And Idiots Like This Can Vote

Voting is useless. It is a waste of time. It's mob rules. It infringes upon property rights. You've heard me exclaim these sentiments before. And it's all thanks to drongos like this person.

I met a woman today who said...

"I would vote for Kerry because I think he is handsome. And Bush, he is too boring."

So there you have it. After all the campaigning and whatnot, it all comes down to morons voting because they are attracted to one of the candidates and not voting because they think the other one is boring.

The war in Iraq matters not. The economy? Who cares. Nothing of any real substance matters. Nope. This woman votes according to her sexual attraction index. The more she is turned on by a politician the more she will vote for them over the competition.

Just think of all the money that could be saved on campaigns if the teams of each party knew this. They would undergo an extreme makeover - a bit of workout, a bit of surgery and a bit of makeup and hair. And then simply show their new attractive self everywhere with "vote for me" underneath it.

Seeing as we cannot vote the bastards out (do you recall ever voting them in, in the first place?), how about a slightly modified voting system. I call it the value voting system. And it goes like this...

If you are on welfare you cannot vote.

That leaves value-producers (and their direct dependents) as the only ones who can vote.

This STOPS the professional couch potatoes who only breed further generations of professional couch potatoes, using the "democratic" system to vote themselves more goodies at the expense of the value-producers.

If only value-producers could vote, it would encourage the couch potatoes to get off their asses and get productive if they wanted to vote. It would force the politicians to stop screwing the value-producers to give to the masses of couch potatoes. And it would mean those who have a stake in the country have a say in the country.

Such a clean cut system would probably see an end to all the activist groups that seem to be made up solely of welfare bludgers. And would create a society that strived to create values. The welfare state would disappear - as there would be no long term benefit to being on welfare.

For consider if only value-producers could vote. Any politician that promised to take their money and give it to the couch potatoes, would get no votes.

Such a move would not only see the end of the welfare state, it would either create a large cash surplus in the govt, or the govt would reduce the tax rate allowing the slaves to keep more of their money. They would in turn spend it which would boost the economy.

So no matter which way you cut it, such a move to a value voting system would be a plus for the economy.

Some, I am sure, are shocked at such an idea. But they do not realize they actually support such an idea elsewhere. And would think odd if it were not so.

I am, of course, talking about workplace votes.

At the workplace, those who produce the values (the workers) vote on things to do with their employment. Those who do not create values in that company do not get to vote.

Now exchange the word company for country. And workers for citizens...

Those workers/citizens who create values (are employed) for the company/country can vote. Those who do not create values don't vote. Simple.

And to take this a step further... only those who own their own homes - or who are paying off a home, or who have a solid business investment in a bricks and mortar business - are allowed to vote. All renters cannot vote.

Again we see this everyday in companies. Only those who have stock in a company are allowed to vote in the company's stockholder's meeting. Those who do not own stock - who do not have a stake - in the company are not allowed to vote. And we would think it odd if they did.

Now replace company with country and stockholder with landowner/homeowner. Those who are landowners/homeowners can vote in country elections. (Just like those who are stockholders can vote in company elections.)

It is a proven system. And one we would not think of changing because it certainly would not be fair at all. Which is to say... it is not fair for those without a stake or those who are not producing values in a company to have a say in what the company does.

And yet. When it is on a country level, we throw these common-sense ideas out the window and give any and every imbecile a vote. No matter how much of a drain they have willfully chosen to be on the rest of us.

I say. If you are on welfare your right to vote should be rescinded. Effective immediately.

Oh. I can hear the bleeding hearts now. What about the seniors (they say seniors because they think someone might be upset over the word "aged")? They might be on welfare after a lifetime of work. Surely they deserve a vote?

Listen. This is real simple. If you are not a value-producer and are instead a value-leech you cannot vote. Plain and simple. No amount of "emotion" - and that's what this reasoning is, pure "pull on your heart strings" emotion - is entered into. You stop being productive and decide to live of the govt teat, then you lose your right to vote. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Who Chooses The News You See?

If I were to be the sole judge of what news you saw and/or heard, you would accuse me of Big Brother type tactics. Of censorship. And you'd be right.

But when the mass media does it, no-one complains. In fact, they accept it willingly. Even heralding the "free press."

But think about it. There is LOTS of stuff that goes on in the world on a daily basis. And off all of this news, the media chooses what to show you. And what they show you is what they want you to see. Censorship in action right under your nose.

Watch the nightly news from a few different channels and you will see them ALL showing the same lame stories. It is as if all the stories to be shown are sent to them in bundles. And all they do is decide how to intro the story.

It's uncanny how supposedly independent networks all just happen to run the identical stories night after night.

So WHO is choosing which stories to show you?

It can't be the network heads as they all show the same stories. And the chance of them all just happening to show the same stories every night, are zero. Maybe once in a while, but not every night.

I conclude that the network heads are having the stories handed to them. Or told what they can and cannot run.

Sure they all use the services of Sky, CBS, CNN, Reuters, et al. But those networks should be able to discover loads of news. And there is loads of news if you scour the online newspapers - and there are over 10,000 of those. And yet, the TV news shows bugger all stories. And most major daily papers only print a small portion of it too.

So if you live for the news, you are willingly allowing someone else to decide what news you will get to see/hear. And you are no better off than if you allowed me to decide what news you will see/hear.

Doubt this?

Ok. First. Get hold of some crime statistics for your city. Get rape numbers. Kidnappings. Missing persons. And so on. Just get the numbers. And then compare those numbers to the stories the news media reveals to you.

Notice how there are almost daily crimes and yet the media ignores most of them only to concentrate on a select few.

Take the Laci Peterson murder trial. There are loads of murder trials going on right now. And many of them have to do with a husband killing a wife. Yet we hear of none of them. Like we didn't hear of the pregnant black women who went missing and who was also found without a head in the water. Instead, we hear of Laci Peterson.

A girl goes missing and we hear about it. I can almost guarantee the one we hear about will be a not-unattractive white girl who appeared to be doing well in school. We will not hear of a plain-Jane black girl who was not doing well in school.

This is why I don't watch much news. I prefer to find my news instead of having someone else choose the news I will see.

Mass Media Duplicity

After 911 happened, the mass media decided NOT to show footage of the planes hitting the twin WTC buildings. They reasoned that it was upsetting people. And that what we needed was not to be upset but to be able to get on with our lives. Which would be made all the more harder by constant reminders in the way of video footage.

This is why there is scarcely any footage shown of the terrible events of that day. And why the left jump up and down if any conservative politician uses it in a political campaign ad - they know it will remind people that they were attacked and thousands of innocent value-producing members of society were murdered.

But it seems the media elite aren't so caring about our feelings if someone is kidnapped in Iraq. Because then, no matter how upsetting it really is to see a person pleading for their life, they show the footage over and over again. Almost to the point we have memorized it simply due to the repeated exposure.

It's rather odd that they do NOT show footage of an atrocity committed directly upon innocent people in the western world, by claiming it is upsetting. But do show upsetting footage of kidnapped people begging for their life in a war zone.

By not showing the 911 footage, I surmise they hope to deflect attention away from the perpetrators. By showing kidnap footage and life-pleading, they also hope to make the plebs grow more anti-war and anti-current-govt.

Some will say outlets like Al Jazera are to blame for they show the footage first. And any terrorist knows if it sends footage to Al Jazera that that footage will get shown.

But I say we must pass the blame onto ALL media outlets. Because without them choosing to show the footage we would not see the footage, because we don't get Al Jazera beamed into our homes.

Our media outlets also download stuff off the internet to show us, regardless if Al Jazera showed it or not.

Our media are the lapdogs of the terrorists.

They are outraged if our forces do anything wrong to an enemy combatant. But give the terrorists a free pass when they go out of their way to kidnap and behead innocent civilians.

If you want to stop the kidnapping, stop showing the kidnappings. When you don't reward the action by televising it around our nations, the action has lost it usefulness and it ended. Simple.

I'm not saying don't report it. No. They can report it all they like. But that doesn't mean they have to show the footage endlessly every half hour 24 hours a day.

There is plenty of stuff the media reports on without showing footage. They can do the same with the kidnappings and subsequent beheadings. Then, with the terrorists' outlet in the west removed, they will cease the pointless action (kidnapping) and move on to other things.

Look at CBS. Reading out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq every night during their news. Why not soldiers killed elsewhere? Why only those killed in Iraq? Why not the names of the innocent value-producers killed in 911? Why only those in Iraq?

It is this one-sidedness exhibited by the media towards their leftist "comrades" that turns me off them. If they showed a modicum of balance. Of having standards. Then I might view them differently. But until that day comes I consider them to be the terrorist sympathizers their actions show them to be.

Reds Under The Bed Osamas In The Closet

This constant scaremongering about the "War on Terror" is doing my head in. Here's the text from an ad the govt is constantly repeating...

Small pieces of information from members of the public can help keep Australia safe from terrorism.

Police and security agencies are working hard, but you could help them complete the picture.

If you see anything suspicious, call the 24-Hour National Security Hotline and help protect Australia from terrorism.

Call 1800 123 400. Trained operators take every call seriously and you can remain anonymous.

And what concerns me about this ad is how it is encouraging people to spy on each other and put each other in to the police.

How does a member of the public know if something is related to terrorism?

They don't. But the govt doesn't care. They just want you to call. And the more calls the better. They can then justify increasing their "force" to "handle" the information influx.

See a neighbor buy a few bags of fertilizer? Then put them into the cops because fertilizer "could" be used to make a bomb - somehow.

Don't know what your neighbor does for a living? Then put them into the cops because they "might" be being supported by a terror network and "might" be planning something.

In the book 1984 by George Orwell, Winston Smith couldn't trust his neighbors because everyone was a spy.

And this ad is encouraging that very same behavior... spying on your neighbors because they could be linked to a terror cell.

It's just like the reds under the bed thing from years gone past. Where neighbors would put each other in because they "might" be a communist plotting to overthrow the govt.

Gimme a break. You don't create a safe society by encouraging the members of that society to put each other in for the slightest thing. What you create is a secretive society as no-one trusts anyone. And everyone then keeps to themselves more and more. And in so doing, actually are not able to notice as much stuff as they once did - because they also fear being put into the cops and so hide away inside their homes. And if they do see something, they become afraid to say anything for fear of retribution - so they adopt the Sergeant Schultz syndrome and they "know nothing."

This is the kind of society this type of brainwashing creates. A less free unfriendly society. Just like govt wants. If you don't trust anyone, you won't gather in any kind of group. And no groups means no-one to organize to overthrow govt. Totalitarianism complete.

The Coming Financial Collapse

Back in January 2003 I was already heralding the end of the property boom. My research results, which take anywhere from 9 months to a year and a half to exhibit in the market as far as everyone else is concerned, alluded me to the end of the property boom. With the only thing delaying the crash being low interest rates.

And delaying is all it can do. It cannot put it off. Just delay the inevitable.

And now we come to my next prediction. One I wish I were wrong about but, alas, I feel I am only too right about. One I have touched on previously. And one I will go into in more detail here. And that is...

We are about to suffer an economic collapse that could make The Great Depression seem like a cake walk.

And here's why:

First there was the dotcom boom. This was created in part by Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan. The low interest rates coupled with hype saw large investments into companies which had never made a single penny of profit. And people bought and sold stock on the price of the stock and not the underlying business. (Studying "Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds" reveals the same insanity years ago in France and England - buying stock in companies that had never made a single penny in profit. With one such company even saying their enterprise was "a secret enterprise which no-one can be told about but which will make lots of money" - and they sold loads of stock!)

Eventually, when it was too obvious to ignore, the truth came home to roost. Companies that have never made a single penny in profit are not worth a penny either. And so the investors cashed out, took their profits and fled the market, causing the dotbomb crash.

They took their money and put it into real estate.

Together with super low interest rates thanks to Greenspan and a flood of money, the housing sector erupted in price, not because of first-time home buyers coming into the market.

In Australia, for example, the percentage of home owners (which includes actual owners as well as those paying off mortgages) versus renters, has been roughly 70% - 75% home owners and 25% - 30% renters. And it has been this way for about 50 years.

At the height of Australia's property boom, some politicians were bragging about how 70% of Australians are now home owners - as if their "first home owners grant" was the reason why. Which to those of us in the know, reveals no change from the usual.

(Side note: I have clients in the loan business and they never gave a loan because someone had the first home owners grant. You had to show your deposit came from saving first and meet their other normal lending criteria first. The grant came later and was used to help pay down the loan a bit.)

As the percentages of owners vs renters never really changed from the norm, that means the price boom was more about people cashing out in one area and buying in other areas where they could get more house for their money. Such as selling up in Sydney and buying in Brisbane - where prices have traditionally been much lower than in Sydney, sometimes as much as 50% lower for the same house situated the same distance from the city. The Limited Supply meets the Mr Money Bags Sydney demand, and prices rise.

But wages don't rise as fast as house prices. Which means people really stretch themselves financially to buy the overpriced houses. Specially the locals. Who now have to buy houses at a prices which have been driven up by cashed-out interstate buyers/investors.

When the limit has been reached it has been reached and no interest rate change will stop it.

For example: Small 3 bedroom fibro houses built in the '70s, are now selling for $360,000 in my area.

On a 30 year mortgage at 6%, the repayment is $2,158 per month - which works out to be $498 per week. On to this the "rates" needs to be added which are about $1,400 per year. Plus repair and insurance. At least another $1,000 per year. Which, when spread over the course of the month bring the total monthly outlay to $2,358 - which is $544 per week.

The average weekly income is about $500 per week. So to afford a house at these crazy prices, both partners needs to work. With one partner's entire income going to pay off the house. This is a natural upper limit governed by income levels.

If there is a slight hiccup - a week sick, a small interest rate rise, major repair job, etc., then this couple will be in real bad financial strife.

Multiply this example by pretty well all new home-buyers and negative-gearing investors in the last three years of the boom, and you have a recipe for disaster.

What will happen now is as follows...

To cover the deficit created by the war effort and other anti-terrorism initiatives, the govt will print money. This will send inflation through the roof (which could cause house prices to rise artificially). To curb it, interest rates will be raised.

Raised interest rates will devastate the homeowners. They won't be able to afford their properties. As just a small 2% rise from 6% to 8% will see a monthly repayment of $2,641 ($2,841 with the extras added) sticking with my $360,000 house example. Which is an increase monthly repayment of $483 - or $111 a week.

Investors who had fallen for the "negative gear your way to wealth" malarky, will find the higher interest rates are eating them alive. And they will understand why seasoned investors call negative geared houses "alligators" - because they just keep on eating you.

Many will simply let their house go into foreclosure. Others will try to sell. But they will find a glut of houses on the market as everyone in the same boat tries to sell. The price of real estate will fall - it has already begun falling in Sydney and Melbourne (Australia's two largest cities) as I write this and we haven't hit the real bad times yet!

Many people will be upside-down financially - they will owe more to the bank than their house is worth.

Some will try to rent their property out. But with a glut of properties on the market, they will either stay vacant or competition for rent will drive the rent price down (During the height of the boom, rent prices in my area were going up 25%+ per year. For the last 18 months they have stagnated.)

With such low rents, normal investors will not bother acquiring the overpriced houses as investments.

Couple this with many new housing projects coming to completion and you have over-supply and under-demand. Prices drop.

With the real estate section plummeting money will flee real estate (those who are smart have already fled or are fleeing right now as I pen this missive). Because interest rates are high it will stay out of the stockmarket. The stockmarket will suffer as a side-effect of the depressed housing sector. Slow housing sales, keeps money out of circulation and thus out of the hands of the businesses listed on the stock exchange. Reduced earnings for them sees their stock price drop. Money will stay in the banks earning a risk-free good rate of return.

The economy will slow. Just at a time the baby-boomers are beginning to retire and draw on the govt funds, as well as take their money out of the markets.

Because the govt never had money put aside to pay the pension money, and had always paid it out of current taxes, the retiring baby-boomers will be a massive drop off out of the workforce of taxable employees.

The only solutions the govt will immediately see are:

1: Tax the still-employed workers to make up the shortfall - but that will not happen because there is only so much you can tax a person.

2: Print more money - which will lead to higher inflation. This is their tried and true method so it will be the first thing they try.

The inflation will eventually see wages increase and "bracket creep" will see people paying more of their income in tax, while prices rise. Making them worse off.

Depending how bad the housing sector is hit - and I think it will be pretty bad - a lot of those in the construction field will be out of work. Thus, more money will be out of circulation. The ripple effect will be very bad...

Fewer houses being built means less call for lumber for frames, carpets and tiles, garage doors and so on. Those involved directly in those items (carpenters, door installers, etc.) will see themselves with less work. Which means less money for them. The companies involved in the supplying see a drop-off in business. Fewer houses being built means fewer garage door sales. So the company as a whole loses money. Maybe even lays off staff.

The transport companies who hauled the goods which made up the houses, also see a drop-off in work. Maybe they also lay people off.

With fewer people working, and lay-offs a plenty, less money is in circulation. Inflation is still high and coupled with interest rates have made homes unaffordable.

People start cutting back on "luxury" goods and services. They begin doing their own cleaning and lawn mowing. The dog can go without washing - or they also do that themselves. They allow the car to get dirty or do it themselves at home. Restaurant outings decline. Coffee shop spending goes down.

Less and less money circulates within the economy.

With such dire financial times, housing is definitely not affordable. Prices drop further. People are upside-down on their mortgages - owe more than the house is worth - and there appears to be no end in sight. (You only have to look at the recession which Australia suffered when the leftist govt removed the ability for property investors to claim tax deductions on the expenses of the property. Investors fled the property market and a recession ensued.)

And all of this is coming together at this point in time.

• Boomers retiring taking money out of the market - and taking themselves out of the work force and thus removing themselves as a source of tax for the govt
  
• Boomers becoming a drain on the tax system because social security money is paid out of current tax collected and not some "fund" where social security was stored
  
• Property market decline following the boom
  
• Interest rate rise
  
• Inflation - caused by govt printing money to make up shortfall from retiring baby boomers and to cover deficit and war on terror

With such a confluence of events, this depression will be a big one. Lasting at least 10 years and most probably closer to 20!

Normal housing cycles are roughly ten years in length. But normal housing cycles don't have hyper inflation coupled with mass workforce exodus.

There is ONE way to stop this "mother of all depressions" and that is to remove all income taxation. Stop taking 30% - 50% of the people's income and money will remain in circulation. The govt will actually take in more tax from the 10% GST tax on goods and services. And will not have to print money to fund the retiring baby boomers. Thus inflation will not become as high. And the devastation caused by increased interest rates will likewise be avoided because people will have more money to afford the increased rates. And, in fact, we might actually see a boom - a perpetual boom in the overall economy.

But such a move would take a lot of guts. And, from a political point of view, is likely only to be implemented by a conservative govt who can see far enough ahead. And not a leftist govt who is more about increasing taxes to pay for ever more govt-provided services people don't really need.

The media may not report on the depression for a while. But rest assured by the time they do, it will have been underway for at least 6 months, and even longer.

Now you know.

And if you had read my warnings previously, you would have known I predicted this to start just after the US election (late 2004 early 2005) or maybe even before the election. I now think, it has started!!!

My evidence is the weakening US dollar. Our Aussie dollar is gaining strength against the greenback. But, as some of the media seemed surprised, NOT against other currencies like the Pound or the Euro. And this means it is not gaining strength against the greenback but rather, the greenback is weakening. Due to inflation caused by the govt printing money to pay for the huge deficit.

The price of oil is going up. And inflation will soon be evident. Even the US talking heads are showing concern about the coming inflation due to the deficit - because they know the govt prints its way out of deficits.

As the US dollar drops in value, the price of gold rises. Though looking at the price of gold compared to the Euro, little change has taken place. Another indication that it is not gold that is rising but the US dollar that is falling.

A weak $US will make all imported goods in the US more expensive. Some will not import due to this and those that do will offer the goods at the higher inflated price - which people won't be able to afford anyway.

It's just going to be one bad trip, dude. Unless the abolishing of income tax takes place.

Barring that, my personal, informal and unqualified suggestion (which is not financial advice at all) is - sell the home you live in RIGHT NOW and rent. And if you do not want to rent, downgrade into a cheaper home you will still be able to afford if interest rates hit 10%. This way YOU will still be ok.

If you want a "safe" investment, put your money into term-deposits at the bank. As interest rates rise so too will the interest you are paid by the bank. And make it one of the large national banks - not an independent small bank.

Cut back on your hyper-spending lifestyle NOW. So you will be used to it by the time everyone else starts feeling the brunt of the crisis. This will also give you more disposable income.

And do your darndest to pay off your credit card(s) and be free of all debt other than home loan. (I personally think being free of a home loan is also smart. But I realize many people somehow feel more "secure" if they are paying off a home instead of renting. So if you must have a home loan, downgrade your home into a more affordable one. But do it NOW before it is too late.)

There is nothing you can do to stop the coming collapse. The best you can do is position yourself so it will not effect you too much.

Is my take a chicken little sky is falling stance? I wish it were. Alas, I seldom make predictions. And when I do, they invariably come true. This is one I wish I were wrong about but am not. Mark my words. The media will begin reporting it soon. And it will progressively get worse - unless income tax is abolished.

The Sky Is Falling. The Currency Isn't Backed By Gold. Oh My!

Years ago our currency was on "The Gold Standard." Which basically meant the govt could issue $X in paper money for every ounce of gold it had in reserve. With the idea being that you could exchange your paper money for the gold if you wanted to.

The logic behind this was simple... paper was lighter to carry around and easier to conduct large business transactions with than heavy cumbersome gold.

At some point, the govt went off the gold standard. And this meant it could print more money than it had gold to back up.

To fully appreciate this, let's see it by way of example:

If we assume gold was $100 per ounce, that means for every ounce the govt has it can print $100 worth of money. And no more than that.

Obviously, this means the total amount of money in circulation would be dependent on the gold reserves the country had. It also means, prices would be fairly stable.

As soon as the govt went off the gold standard, it could print money regardless of how much gold it had in reserve.

Obviously, this is a recipe for inflation. But the govt didn't care because it would then use the banks and interest rates to try to manipulate the inflation it caused by printing money.

This also means, there are not enough gold reserves as "security" for the debt the govt incurs and creates. And some believe that if all the debt was called due, there would be a catastrophic financial melt-down. And they'd be right... IF all the debt was called due at the same time, which, of course, it won't be.

But still they fear the vulnerability of the money because it is not backed by gold, but only by people's flimsy faith in its value.

You might even think this way.

And to those who think this way I ask, "And what gives gold its value?"

See. While the money panic merchants rail about how our fiat money is not backed by anything substantial - such as gold - they fail to realize that gold is likewise not backed by anything.

Our money survives because we have faith in it. Gold is likewise only worth what it is worth because we have faith in it.

Do you see the duplicity?

Even if we were on the gold standard, the same faith is needed. If paper money was backed by gold it is only worth anything because we have faith in the value of gold.

So no matter which way you cut it, any currency works and is only worth anything because we all agree to say it is so.

If you are a Star Wars fan you might recall the scene in Star Wars Episode I were Qui-Gon is speaking to Watto about buying some spare parts. He offers Watto $20,000 Republican Credits, to which Watto says, "Republican Credits are no good out here. I need something more real."

This exemplifies the faith in the currency. Watto has zero faith in Republican Credits because no-one else on that planet had faith in them. Thus he wouldn't be able to use them as a means of exchange with anyone. So they were worthless to him - no matter how many there were.

Consider international business. It is mainly being conducted in $US. The price of oil is listed in $US. And the US mint prints up large denomination notes ($500 notes) for those who do large cash transactions in Europe.

BUT, the Euro is denting that. Some countries are starting to conduct their oil business in Euros. And the Euro has a $1,000 note - which means large scale cash transactions can be handled much easier because fewer physical notes are needed, so less space is needed.

And this is only happening because people are now placing more faith in the Euro as a currency with which to conduct large scale international business.

So whether a currency is backed by gold or not, it really only boils down to our agreement that the currency (paper money or physical gold) is a viable means of exchange.

Think about it... we used to conduct business in physical gold. We then conducted business in gold-backed paper. We then conducted business using un-backed paper. And now we conduct business using numbers in a bank account which we view electronically over the net.

From the physical exchange of a metal to the exchange of digital numbers from one account to another. Either way, it only works because of our faith that it is a viable means of exchange.

There was a time when other things were used as currency. Such as Rum. Carved stones with holes in them. As well as pots, pans, animals and so on. All of which only worked because it was agreed upon as a viable means of exchanging values. And that, when it comes down to it, is all that matters and has ever mattered - backed by gold or not.

Deductive Logic Tells Us Oil/Gas Is NOT A Fossil Fuel

I've previously written about oil/gas not being a fossil fuel (see here). And there is a very interesting article about it here - where one prominent scientist has PROVEN that oil is not a fossil fuel by drilling into granite to find oil. And in not just one location but in over 300 different locations!

And recently, a team of American researches conducted an experiment to see if they could duplicate in the lab, what they think happens in the Earth. And they did!

They took common elements in the Earth's crust, subjected them to heat and pressure similar to that where gas is normally found and out popped the methane (the substance most abundant in "natural gas"). You can read the full article here. (Thanks to John Ray for finding this. Five of John Ray's blogs are linked on the left.)

Conventional Wisdom, which is almost always wrong, says that methane only results from the decomposition of certain organic matters in the absence of oxygen. And natural gas - whose main component is methane - is produced by the anaerobic decay of organic material (that is, decaying matter without oxygen being present). Natural gas, besides containing methane, also contains ethane.

Now let's leave Earth and go into outer space. And in particular... Saturn's moon, Titan.

Titan is interesting because it has a thick smog-like atmosphere. An atmosphere made up of 94% nitrogen with the other gases being methane, ethane, acetylene, propane and so on. It also has carbon dioxide, cyanogen, hydrogen cyanide and helium. With the hydrocarbons thought to being formed due to the Sun's ultraviolet light reacting with methane in the upper atmosphere.

Titan is also interesting because it has lakes of natural gas.

This is important because scientists "claim" natural gas - and methane - are ONLY the result of plant and animals decaying in the absence of oxygen.

So how do they explain the natural gas, and the natural gas lakes, on the moon of Titan. A moon so cold the gas has turned to liquid to form lakes? How do they explain the thick hydrocarbon tar-like goo on the moon's surface?

Do they expect us to believe life existed on Titan millions of years ago, then it all died, somehow got covered up with dirt, and then decayed without oxygen present creating tar-like goo and massive amounts of methane gas?

No. It is naturally occurring on Titan.

So if it is naturally occurring on Titan, how come it is not naturally occurring on Earth too?

You cannot have it both ways. Either it occurs naturally as part of the planet's make up, or it doesn't, on such large scales.

The natural gas lakes on Titan prove one thing... one bunch of scientists is wrong. Dead wrong. Either there are no hydrocarbons on moons like Titan as well as Saturn and Jupiter (Jupiter has methane in its atmosphere, as do the planets Neptune and Uranus - with Uranus' color actually coming from the methane in the atmosphere absorbing the red light) - or - all of those planets once had lifeforms that died, got covered with dirt preventing oxygen getting to them, and then they decayed producing methane.

Considering the extremely inhospitable nature of the gas giants of our solar system, as well as their smaller moons, it makes sense to deduce that methane (natural gas) is a naturally occurring gas and not solely the result of decaying plant and animal matter in the absence of oxygen, as it is sometimes produced here on earth.

I think this problem (oil/gas is a fossil fuel) comes about and remains two reasons...

Reason # 1: The "natural gas comes from decaying matter" theory was initially based on inductive logic and not deductive logic. Which is to say... they saw how methane came from swamps due to plant and animal matter decay without oxygen. And they saw how methane came out of refuse dumps for the same reason. They induced, therefore, that ALL methane came from those sources.

The result is a clinging to of an outdated idea. Because to do otherwise would admit to the scientists being fallible. Which is probably why all great research breakthroughs comes from outside of the established scientific fields. Much to the chagrin of those in the accepted scientific fields.

Reason # 2: With the "natural gas comes from decaying matter" theory in place, there are vested interests who would lose a LOT of money if it was generally accepted that natural gas and oil are not the fossil fuels as claimed.

If it was acknowledged that natural gas and oil were naturally occurring within the Earth and that the Earth was constantly making more of the stuff through processes deep within the Earth - in a similar way to how the research team created methane in the lab without using methane-containing substances - they would find it hard to justify their price controls.

People would begin questioning WHY they have to pay $50+ a barrel for oil when it is in such high abundance we will never run out. And when the Earth is constantly creating more and bringing that supply up to the surface. The oil/gas cartel (OPEC) would find itself without the cashcow they now have. And we could find oil and gas available on the free market, much like how the Russian oil giant Yukos negotiates independent contracts to supply oil.