There is no substance. The always convenient red herrings are being called upon to shift the debate, and to distract and mislead. This is not about abortion or woman's health.

The establishment Republicans and Democrats have proposed nearly identical budgets. There is no substantial difference in the spending. But they want to pretend there is a difference. They want to put on a show for the American public. So they create a phony battle over abortion and Planned Parenthood, pretending that there is some great difference between their positions.

Do not be fooled: there is no difference in their positions. So what do they agree upon besides having identical budget and spending proposals?

They agree that they can fool the majority of Americans, and divert them into a fake drama. They also agree that they can blame this on the true reformers, the few true fiscally responsible people, some of whom may be referred to as "Tea Party" members; the people who might propose significant solutions to our fiscal crisis. The establishment does not want any spending cuts, as this is their gravy train, and they do not want it stopped.

So what is their objective? A fabricated battle, that may very well include a government shutdown. Then, after much gnashing of teeth, and emotional outbursts, a "compromise" will be reached. A false compromise which maintains the status quo of ever-increasing spending and fiscal irresponsibility. At least their gravy train will keep rolling.

And we can not forget the red herrings. The Democrat establishment will claim that they stood up for women's rights and abortion. The Republican establishment will claim that they fought hard for spending cuts. And their respective constituencies will have warm and fuzzy feelings, along with the relief of avoiding this contrived crisis. If it really works out as planned, there will also be a negative feeling about anything related to "Tea Party".

Isn't it ironic that a celebrated term in American history such as "Tea Party", which represents standing up to oppressive government and it's taxation policies, is now being actively attacked by the establishment politicians? Then again, maybe that is not ironic at all. ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?288-Government-Shutdown-Who-is-buying-this-theatrical-farce <![CDATA[GOP Primer on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's report]]> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?181-GOP-Primer-on-the-Financial-Crisis-Inquiry-Commission-s-report Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:28:55 GMT The GOP members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission released their own "opinion" report on the larger Commission report issued this week. It is not a terribly bad summary of everything that went into the housing bubble and mortgage derivatives crisis.

The title of the Primer and GOP Commissioners:

REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS ON THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION
- FINANCIAL CRISIS PRIMER

Vice Chairman Bill Thomas
Commissioner Keith Hennessey
Commissioner Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Commissioner Peter J. Wallison

Delivered as required by P.L. 111-21: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009
The report primer mainly consists of a summary of the crisis, not unlike the hundreds of financial articles that have already been published. One must wonder how much the government spent on writing a report that could have easily been a college class assignment?

The primer does not place any blame on any particular persons, positions or entities. Was there any crime involved in the financial crisis? One could argue that knowingly and intentionally selling a bad product would constitute fraud (especially when it is repackaged and sold as high-quality and low risk). With that in mind, the GOP Commissioner's primer did discuss the financial industry that was involved in selling the bad product. It's probably the most positive spin that could be reasonably created, or perhaps the best that money and influence could buy. Needless to say, it stops just a little short of saying that the financial firms were "doing God's work".

How did important financial firms become exposed to the mortgage market?

The primary role that financial firms played in mortgage lending was that of financial intermediary, providing a link between those who wished to invest in mortgages and those who wanted to take out a mortgage to buy a home. This is the value of a robust financial system—it allows investors to make investments wherever they choose and borrowers to borrow at the lowest cost. Without this web of mortgage originators, depository institutions, broker-dealers, money funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, and the GSEs, it would have been incredibly hard for a retiree in California to lend his savings to a homebuyer in Miami, much less a diversified group of homebuyers across the country. But with financial firms acting as intermediaries, getting exposure to the U.S. mortgage market was made incredibly easy.

The process by which financial firms acted as intermediaries is known as securitization. Rather than holding a loan to maturity, the loan originator would sell the loan as part of a pool of loans into the secondary market for mortgages. These loan pools would be purchased, turned into MBS, and sold to investors. The system had worked this way for decades, and worked well.

(Emphasis added)
There was no mention of the moral hazard involved when an industry takes on high risks (such as sub-prime mortgages) and then immediately passes that risk on to unsuspecting customers. Almost humorously, the primer does mention that the large and noble financial companies regrettably carried some risk in the short time that they held the bad debt in their "pipeline". For some reason, the image of a sewer pipe comes to mind, with it's contents briefly in their hands before they pass it on to those foolish enough to purchase the "product".

The Commission found three primary ways that the risk of the mortgage market found its way onto the balance sheets of these financial firms: pipeline risk, super-senior risk, and reputational risk.
...
Pipeline risk: Firms involved in the structuring of mortgage-backed products had to hold the underlying loans or MBS on their balance sheets while these structured products were in the process of being created. Although the underlying loans or MBS were acquired with the intention of pooling and selling them, the market for mortgage-backed structured products collapsed quickly. Not all of the accumulated loans and MBS could be sold for a profit, or sold at all.
The issue of moral hazard is finally raised in regard to the "too big to fail" syndrome. Additionally, this section hints at one of the greatest threats experienced during the crisis, one that has remained relatively obscure. That threat was the loss of net asset value in supposedly safe money market instruments, otherwise known as "breaking the buck". Considering the amount of money and total confidence given to money market instruments, losses in this area may have created a run on the "banks" (or money market mutual funds) of epic proportions, most likely dwarfing the bank runs of the Great Depression.

This is the moral hazard problem caused by “too big to fail.” If the government is expected to be unwilling to let a firm fail, debtholders will continue to lend money to that firm regardless of the underlying strength of the firm’s balance sheet. This perception was an important source of stability in financial markets during the summer of 2008. After Bear was rescued, Lehman had been perceived as “too big to fail” by the markets, and when it failed, debtholders of other financial firms fled to safer investments.

Think about the state of the world in September 2008 from the perspective of a short-term lender. Your deposits and investments in short-term debt are based on the expectation that these are very safe and liquid. However, with the financial system in crisis, uncertainty abounds, and liquidity is paramount. What if one of your lenders refuses to lend you money or calls in your loan? The rational response is to hoard cash, or at least to move your investments away from counterparties that might be at risk of failure.

With everybody hoarding cash, and nobody lending, financial intermediation operated with escalating friction, and the panic spread rapidly. The first firms to experience problems after Lehman Brothers were the money market mutual funds and the two remaining investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The runs then spread to Washington Mutual, Wachovia, and Citigroup.

(Emphasis added)
We know that the government solution was to prop up the largest players in the financial and insurance industry, and to take on much of the bad debt. Was that the best solution? Perhaps the free market could have played a larger role. Was the U.S. Treasury Department's temporary guarantee program for money market funds enough to prevent a panic? As is the case today, banks and credit unions fail all the time. There is no panic. Individual account holder's assets are transferred to a new institution, and made available in short order. Instead of rewarding the "too big too fail" entities, let the market decide if they should fail. Panic would likely be avoided among money market mutual fund holders. Would stock holders in some financial corporations suffer loses? Yes, but one could argue that they suffered massive losses anyway, and that is the role of the stock market; investors share in profits, and they also share in loses. There is no guarantee, and no one believes that there is a guarantee when purchasing stocks.

Of course extending more government guarantees is far from perfect, but it would have prevented a panic in money markets, and still have allowed the free market to play a larger role. The perfect solution is to remove the government from the business of moral hazard altogether, and especially from bailing out businesses that are "too big to fail". It is not the originally intended, Constitutional role of the US Government, and it should not be the role now. Government involvement in backing the business world will always result in taxpayers paying for heavy losses. Privatizing gains and socializing losses is not capitalism or a free market at all, it's more akin to the economic practices of Mussolini's Italy, and it's theft from the taxpayers on a grand scale. ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?181-GOP-Primer-on-the-Financial-Crisis-Inquiry-Commission-s-report Is gold in a bubble? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?146-Is-gold-in-a-bubble Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:45:02 GMT Is gold in a bubble? Almost by definition, gold is *the* alternative currency, so it should be the most affected by the monetary inflation created by... Is gold in a bubble? Almost by definition, gold is the alternative currency, so it should be the most affected by the monetary inflation created by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury. Gold has certainly risen, and it is serving it's function well. One could say the efforts of the biggest financial corporations and governments to control the price of gold has resulted in a smooth curve, avoiding a speculative bubble in gold. Would there be as much demand for gold if the US Dollar was not being destroyed? Probably not. In that respect, there is speculation; speculation that gold is a safer currency than the US Dollar or other fiat currencies. And in fact, that is not speculation at all. In addition to it's many uses, Gold is money; a competing currency that has outlasted all others.

(Note: The above was removed for brevity from a prior blog entry, saved here for future reference.)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.p...my-will-suffer ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?146-Is-gold-in-a-bubble Signs point to the next Oil Bubble, and the economy will suffer http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?141-Signs-point-to-the-next-Oil-Bubble-and-the-economy-will-suffer Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:56:55 GMT In 1998, crude oil reached a relative low of approximately $10 a barrel. Ten years later, in 2008, oil was peaking at the $145 per barrel mark. What... In 1998, crude oil reached a relative low of approximately $10 a barrel. Ten years later, in 2008, oil was peaking at the $145 per barrel mark. What a nice ride it was for oil investors. But from 2006 to 2008, it showed all the signs of a relative peak, caused by a speculative bubble.

At the macro level, everything is rising in price compared to the US Dollar. We all know this. It's due to monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, commonly referred to as "printing money". But this monetary inflation tends to jump from bubble to bubble, rather than evenly flowing through the economy. When the Housing Bubble started popping in 2006, it was time for the "smart" money to move to the Oil Bubble (with the Housing Bubble being preceded by the Dot Com Bubble). It's always a search for the next commodity, asset or investment to use as both a speculative vehicle and an alternative currency.

The last time that oil entered a major speculative bubble in 2006, there were signs that the bubble was going to occur (other than a slowly rising price). Those same signs are present again. It starts with analysts from the biggest financial firms predicting higher prices in the near future. It also goes without saying that if these big firms are positioning themselves in the given investment vehicle, there is an element of self-fulfilling prophesy and conflict of interest in those predictions.

The second sign of the Oil Bubble was news reports indicating a general consensus that the price was going to rise. There is always a myriad of reasoning that goes along with this consensus, suffice it to say that the idea that the price of oil is going to rise, and rise soon, is in agreement. This usually coincides with an actual rise in the price of gasoline, and media publicity about the current and future price. It is worth noting that the price of gasoline often rises before crude oil rises in price. By coincidence or intention, it serves to increase awareness in the general public.

The third sign is media reports highlighting "failures" in the oil industry: a pipeline shut down for maintenance, a few oil rigs out of service, an oil field in the Middle East facing production problems. This serves to intensify the urgency to get in while there is still time.

All of these factors are now in play, and we can expect the price of oil to rise dramatically, according to prediction, with the biggest winners being the early adapters in the bubble. Would it be a coincidence if the biggest winners are the same people that started the ball rolling? That remains to be seen.

Relatively speaking, this bubble will once again burst, as speculative bubbles always do. This will not change the fact that in a macro sense, continued monetary inflation will result in continued price inflation, but it will make for some profitable "froth" on the way up.

But how long will an Oil Bubble last? Unlike many other bubbles, an Oil Bubble is extremely damaging to the entire economy. It effects nearly every aspect of our personal and business lives. The actions of a bubble in oil are analogous to a huge tax being levied at all levels on the economy. Unlike the subtle and hidden damage of monetary inflation, an Oil Bubble will be obvious and brutal in it's destructive force. Pressure will mount quickly and strongly for a solution. How long it takes for pricing to return to normal will depend upon the political agendas at work. History teaches us that the bursting of the bubble will begin when the biggest and longest players in the bubble suddenly take their profits and run. Like a huge pyramid scheme, the initial players will be the winners, with many more being the losers. In the case of an Oil Bubble, the entire economy loses.

On the bright side, like real estate and gold, the price of oil will never reach zero, but it may feel like it for the people who lose out and can not wait long enough for the given commodity to return to it's long term trend, if it returns within their lifetimes. Many losers in the Housing Bubble are still wondering when the bottom will be reached. That wait may be very long indeed. ]]> Brian4Liberty http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?141-Signs-point-to-the-next-Oil-Bubble-and-the-economy-will-suffer