The New American Economy?

I recently read Bruce Bartlett's new book The New American Economy, which is a fascinating read if you're schooled in economic theory, or at least have taken an Economics class in college. What first struck me about this book is that Bartlett, a conservative, takes on conservatives and says they have it all wrong. I am not sure if I agree with Bartlett's observations, but I greatly respect his opinions, particularly since he puts much thought and research into what he writes.

Bartlett, like many other economists, states that the current financial crisis is much like the Great Depression. The most striking similarity is that we have experienced a largely deflationary cycle, which Bartlett demonstrates is just as bad as an inflationary cycle. His belief is that Keysian economic theory offers better solutions to the crisis than supply side economics. Although modern conservatives abhor Keynes's theories, Bartlett goes to great lengths to show that Keynes was quite conservative. After reading his book, I tend to agree that Keynes offers better solutions in this environment than supply side economics.

Right now, we need to back up a bit and explain the theories a bit. Lord Keynes believed that stimulating demand was the best way to grow an economy. He stated that this was done in two ways: 1) monetary policy, which includes large injections of capital into the economy by the central bank; 2) fiscal stimulus to increase the velocity of money. GDP is the product of the money supply and the velocity of money. Supply side economics focuses on the supply side of the demand/supply curve, as the name suggests. Supply side is concerned with stimulating supply to get the economy moving. In a general sense, Keynesian economics works best in a deflationary environment, supply side works best in an inflationary environment. With unemployment at 10%, with housing prices down, with auto sales in the dumps, with retail sales in general sluggish, demand needs to be stimulated.

What Part of George W Bush Was Conservative?
Where did we go so wrong as an economy in the first place? In general, I place more blame on the Republicans, particularly during the George W Bush years. Let's face it, we know Democrats like to spend taxpayers' money lavishly on crap that winds up with disastrous results. What is really disappointing is that Republicans took on this same persona during the GWB years. I laugh when people describe GWB as a conservative. I ask "What part of George W Bush was conservative?" I believe that the principles of conservative government involve three aspects: 1) Limited government (this above all else!); 2) Fiscal responsibility; 3) Judicial restraint. Limited government? Bush created a new cabinet level post that is still largely undefined to this day. Fiscal responsibility? Record deficits (although Obama has since obliterated this). 3) Judicial restraint? I hand you the Terri Schaivo case. The saddest part of the Bush years is that most of the self-proclaimed conseratives went along with all of it. So, the conclusion is that we went wrong as an economy because the Republicans abandoned their principles in the name of political expediency.

In the 2004 campaign, Bush proudly proclaimed "the ownership society" and used record home ownership as the shining example. However, this was a house of cards, built by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's easy money, the purchase of Democratic politicians (particularly Senator Christopher Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank) by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the Republicans, led by Bush, playing along. Fannie and Freddie became Ground Zero in the housing crisis, fostered by Greenspan's easy money (which was too easy for too long), and Bush's "ownership society." Of course, I cannot help but laugh at President Obama trying to scold "greedy Wall Street bankers" for not lending money. Who are they going to lend to? Are the banks supposed to make the same stupid loans that got us all in this mess in the first place? Also, for the record, those "greedy Wall Street bankers" were the second largest contributors to Obama's 2008 campaign, behind only trial lawyers.

Stimulus and Republican Irrelevancy
Back to Bartlett's book, he states that the $787 billion fiscal stimulus passed by Congress earlier this year was the right thing to do for the economy. Further, he states that the Republicans will only become more and more irrelevant if they stick to their cutting taxes and cutting spending themes. He may be right for today, but what we are seeing from the Democrats today leads me to believe that we will have a huge inflation problem in a few short years.

Where Bartlett's book really falls short is in describing what all this means for the future. He does a great job of researching Keynes, and lays it out in reasonably good laymen's terms. But what the application of these theories holds for future growth is sorely lacking in this book.

Sub-Optimizing Growth
Historically, government is a terrible allocator of resources. To suggest that we are going to optimize long-run economic growth simply by government stimulus is pure fiction. As the government becomes more pervavise in the economy, we can only assume that long-run growth will be sub-optimized. Since the end of World War II, the US economy has grown by about 3.2% annually. However, a larger government sector can only lesson this long-run average. Waste, corruption, the power to tax and the power to run large annual budget deficits as far as the eye can see will ensure that the economy will grow at a lower level of annual growth, which will translate into lower standards of living for Americans across the board.

So, stimulate the economy to get us out of this mess. Flood the system with money. Then get the hell out of the way. Keynes believed in fiscal stimulus, but he also believed that government should pull all the stimulus and get out of the way as the economy recovered. Otherwise, get ready for another round of double digit inflation, combined with high unemployment and bring on the supply side economics.

10 Surprises for 2010

Those who work in the investment business anticipate a piece about this time every year from Byron Wien, former strategist at Morgan Stanley entitled "10 Surprises". His 10 surprises reflect events that he believes will happen in the upcoming year that, at the time of writing them, are well outside the consensus thinking. His events usually focus on financical market, economic and political events (for instance, he called Barack Obama's victory in 2008 while the consensus held that Hilary Clinton would be the Democrat's nominee for President). In that spirit I'll launch my top 10 surprises. I make no promises that my top 10 surprises are outside the consensus thinking. If you have any you'd like to add, feel free. Enjoy!

1. The economy will show a brief recovery before falling back into a "double dip" recession. Unemployment will stay persistently high, only dropping to about 9 percent before heading back up to 10 percent.

2. Inflation and interest rates stay at historically low levels. With the economy in the tank, bank assets continue to decline, easing any inflation fears and keeping interest rates in check. The price of gold will drop dramatically, while stock prices will decline 3 to 5 percent in 2010.

3. With opposition to health care reform high, moderate Democrats in the Senate will keep Congress from passing any meaningful health care reform, and the issue is essentially done for the remainder of President Obama's term.

4. At least one major department store chain will go out of business in 2010, likely a mid-range department store chain.

5. The American car companies, particularly GM, will show surprising strength in 2010, with sales coming in better than expected. Sales of imported cars will slow dramatically.

6. The U.S. housing market remains in the doldrums. Housing starts will rise slightly in the first half of the year, but housing prices will remain low. Housing starts will taper off again in the second half of the year.

7. The dollar will remain weak, the deficit will run at another record, and in the fall 2010, politicians, bankers and investors will be discussing the government's ability to borrow further, and fears of a government default on its debt will create a mini-panic on Wall Street.

8. The U.S. will remain mired in a stalemate in Afghanistan, with no discernible progress. President Obama will be pressured by his own party to get out, while the Republicans of all people will be supportive of his policy to remain in the worn torn country.

9. Republicans will pick up significant seats in both houses of Congress, but will fail to win a majority in either house. Republicans will pick up at least 25 seats in the house, and maybe 4 in the Senate.

10. Finally, 99 percent of us will break our New Year's resolutions within the first two weeks of the new year. But not to worry, for tomorrow is another day.

On Being A "Part Texan"

Recently, my grandmother passed away at the ripe old age of 91, and my Mom and sister went to her funeral in Amarillo, Texas. What struck me upon their return was the way my Mom spoke so fondly of Texans, and their friendliness in particular. Her nostalgia got me to thinking about my days in Texas and my recollections of Texans.

My memories of Texas are far different than my Mom's. She was born in Amarillo and spent much of her childhood there. I went to college in Waco, graduating from Baylor in 1989. Her world was west Texas, mine was central Texas. But even though those two towns are worlds apart, my guess is that our impressions of Texans are quite similar.

My biggest impression of Texans is that they are a very proud people. I remember the prevailing thinking of the Shawnee Mission South students from my high school days being "I can't wait to get out of here and get out of Kansas." Yet the Texans I knew did not want to leave Texas. They were proud of their state, and their heritage and they wanted to stay. Of course Texans are not perfect. They talk funny. For instance, they use the word "Y'all" a lot. In Texas, the word "fixin" means preparing, not repairing. For example, they would say they were "fixin" to go to dinner. I would start thinking "what's wrong with the dinner?" and how they would go about fixing it. Finally, the one natural resource that is most responsible for the wealth in Texas is oil (pronounced oy-ul). Yet Texans simply don't know how to pronounce it. They say "ul". You'd think they would know how to pronounce the name of the resource that is responsible for so much of the state's wealth! But my funniest memory is the time my Dad was introduced to the mother of my good friend, Chris Pattillo. She introduced herself by saying "Hi, I'm Janet Pattillo," in the thickest east Texas accent I've ever heard. My Dad didn't understand a word she said! I had to finally tell him what her name was. Clearly, my Dad was out of his element.

Of course my biggest memory from Texas was meeting my wife. That made all the lonely days away from home worthwhile. I also made some good friendships for which I am thankful. Other memories of Texas include kicker dancing, chicken fried steak, cowboy boots, and a religion known as high school football. To this day, I consider the Baylor campus my second home. This really hit me on a Spring Break trip in 2007, when I took my boys to the campus. I was so happy that the core of the campus was largely the same as I remember it. About the only thing that had changed is that the "rocket launcher" sculpture had been taken out. Pat Neff Hall looked as majestic as ever. I took a walk through the Hamkamer School of Business (Hamkamer High to non-business types).

No particular point to this except I'm waxing nostalgic about my past, an exercise we all do from time to time. I know that Kansas City is my home, but I also know that my time in Texas is a big part of who I am and I am thankful for that time in my life. I am a Kansan and I'm proud of that. In a way, I am also at least part Texan and proud of that as well.

Thoughts on Health Care

The health care debate continues to generate a lot of noise, which has caused me to stop and ponder what will work and what will not. I approach this from a number of different angles: as a business owner, as a matter of faith, and from my own education in the area of government and economics.

From a purely economic perspective, the idea of a single-payer health care system is a disaster waiting to happen. A government monopoly (or any monopoly for that matter) will become bloated, costly, inefficient and unresponsive. There is no incentive to behave otherwise. The beauty of competition is that keeps people sharp, ensures maximum effort, and keeps costs low. So when I hear the President or anyone in Congress tell us that a single-payer health care will save money, I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or hide my money under a mattress. A look at other government monopolies such as Medicare for the elderly, or the Post Office tell us that their history of operating monopolies is not good.

The other truth about government subsidies is that when a government subsidizes something -anything - you get more of it than you ever planned for. We subsidized retirement with Social Security, and now we have more retirement than we can handle as a society. We fought a "war on poverty" under the Johnson and Nixon Administrations with welfare - and poverty won! If the government subsidizes healthcare, we will get more demand for healthcare services than our system can handle. This will result in long waits for some procedures, and yes, it will inevitably lead to rationed healthcare. From a purely economic standpoint, single-payer healthcare is a loser.

But what about from a faith perspective. I was particularly intrigued when the pastor of my church, Adam Hamilton, urged the congregation to think about this from the prespective of Jesus who would admonish us to care for the sick and the poor. I do not believe that Jesus would have any comment about the economic ramifications, or the evils of single-payer healthcare. He really didn't have much to say about government, except pay your taxes. I have to admit, this is where I struggle because I do not know what contribution I can make. Perhaps my role as a business owner helps. I do offer my employees, and their families, health insurance. Not all of them take it. Under the Obama plan, my business would have to pay a 2-6% payroll tax, which would be crippling to my business.

Conservatives are right to criticize the President's plan. I do not believe that a government-run system is the answer. Opening up competition to more insurance companies, on a state-by-state basis, would be a good first step. The best way to reduce costs is by increasing competition. But what about increased access? Millions still cannot afford health care services. This conundrum between economics and faith leaves me twisted on the subject. If I follow my faith 100% on this, I would neglect the economic side. With the economy in a very weakened state, the added burden of increased healthcare costs could sink the entire system. But if I follow my purely economic instincts, then I am just plain cold hearted.

Bottom line, increasing access to the system will increase costs to society. It will also stress the healthcare system. We have addressed the subject of increasing access, but what about increasing suppliers of healthcare services (i.e. doctors)? If you are looking to cut health costs, it seems to me there is little incentive to go become a doctor, particularly a primary care physician. Increased demand combined with steady supply leads to shortages, long lead times (waiting 6 months for an operation), etc...and ultimately to rationed care.

There are no easy answers. Right now, I do not have the answer. I think I have a better idea of what I do not want to see versus what I do want to see.

A Good First Step

While I find I often do not agree with President Obama's policies, I applaud the tone of his speech today in Cairo. Our relations with predominantly Islamic nations has been badly frayed the last several years. The speech today was a first step. Just a baby step. But a step in the right direction.

Do we still need to fight a "war on terror"? I believe we do. Terrorists must be dealt with harshly. All they understand is the business end of a loaded gun. Remember, they are at war with us. Make no mistake about that. But, in order to successfully fight a war on terror we need the cooperation of predominantly Islamic nations and their governments. We cannot fight this war alone, nor should we.

It is unbelievable to think that back on September 12, 2001, we enjoyed the good will of every civilized nation on earth. The world all became Americans after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, President Bush and his Administration blew every bit of that goodwill. Clearly, a new approach is needed. Conceptually, a war on terror is a great idea. However, the Bush Administration so badly executed every phase of this, that many people now regard a war on terror as unnecessary. We were extremely fortunate that the US did not suffer another major terrorist attack after September 11, and the Bush Administration deserves credit for this. But, the overall management of the war on terror was a disappointment at best, and a possible disaster at worst.

Terrorists see themselves in the midst of a 1,000 year struggle against the West and against the Israeli nation. They see themselves as freedom fighters...and one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sure many British citizens thought of our revolutionaries as nothing more than the 18th century equivalent of the modern day terrorist. However, today's terrorist knows no boundaries, is not governed by any nation, and has no qualms about killing innocent people. These people must be dealt with harshly. And this requires massive worldwide cooperation. Mavericks and lone cowboys will not win this war on terror.

What or who will win the war on terror? I believe peaceful people, who have the courage to fight when necessary will win. Who are these people? On the front lines are bankers, accountants, and intelligence investigators. I believe funding sources need to be cut off first. Since terrorists are not bound by any national government, they have no power to tax. Second, we need to present opportunities to oppressed peoples. People with no hope, people who only know oppression and endless poverty will join up with the terrorists. They have nothing to lose at that point. Make no mistake, these are long-term solutions. Soldiers and weapons should be our last resort in the war on terror, not the first.

We have a long way to go in the Muslim world. The Iranians hit it on the head when they noted deep resentment against the U.S. in the region. The resentment will not go away with a pretty speech or two. We will have to follow up with action. But we need to approach this more cooperatively, not unilaterally. Mr. Obama gave us a good first step.

What's Going On?

Ours is a nation in desperate need of an etiquette lesson. Where are the manners that our Mom taught us? On a national level, there is now an appalling level of personal attack that I hope does not trickle down to the rest of us. First, Rush Limbaugh says that he hopes that President Obama fails. Of course, an Obama presidency that fails will greatly benefit Mr. Limbaugh, but what about the rest of us? I admit that I did not vote for Mr. Obama, but I don't want him to fail. I want him to succeed and I want the rest of us to succeed too. Then, at the White House Corrospondents Association dinner, comedian Wanda Sykes called Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker on September 11, 2001, in an attempt to be funny. So now we find humor in accusing someone of being a hijacker on a day in which 19 hijackers killed 3,000 people? Then, there is the curious case of Carrie Prejean, with enough venom and hypocrisy on all sides to fill a 747.

My bigger concern is what about the rest of us? Most of know this is nothing more than hot air from a bunch of gas bags that don't really deserve our attention. But when these stories consume the news headlines, they are bound to creep into our own lives. How many times were school shootings in the 1990's followed up with another shooting or two? Headlines have a nasty habit of creeping into our own lives. Remember what we all learned as children: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

10 Things I Think...

It's been awhile since I last posted here and I'm due for an update. Here goes with 10 Things I Think. Of course, this type of a list is likely to change daily, but I won't update it daily. Without further ado, here goes....

1. March Madness is just around the corner and there is no better time of the year.

2. This coming on the heels of one of the best Super Bowls ever. 2008 was a great year for sports, and 2009 might eclipse it.

3. Is there a more arrogant and clueless group of people than Wall Street executives? $1 million to redecorate an office? Are you f*cking kidding me?

4. Speaking of Wall Street genuises, just how big is this mess they've got us into? If you spent $1 million per day, every day, since the time of Jesus Christ, you would have spent an amount of money equal to about 1/3 of the money Tim Geithner says we need to bail out the banks.

5. Speaking of which, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is clearly in over his head.

6. Is there a more poisonous politician today than Nancy Pelosi? I think she's in a race with Mr. Geithner to see who can sink Mr. Obama's presidency first. This woman clearly doesn't deserve to be anywhere near a leadership position.

7. Strange as this sounds, the best Mexican food I have ever eaten was in Chicago, the best barbeque was in a gas station and the best steak was in Las Vegas.

8. I am not surprised that Alex Rodriguez used steroids. My question is why did he stop taking them every October?

9. The Economist is the best magazine in the world. Period.

10. It's 5 o'clock somewhere.

Come On ESPN, Show Us The Real Heroes

Today came news that Myron Rolle, a safety on the Florida State football team and Rhodes scholarship winner, will forego the NFL for a year to study medical anthropology. This is a headline story that gets about 6 paragraphs in the newspaper. I could not help but contrast this to the coverage that Adam Jones, released by the Dallas Cowboys last week, received. ESPN covered the story ad nausem, even featuring program devoted to some dramatic charges against Mr. Jones.

The disappointing aspect of this to me was ESPN bombarding the airwaves with the Adam Jones story. The message that was delivered was simple: If you want to get on TV, engage in questionable behavior. My young sons, and kids everywhere, are receiving the message that doing the right thing will not get you noticed, but revealing bad character will make you a national celebrity. This is not confined to athletics, but is true in all walks of life. We get bombarded by aberrant behavior from Hollywood actors and actresses all the time. Even CNBC is in on the act covering the Bernie Madoff story at the expense of all else.

In my opinion, ESPN needs to devote more time to covering Myron Rolle and less time covering Adam Jones. Rolle, generally projected to be a second round NFL draft pick this spring, earned his undergraduate degree in pre-med in two and a half years, then earned a Rhodes scholarship. He becomes the highest profile athlete since former Senator Bill Bradley in 1965 to win a Rhodes scholarship. Mr. Rolle still hopes to play in the NFL after completing his studies at Oxford, then after playing days he wants to open a clinic for the needy in the Bahamas. Mr. Rolle's story offers up to young people everywhere the importance of education. Mr. Rolle was able to parlay his outstanding athletic ability into something more meaningful. Kids everywhere need to be shown that excellence in education, not just athletics, is the path to opportunity.

No child ever grows up dreaming of being a junkie. No child grows up dreaming that one day he may murder someone with whom he/she argues. Or sexually abusing a young child. But these things happen, largely because so many of these children grow up in a situation where they have no hope. Inner city kids do not see that education is the path to an opportunity to lead a better life. They see drugs as the path to escape, they seek shelter in the protection gangs offer, they see law enforcement as the enemy and they see the Adam Jones's of the world as heroes. Why would Adam Jones be a hero to these kids? Because ESPN bombards them with his image. However, Mr. Rolle is the hero. Come on ESPN, show the kids a better way.

It Is NOT God's Will

Why do bad things happen? I believe this is the hardest question that life throws at us. All of us encounter tragedy at some point in our life. Unbelievable tragedy sometimes occurs. For me, this was my wife's death in 1999 at the tender age of 31. She left behind two sons, 2 and 1. Why would a loving and merciful God take such a beautiful, loving woman, Mom, wife and daughter so young and leave her kids without a Mom and the rest of us to ponder a life cut woefully short? I do not know the answer to this question. I will never know the answer to this question in my lifetime.

Adam Hamilton, Senior Pastor at the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, Kansas is the best preacher I have ever heard. The man's sermons continually amaze me and cause me to think about my own faith and how to make it better. His sermon today addressed this very difficult question: Why do bad things happen?

First, let's question the question, if that makes sense. Does God allow bad things to happen? The assumption behind this question is that God is in control. And I believe that to a certain extent He is. However, if He is in total control, why is the Bible full of stories about His people constantly NOT doing as He commanded them to do? The Bible is full of stories about God picking up the pieces. If God were in full control would Adam and Eve have partaken of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden and introduced sin into the world? But can God prevent bad things from happening? Intellectually, it makes sense that God wrote the laws of nature, in a creation period version of a software program (Laws of Nature 1.0?). This says the Laws of Nature that God programmed will never be broken. Yet we hear stories of miracles occuring today. The deathly ill person who recovers. The person who survives a terribly tragic event buried under the rubble. So the Laws of Nature do not appear absolute. Yet these events are so few and far between that we still wonder. And we still ask ourselves, why would we worship a God that would even fathom these terrible tragedies?

Even today, I have no answer to this question. I know that God is. God is mysterious. He loves us and yet he allows us to suffer. The text of Pastor Hamilton's sermon was the book of Job. Job is a righteous man who suffers many bad things as Satan makes every attempt to get Job to turn away from God. What this book of the Bible becomes about is the advice of Job's friends. Job's friends tell him he must have sinned against God and that Job suffering is the Lord's retribution. The modern day equivalent is "this must have been God's will." Throughout the book, Job counters that he does not know what he has done to deserve all the suffering he endures. And many of us today feel the same way. So, why would I worship a God who let a terrible tragedy happen to me? I have spent many days being angry at God. I still get angry at God. Yet a friend once told me "God is still listening." And He has sent me people to help me deal with it.

What does this tell us today? First, that tragedy is going to happen. Tragedy is a part of life and we cannot control it. What can we control? Our response to tragedy. We should be beacons of hope, strength and courage. I remember the day my wife died in that tragic car accident. The accident occured just outside Chattanooga, Tennessee, many miles from my home. One of the things the hospital did for me was call a couple of local churches. One church sent down lay people from their church to come and be with the kids and help me in my darkest hour. The pastor's wife from one church went to Wal-Mart and bought diapers for the boys and a change of clothes for all us, since our suitcases were in the car that was in the salvage yard that was closed for the evening. The generosity of these people will never be forgotten. No one told me "this was God's will." No one told me this was punishment or judgement for sin in my life, or in Angie's life. They came, they comforted, they provided hope.

A Message of Hope Amidst the Turmoil

Hope n. expectation of fulfillment or success

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." Proverbs 29:18

Where's the hope? The ADP jobs report came out today and again, we are reminded of the troubling times in which we currently live. According to ADP, the private sector lost 693,000 jobs in December. This is an astouding figure for a full year, much less one month. It also marks the largest monthly job loss since ADP began tracking private sector job changes. On top of that, we see daily images of Bernie Madoff, the man who ran the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. One of his investors, a Frenchman who had lost $1.5 billion, committed suicide. German billionaire Adolf Merckle also committed suicide rather than watch his business empire crumble. The chairman of Satym Computer Services Ltd resigned today after saying he had falsified assets and earnings of the company for several years. Ironically Satym in sanskrit means "truth." The headlines, in short, remain full of despair.

Why do we hope? First, we humans are relentlessly and endlessly optimistic. Hope gets us out of bed in the morning. We wake up believing that today will be a good day. We hope our favorite team will have a successful upcoming season. We believe our company's sales will grow this year, or that our investments will all perform well. We believe that next date will be with The One. Our hope breeds action. We are more likely to take action when we believe a positive outcome will result. We hope because, as the definition says above, we seek fulfillment. Hope gives us the opportunity to dream of fulfillment. Another way of saying this is that hope gives us vision. Hope gives us possibilities. Finally, hope gives us life. What sort of world would we live in if we could not hope that tomorrow will be better than today?

Why do we place our hope where we do? Why do we place our hope in people who are fallible, or we place it in money, which can be here today and gone tomorrow? Why do we place our hope in a financial system that is only as good as the people who are running it? In other words, we keep placing our hope in people and things that constantly fail us? My answer is that these things are tangible. It is easy to think "If only I have a little more of this thing, then I will be happy." Or we say "If only I had someone to share my life with then I will be happy." We place our hope, and bet our happiness, on people and things that are bound to fail us. It is much easier than placing our hope on something intangible.

After 2008, we need a reason to hope. What do we hope for? Certainly, we hope for happiness, for peace and contentment. We hope that good things will happen to us. We hope we will see and experience something truly amazing. But the hope is not going to rest in someone else. The hope is not going to lie in something, no matter what its value. The hope that our tomorrow will be better than today lies within us. Each of us possesses the ability to make our own piece of this world a better place. Hope begins with a Spirit endowed to us by our God, is breathed into us and allows us to hope. A Spirit that allows us to give and receive love, a Spirit that allows us to stand up to wrong and hope for the triumph of right. We want to believe, we want to hope. I find it best to place hope in the God that gave us the ability to hope in the first place. And then to believe that He gave me the gift of hope to make my world, and the bigger world around me, a better place.