The View From North Central Idaho

In response to the QOTD here;

"How do you measure fairness/justice?"

It's not terribly complicated.  First, you determine whether someone's rights have been violated.  If so, you hold the perpetrator accountable, with restitution as a priority.

The statist will attempt to argue over what is and is not a right, and who possess the right (the individual or the collective, or some sub set of the collective).  Ayn Rand has a couple of quotes that nail it;

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand (copied from Kevin's site)

I'll paraphrase this next one from memory, because I don't have the book handy;

"Any proposed 'right' that demands the violation of another's rights is not and cannot be considered a right." - Ayn Rand.

Next the statist will declare these truths to be too simple, that you're being too simple-minded seeing the world in such black and white terms, and that only in navigating through complexity can we come to some semblance of economic and social justice, etc., etc.

Eventually it degrades into a contest of push verses shove, as the snarling, hate-filled statist is more than willing to start the pushing (or more likely to have someone else start the pushing for him, the typical statist being a coward as a rule).

There is no reconciling the two visions of society (statism, verses the property rights model on which this country was founded) and any attempt to do so will only delay the inevitable reckoning, prolonging and deepening the pain and destruction along the way (the traditional role of the Republican Party).  Our only sensible plan of action is to defeat the statists at every opportunity, relegating them to the woodwork of society where they belong (along with the cockroaches and spiders).

Our biggest problem is that the statist's goal is much simpler than ours.  They want destruction and decline of civilization.  The free man wants to create and build over time.  He might spend a lifetime carving out his niche, and building a life for himself and his family, while the statist can wipe the whole thing out in a moment.  Building is difficult and time consuming, and it takes planning and creativity, while destruction is simple and quick, and most any idiot/loser can do it.

With that in mind, a more specific and urgent course of action is presented.  The leftist/statist power infrastructure needs to be dismantled, and the individual statist power brokers (perpetrators) have to be held personally liable.  They have to pay a price or they will not stop.  There's your "Social Justice".  Anything less will prolong the problem and deepen the pain.  Investing our hopes and resources in the traditional Republican Party model of going along and trying to run the statist system more responsibly, is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

We've too often accepted the leftist premises or their claims to compassion and justice, when their goals are just the opposite.  We've reached a radical situation by sitting back for generations, allowing the leftist radicals to have their way.  Closing a few dozen federal departments, including education, and shutting down hundreds of programs might seem radical or extreme to the inattentive.  So what?  The level of government intervention we've reached is in itself extreme or radical, compared to the vision of the founders.  The status quo is what's extreme.  Getting back on track is not, even if means passing out a million pink slips to federal and state employees.

In response to the QOTD;

Ah, but Mr. Coolidge, and the Republican Party leadership, apparently never understood the game.  The assertion that building up the weak is the Left's goal is one thing.  Taking that assertion at face value is another.  It's the Big Mistake of the 20th century, and has resulted in perpetual confusion (to say nothing of the stagnation, decay and destruction around the world).  The preponderance of the evidence regarding the Left’s goals points elsewhere.  Their objective is statism for its own sake, and the tactic, stated openly in some circles time after time, is to bring down "The System" so it can be remade-- "Redistributive Change" in Obama's own words, and it's been said in other ways throughout the generations.

Republicans, as they occupy themselves trying to understand and argue the details, the costs and so on, of the "healthcare" bills, are demonstrating their utter cluelessness (or is it their complicity?).  "Why, this could end up funding abortions with taxpayer dollars, and that would be bad, and I'm not so sure we can afford this other bit over here..."

That's not the point, Skippy.  The point is, the whole thing is a massive power grab.  What more do you need to know, for crying out loud?

Weigh down the economy with debt, entitlements and restrictions, then blame what remains of the private sector.  Take advantage of the chaos and the public demands for an altogether new approach that they hope will ensue.  They're telling us every day; "Never let a crisis go to waste" is only part of it.  The other part is their understanding that they can manufacture the crises.  Chip, chip, chip, chip, and sooner or later even the hardest stone will crumble, after which (they believe) they can swoop in and take it all.

So far as I can tell, the Republicans have been playing along for decades.  "Oh, but you're crazy, Lyle.  Look at the differences between Republicans and Democrats!  Are you willfully blind, or what?  Surely you must be mad!  Look!  Just look!  LOOOOOOOOOK, MAN!"

Uh huh, and there's a world of difference between that "good cop" and that "bad cop" too.  The bad cop is a real, dangerously scary, out-of-control sonofabitch, but that good cop-- why, he's a sweetheart!  Look at him!  Just look!  He brings you coffee and food and he talks nice.  He doesn't like that bad ol', meany mean bad cop at all, either.  No Sir, not at all.  Such a nice fellow, and he really cares.  He listens.  He understands.  He's my advocate in this time of uncertainty.  I want to work with him, by golly gosh oh gee.  Yessiree.  No doubt about it.  Without him, that bad cop would have beat the living shit out of me by now, for sure.  Man, am I lucky to have Good Cop!  Wow!  Thank God!  This must be an angel sent from Heaven to deliver me from despair!

Right.  Both cops are working to take you to the same place after they're finished with your sorry, dumb ass.

OK; got that out of the system.  Now I'm all ears.

Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.

Calvin Coolidge
[It seems simple and obvious but politicians frequently have problems with both simple and obvious when it runs contrary to their agenda.--Joe]

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I was reminded of this after reading Roberta post The Greater Depression. I snorted in laughter when I read the last line of her post but then it took me several minutes for me to give Barb the context so she could get the joke. She claims it was worth it.--Joe]

If you remember I talked to a co-worker who grew up in East Germany. One of the things I wrote about that was:

His eyes narrowed and his jaw clenched. "You tell them I lived that. You tell them to go visit this town. Yah!", and he showed me a town on a map of Germany. "Not one bomb was dropped on that town during the entire war", he said. "There was no fighting in that town. But if you go there that town looks like it was all bombed out. When people don't own their property they don't care. The roofs, they are all falling down. Yah! You tell him to go there and look for himself."

It turns out you don't have to go to Germany to validate that condemnation of leftists, their central planning, and their hatred of capitalism. You could just go to Detroit. Or check out this video I found at Kevin's place:

You knew he wasn't going to let us gun owners get off easy, right? Things have been going more than a little too smoothly.

Here's the scoop on the real plan:

Gun rights supporters have been shocked by the release of an internal campaign memo showing Obama planned to restrict gun access through fear and free market principles. The memo, drawn up in early 2008 with the help of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, speculated that Obama's election would lead to a hording of guns and ammunition that would raise prices.

...

"The people going out and spending thousands of dollars on guns right now aren't the smartest and will spend beyond their means. We'll see them have to hock their guns and ammo for food and soon we'll be flooded with guns. This short term stimulus will come at a cost our children and grandchildren will have to bear," claims the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun organization.

Sources inside the Obama administration say that a "Cash for Carbines" program was in the works. Unlike the previous "Cash for Clunkers", it would simply use the gun buyback model to pay $40-$100 for guns that cost several times more, without encouraging buying more guns.

"We expect a "gun bubble" where prices crash after the market is saturated and gun owners put themselves deeply in debt. We'll swoop in and offer to buy back the guns. With current credit card interest rates and payment schedules we expect more guns turned in than were bought, making for a net drop in total guns," the source said.

The program would also include a "Cash for Cartridges" option where ammo could be bought cheap and distributed to police to ease the high cost of ammunition.

I have my doubts that Obama knows what the free market is, let alone is capable of using it to his advantage.

There is a conspiracy theorist for every data point--and almost as many satirists.

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.

John Kenneth Galbraith
[Being an economist himself he should know. Further evidence that other uses are somewhat questionable at best can be easily seen if you just look around a little bit (here for example).--Joe]

Here is what I think they don't get…It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse.

...

And they don't get in some cases that they wouldn't be where they are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are paying today, if their government hadn't taken extraordinary actions.

Larry Summers
December 13, 2009
White House economic adviser referring to the banking industry. He also chairs the National Economic Council.
White House Lashes Out at Bankers
[In the first sentence he hopes you won't get it was Federal regulations which required irresponsible risk-taking. In the second sentence he hints that he knows this is true and that the U.S. government rewarded that same behavior.

If you think the government knows what it is doing in terms of the economy then you need to do more reading or if pictures and minimal words are all you are up for then check this out (via Linoge and John Lott):

--Joe]

I made a sarcastic comment at Snowflakes in Hell and Bitter came back with this comment:

Joe, you’ve hit upon the next biggest factor making me question kids. Seriously, I don’t know that I want to bring kids into the picture if they are going to live in a mostly government-controlled world. I realize that this country has survived many other changes in the past, and many other generations have survived well enough. But if we’re headed toward the government taking over even larger chunks of the economy, I’m not sure I’d be bringing kids into a better life than I enjoyed. And that just doesn’t seem right.

I understand her point but there is more than one way to view the problem.

Another way to view it is that sort of attitude is creating the problem. See the movie Idiocracy (wonderful premise, good start, but a poor movie overall) for an extreme view of this type of thing taken to the limit.

By tweaking the premise in Idiocracy just a bit one can hypothesis that high reproduction rates by those that believe government should provide "everything for free" will likely result in a cultural, if not genetic, disposition toward more dependency on and expectation of government control of the economy and personal lives. Low reproduction rates by those that believe in and desire freedom will exacerbate the problem. A slightly modified version of this argument is what Barb successfully used on me to convince me to have a third child. That is why we sometimes call Xenia our gift to the world.

But what of the individual? If freedom loving people are but a small minority of the population won't their lives be miserable? Not necessarily.

It depends on what the outcome is during their lifetime. If it is George Orwell's 1984 then I would agree with that point. But governments have a history of collapsing. Especially socialist and totalitarian governments. Food shortages, riots, and the break down of infrastructure favor intelligent and freedom loving people. My model of the world is that, ultimately, stupidity is self-correcting. And massive government intervention in the free market and free society is self correcting because it is so stupid. Those people demanding that government supply their every need and want will have higher death rates than those that are self-motivated and value freedom. It may be that within our or our children's lifetimes the freedom loving minority will become the majority essentially overnight because of the much higher death rates among the anti-freedom people as society collapses. Even if they do not become the majority in actual numbers they may have the majority of power. This is analogous to the U.S. being the world's sole super-power with just a small minority of the planets population. And that power came about for the same reason that I hypothesize it could happen again in a different context--because freedom creates prosperity and prosperity enables power.

If that comes about then those freedom loving people will be in a position to take over the world. It will be with an anti-freedom lesson extremely fresh in their minds that they form the next governments and economic systems.

I don't know what will happen. We have never had a situation like this before. In the past there was always someplace new to live. The east coast of North America then migration to California and "The Oregon Territories" provided freedom for millions in the last 300 years. But the "New World" is now occupied by parasites that crave security more than freedom and ensure everyone will receive neither. Where can we move next and escape our oppressors? Antarctica, the ocean floor, and space all appear to be such harsh environments that economic prosperity would be difficult or impossible. This may mean we can do no more than wait for the parasites to starve, riot, and burn themselves out.

I don't know if freedom has a chance of surviving and rising from the ashes and mankind will finally learn the lesson of why freedom is essential. But I do know that if we do not have children and raise them to value freedom then freedom will most likely be extinguished.

It boils down to "Are you an optimist or a pessimist?" The pessimist is more often right because they can easily fulfill their expectations. The optimist may be wrong more often but progress, prosperity, and happiness are always the products of optimists and never that of pessimists.

Which are you?

Sebastian points out the Washington Post reported yesterday:

A binational task force on U.S.-Mexico border issues will call Friday on the Obama administration and Congress to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

I just have to shake my head. These people just don't get it.

First off by announcing this they just further cemented the fact that "assault weapons" of the type banned in 1994 will become even more common in the U.S. The sales and backlog had almost returned to normal and now this is going to create a fresh round of buying. If it hadn't happened already the current administration, with their promises (so far unfulfilled) to ban "assault weapons" ensured they can never be banned. Why? Because in D.C. v. Heller the court decided the types of firearms protected are those "common use". See pages 2, 55, and 58 of the decision.

The types of guns in highest demand just after Obama was elected were those most likely to be banned. There are now many millions of those guns in the hands of ordinary people and there will be hundreds of thousands more before the politicians could ever get something through congress. And then the inevitable court challenge will almost have to conclude that the guns are in "common use" and therefore cannot be banned. Not only is Obama the greatest gun salesman this country has ever known but he also may have driven the last "coffin nail" into the pointless "assault weapon" bans making them forever a dead issue--except for repeal of the existing ones in the various states after the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Chicago Gun Case.

And the Brady Campaign endorsed Obama for President. How's that working out for you guys?

My second point is really the main issue. The problem is most people don't really understand the big picture. Mexico is being destroyed by the same type of stupidity. People are trying to interfere with the free market and this can't really be done. The free market can be pushed in different directions but it can't really be fully suppresed.

There is a large market for guns and recreational drugs. Governments can't really "ban" them. They can only raise the price. The price increase may include the risk of spending time in jail but the government passing a law making them illegal does not remove their existence from the planet or even the political jurisdiction of the government. When the price goes up it increases the profits. When the profit potential goes up more people are willing to risk going to jail in the process of getting a share of that profit. In the case of recreational drugs the profit is so great the people profiting from the drug trade has, essentially, brought down the Mexican government. I believe the only way order can be restored in Mexico is for recreational drugs to be made legal in both the U.S. and Mexico.

But people just don't get it. Somehow they believe something that mostly works on the scale of an individual home when you remove medicines from the reach of small children can work at the larger scale of an entire continent or even the planet. It doesn't and it can't. You can only increase the price.

Our country learned this in the 1920s with prohibition and we now raise the price on the dangerous recreational drug ethanol via a tax rather than attempting a ban. If the governments of the U.S. and Mexico really wanted to solve the problem that is bringing down the Mexican government and resulting in the deaths of thousands in the "drug wars" they could turn the drug trade into a huge source of tax revenue. Instead of spending billions on trying to raise the price via jail terms and attempted "interdiction" they could raise the price via a tax and bring in billions of dollars.

But I don't have any hope of a sudden attack of rationality striking people. Unjustified and demonstrably false faith in the power of government to successfully interfere with the free market has existed for hundreds of years and it's not going away anytime soon. Expecting people to be rational is irrational.

Doug Pennington who is the Assistant Director of Communications at the Brady Campaign writes:

[I]sn’t it ironic how some libertarians want government to stay out of their lives, yet have no problem with forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn?  The grocery store; the park; the school; the airport.  Apparently, we have the “freedom” to live with what these so-called libertarians tell us to live with.  After all, they have the guns, right?

I heard sort of argument in the context of concealed carry of guns at least 15 years ago. It was some radio talk show host in San Francisco who asked why she didn't have the right to walk down the street without people having guns hidden. I suspect this sort of argument resonates with a lot of people.

The thing is people use the same sort of argument with free speech and religious freedom. They ask why do we have to tolerate neo-Nazi's parading down the street? Or why do we have to tolerate atheists, Muslims, or Jews in our neighborhoods and schools?

If that doesn't bring my point home try using the argument to support segregation.

Governments don't force freedom on their citizens. Governments can only infringe freedoms of their subjects.

Wednesday night Barb and I had dinner with Mike Brown of the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance and his wife. His wife, a big Ayn Rand fan, encapsulated a point in a very compelling way. She said under a free, capitalist, system people are able to create their own little socialist or communist utopia societies and share according to need and take according to their abilities. Or they can give up all "evil" modern technology such as the Amish communities do. Free societies allow such communities to successfully co-exist just fine. If you can own property you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else or their property. The government still demands taxes but you don't have to tolerate other religions, free speech, or people with guns on your property. The same isn't true under a communist or totalitarian government.

But despite the clear problems of "government forcing freedom" there have been entire books written on the topic. Last year daughter Kim reported her economics class had The Shock Doctrine as required reading. One of the thesis's of the book is that advocates (such as certain people within the U.S. government) of Milton Friedman are forcing (including using torture) free market economics on people. Kim was pissed and had trouble reading the book because of the anger it invoked. How does a government "force a free market"? A free market is one free of government interference! Force is required to have anything other than a free market.

And so it is with "forcing free speech", "forcing religious tolerance", and "forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn". Pennington is telling us the true beliefs of his organization and the utopia they would like to create--freedom is slavery.

Update: I apparently got their attention. The post now has this tagged on to the end:

UPDATE: For readers referred from Joe Huffman, guns are not speech.

No one said it was free speech. But both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are specific enumerated rights protected from infringement by the Bill of Rights. Hence the comparison is valid. For the Brady Campaign to claim a freedom from other people bearing arms is the constitutional equivalent of claiming the freedom from the speech of others. Of course it's not the physical equivalent. But it is the legal equivalent.

Digressing a little bit I will admit that we probably will not ever have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry concealed guns in public everywhere. If the Brady Campaign were to explicitly state it is only the carrying of concealed guns they get all uptight about but open carry is okay then I would be much more muted in my criticism of them. The carry of firearms in some form is probably going to be eventually upheld by the courts. Either the politicians have to make concealed carry permits "shall issue" and relatively quick and painless to obtain or they will have probably have to allow open carry without a permit. If some sort of carry for self defense in public is not allowed then the "bear" part of keep and bear arms will be infringed. I'm pretty sure the Brady people see that writing on the wall and are just dragging their feet or in denial.

After thinking about it for a long time and reading nearly all the blog posts and podcasts about the big open carry debate in the last few weeks I'm going to have my say on the topic soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Brady and company just contributed to my post on the topic.

A guy at work, Chet, frequently stops by my office to take a break and talk about, among other things, the state of our economy. Are we going to have hyper inflation? Deflation? Should savings be put into stocks, bonds, precious metals?

I bought a few ounces of gold and silver in the late 1990s and that turns out to have been a fairly good investment. But as Chet points out, "You can't eat it."

If being able to eat it were the sole criteria for sound investing then a few tons of lentils, peas, and wheat from the farm be a good idea but my bunker can only store so many sacks before it starts getting in the way. And I'm pretty sure some of the sacks of food I sold to people worried about Y2K in 1999 (about 20,000 pounds total) are still in their closets unopened except perhaps by rodents and insects. The food stores fairly well but unless you were very careful how you stored after ten years it has noticeably degraded.

Dave Hardy points out there is an alternative to gold that is useful (I don't recommend eating it however) and which has retained it's value every bit as well as gold has for the last 136 years. When I bought my first gun the guy I bought it from pointed out that guns in good repair don't loose significant value over the years. Even that SKS you bought for $65 back in the early 1990s kept pace with inflation. Ammo too has been a good investment.

So perhaps that is Chet's answer. Instead of precious metals like gold and silver invest in steel, copper, brass and lead with a little bit of nitrocellulose thrown in.

It's time to restate this.  I posted it last year, and I wonder if anyone really "got it".  It cannot be overstated.  Reading Joe's recent post about the open carry debate among the pro gun rights camp reminded me of it, once again.  That debate can be said to be between people with the same basic principles.  We'll see how Rand's "rules of engagement" as I call them, apply.  Last year I noted;

In the essay, Rand defines three rules "...about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals." 

Wait.  What?  "the working of principles in practice"?  What's that?  "The relationship of principles to goals"?  Sounds pretty juicy if there's anything to it.  Well, there is.

 Leaving out her extensive lead-in:

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

Open carry verses keeping it hidden so as not to scare or offend anyone.  Which position is more consistent with the basic principles of RKBA?

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

It applies to any situation, but the idea of government "taking care of" the American people, shared by Republicans and Democrats, comes to mind.  Democrats win here.  Every time.  Republicans will never understand this.  It's not in their DNA to understand this rule.  It's in their DNA to deny it.  The NRA had a similar problem about 15 years ago, but they seem to be getting over it, like getting over a very long-lasting flu.  You cannot collaborate with someone who holds different basic principles and expect a nice outcome.  It's better to do your own thing, unless you want to be the more evil and irrational one.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side;

Gun control debate.  Practicing rule 3, without fully understanding it, is the one and only source of our recent successes.  Understand it, Little Grasshopper, and you will go far.  Some of us think that we've been trying to appear rational as a selling point, or trying to get the opposition to think that we aren't bad people after all, but it is by simply being rational, and by being rational in a public way, and sometimes in an in-your-face way, that we win.  There's a fine distinction here, but a very important one.  Selling ourselves as people is what Republicans do.  That argument says, "I'm a nice, decent person, so you should agree with me."  Blech.  Selling our ideas, on their own merits, and damn the torpedoes because we know we're right and we can prove it, we know our opposition is wrong, disastrously wrong, and we can prove that, is what rational people do.

when they (principles) are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Taking RKBA in light of that last bit; hiding your (our) position (that guns in public are a good thing) or evading it, tends to work in favor of the irrational side (gun restrictions).  We're trying to coddle those who are wrong, trying to sell ourselves in a way tailored so as to appeal to their stupidity and bad behavior.  In so doing we lend them an appearance of credibility or legitimacy that they do not deserve.  Like it or not, that's how it works.  We have to understand that there are some people who have no credibility, have no legitimacy and deserve no accommodation (anti gunners in this case, or people who are offended or "scared" by visible guns [I think most or all of the "fear" is a cheap act perpetrated for maximum drama]) and we have to be ready to point out why.

I believe there are enough examples in most people's day-to-day lives that these basic axioms, Rand's rules of engagement, will be seen as not only valid but very useful once you look at things with them in mind.  Working with institutions installing and troublshooting PA systems (I have an appointment tomorrow) I've run into all these situations.  They're political events as much as anything else.

For someone who reloads metalic cartridges, I've done it very little.  Still, I've had problems, with several calibers, in seating bullets.  The seating plug that comes with the die set (you only get one plug) doesn't fit every bullet shape ever made, which means it doesn't fit the bullet you're actually using, even if the dies and the bullet were made by the same company.  As a partner to this phenomenon, the loading manual (also written by the bullet company whose sister company made the loading dies) says very little about seating plugs, or the fact that a plug made for one bullet shape might be a real problem when seating a bullet of some other shape.

With some bullet/seating plug combinations, I find it impossible to maintain a cartridge OAL to within 15 or even 20 thousandths, yet the construction of the press should be capable of easily maintaining a seating depth to within a thou or two.

Another part of this cascade of problems is that depending on the bullet type, the bullet itself may be part of the problem.  Softpoints can be distorted in packaging and shipping, can mash during seating if the plug touches soft lead, or a jacketed hollowpoint match bullet's meplat can be inconsistent to several thousandths.  The latter inconsistency isn't all that much of a problem if the seater plug fits OK.  The bullet's ogive is still being seated to the same position and the base is still seating to a consistent depth inside the case because the seater plug doesn't touch the meplat (assuming it fits OK) and you can always trim the meplats.

Today I got the primers I ordered last April or May, so I decided to load some of the 110 gr "Varminter" HPs I'd gotten to try out in .30 Carbine.  Brand new cases, all prepped and flared the same, and I can barely hold C.O.A.L. to within 15 thousandths.  The seater plug was made for the round nose 30 Carb FMJ, and the HP's round nose, made by the same company, has a distinctly different shape from the FMJ, which makes the seater plug impinge on the soft lead corners at the very tip of the bullets.  These HPs, by design, are very soft at the tip.  Some of the bullets get swaged inward at the tip, narrowing the hollow tip opening, raising a burr at the tip and lengthening the bullet.  Others don't distort much at all.  The phenomenon is binary-- either I get a distorted nose and the OAL is 10 to 13 thou over, or the nose stays intact and the OAL is within a couple thou of nominal.  Nothing in between.

Long story short; Die makers should be discussing seater plug issues a lot more, and they should offer a plug for just about every bullet shape, especially plugs that don't impinge on the soft lead of hollowpoints and softpoints unless the plug is going to match the bullet shape perfectly.  Another plug/bullet mismatch I've had results in the mouth of the plug cutting a circle around the bullet like a sharpened punch-- the extremely small contact surface area isn't conducive to repeat accuracy.  As it is, I can always make my own seater plugs, but what a pain just so I can try out some different bullets as a lark.  On a positive note; standard reloading dies are priced unbelieveably low.  You may connect the dots.

We had a rep from Speer in at UltiMAK several weeks ago, setting up some M1 Carbines with our forward optic mounts and high-end combat optics for a LE demonstration of their new .308 110 gr Gold Dot loads (offered to LE only last time I checked).  I've thought for a long time that the M1 Carbine would make a good patrol carbine or "truck gun" if one were to use good HP loads in it.  Haven't heard back from the rep about how the demo went, and I'd sure like to try some of those new Gold Dots.  I guess when they release them to the public they'll be backordered eight months within a week.  I'll take a thousand, please.

We’d like to retire that word [redistribute] from the political vocabulary because you can’t redistribute something that is already highly socialized, and wealth and income in the “era of knowledge-based growth” (whoever ends up “owning” it) is indeed highly socialized. Most importantly (and more to the point), individual productivity is increasingly dependent on what can only be described as a collective good, a common inheritance of knowledge. No one deserves to benefit from this common inheritance more than anyone else, by moral definition, because it’s not created by any individual. So, to the extent that inherited knowledge (“technical progress in the broadest sense,” as Solow termed it) is increasingly driving economic growth, the fruits of knowledge—the wealth being generated by knowledge—should be more equally shared. Wealth that is commonly created should be equally, or at least more equally, shared.

Lew Daly
Via AmericanMercenary in the post What the hell is "Social Justice"?
[This is very scary stuff. Strip away just a little bit of the fluff and it's, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Just reading the praise for the book you realize these people not only have zero respect for the right to own property but they don't believe you even have a right to your own thoughts. This is what inspires thoughts of Atlas Shrugged. In this book the people of the mind went on strike. Those that contributed through the power of their creative minds declared those that demanded the product of their minds through the force of government had received their last handout. You can force someone to work but you can't force them to think.

After reading of people like Daly I don't just long for a John Galt but a Ragnar Danneskjöld as well.--Joe]

So no matter how the incorporation debate shakes out, an endorsement of originalism would be a victory for conservatives who prize intellectual honesty in constitutional interpretation.

Seemingly aware of these implications, the Left is trying to preserve the contrivances of “substantive due process” in an originalist guise. They want to define “privileges” and “immunities” as broadly as possible, to include what Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center calls “very important progressive values,” such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage. The goal is to continue expanding “individual rights” while permitting restriction of property rights and economic freedoms.  So if the Supreme Court decides in McDonald’s favor, it could end the controversy over gun rights but begin a host of new battles in other areas.

Yet Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, is not afraid of opening a can of worms. He says that libertarians see McDonald as an opportunity “to resurrect economic liberties suspended by the Court under the post–New Deal version of substantive due process.” Conservatives should see this case as a rare opportunity to base any incorporation of the Bill of Rights on originalist grounds — an opportunity they should waste no time in seizing, for it may not come again.

Will Haun
June 08, 2009
[I find it very interesting that the phrase "conservatives who prize intellectual honesty" is used. What does this mean? Does it mean that most conservatives are not "intellectually honest" but liberals are? Or does it mean that no liberal can be considered "intellectually honest" but some conservatives are?

Regardless, there are those that have high hopes for the Chicago Gun Case to get us started on the path to liberty again. I admit to seeing a glimmer of that possibility but know that economic liberty is going to be a much tougher war than guns are and don't have very high hopes. Even if the current system suffers a complete meltdown (and there are lots of indications that it will) there will still be strong resistance to liberty from those that will claim the collapse justifies even less freedom and a much great role for goverment to take in implementing a "planned economy" than it already has.

H/T to ubu52 for the link.--Joe]

Via email from Chet.

What? Do they only have enough money for food or something? I thought they could always find money to fund their hate of capitalism and buy more Kalashnikov rifles. But perhaps not:

Russia's largest small arms manufacturer, the Izhevsk Mechanical Works [Izhmash], could be declared bankrupt. It became know today that a corresponding petition has been received by the arbitration court of [the Republic of] Udmurtia from the enterprise.

...

This largest Kalashnikov assault rifle manufacturer now stands idle. No state order means no money to pay employees, nor to repay debts to creditors.

This post inspired by Say Uncle's post about bedtime stories.

Dr. Seuss was clearly a socialist, and the Sneetches story is but a minor example of it.  The Lorax is worse.  Maybe I'll do a post about that later.

I've always wondered why the plain-bellied sneetches didn't just host their own beach parties instead of being all butt hurt and envious over being excluded from the star bellies' parties.  Ayn Rand would tell us that the star bellies were attempting a monopoly, which in a free market (that is to say, a market without some means of enforcing the monopoly through legislation or outright brute force) is merely enticing capital into start-up competition.  If the plain bellies' started throwing really good parties of their own, some of the star bellies would eventually want to attend.  If the plain bellies let them attend, the plain belly organized parties would begin to dominate, or take over altogether unless the star bellies changed their discriminative ways.

A free market is self correcting in so many ways, and correcting against arbitrary discrimination is but one example.  We see this in real life just looking at music or sports pre civil rights era, where excluding black players meant missing out on some of the best.  By the time I was in middle school (late 1960s) Motown was well-represented, if not dominating, the top 40 on AM radio.

That's what I tell my kids.  If their public school teachers can't handle it, well, it's their own problem that they choose to make fools of themselves.

Michael Moore has a new movie out. Capitalism: A Love Story. The LA Times says this about it:

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes. "You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

What sort of economic system is he proposing? "Democracy"? That isn't an economic system. And democracies (we are supposed to have a Republic) seldom last more than a few decades.

And the irony is that Moore's wealth and ability to make whatever movie he wants comes from the opportunities afforded him by capitalism. If it weren't for capitalism Moore would be making probably be required by the state to be making exercise videos (if such a thing as videos and fat people even existed) which no one would take seriously. Instead he is making "documentaries" which demonstrate he is totally clueless about any topic he cares about but yet enough people want to believe him that he is able to be a wealthy man. In that sense I suppose capitalism has allowed an evil to exist and prosper but that is hardly sufficient reason abandon an economic system that has improved the status of people more than any in the history of man--even though it has never really been fully implemented.

I normally probably wouldn't have posted this. But after completing New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America it's particularly relevant. The work programs of the 1930s were used as political tools to not only get votes but to punish those that weren't "good Democrats" (I'm increasingly of the opinion that is an oxymoronic phrase).

In some cases when you called the phone number to get a Federal job the call went to the local Democratic headquarters. To get the job you had to be interviewed by them and demonstrate your party loyalty. In some cases up to 3% of your pay had to be given to the party.

Take your blood pressure meds then read the book.

Via email from Joe D.

When the Feds delivered the stimulus package they probably didn't think that "package" would be interpreted in this manner.

In the United States, the agricultural system is heavily industrialized, and relies on inputs such as diesel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and, perhaps most importantly, financing. In the current financial climate, the farmers’ access to financing is not at all assured. This agricultural system is efficient, but only if you regard fossil fuel energy as free. In fact, it is a way to transform fossil fuel energy into food with a bit of help from sunlight, to the tune of 10 calories of fossil fuel energy being embodied in each calorie that is consumed as food. The food distribution system makes heavy use of refrigerated diesel trucks, transporting food over hundreds of miles to resupply supermarkets. The food pipeline is long and thin, and it takes only a couple of days of interruptions for supermarket shelves to be stripped bare. Many people live in places that are not within walking distance of stores, not served by public transportation, and will be cut off from food sources once they are no longer able to drive.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[It's harvest time on the farm. I'm going to visit and drive combine for a while. It's been a couple years since I did that and it's time to satisfy that urge again.

The farm visit reminded me of the above quote. We do burn lots of fuel on the farm and of course the fuel consumption is far from over by the time the crop is delivered to the grain elevator in town.--Joe]

Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well.

George Bernard Shaw
See also here, for further background on this phrase. The original was not "The road to hell is paved..." but Hell itself that was paved.
[I'm thinking gun control, TSA, socialized medicine, "affordable housing", "hate speech" laws, rent control, the list is, for all practical purposes endless. See also New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.

I just bought Bat Out Of Hell so I could play it while posting this and doing my dry-fire practice.--Joe]

Why is it that every printer ever made has User Frustrator Tabs (UFTs) built into the paper tray?  Their only function is to prevent the user from sliding a new stack of paper into the paper tray.  They're there to catch the corners of the paper as you're trying to get it into the machine, thus causing one or more sheets to bunch or shift inside the tray.  Often it's the bottom sheet that gets hung up, and of course it's impossible to slide the bottom sheet forward under the stack, even without UTFs, unless you remove the whole stack and try again.  UFTs work especially well when you have an important customer on the phone and you're in a hurry to print something.  Of course the printer never knows that you've just installed a new, crumpled stack of paper in it, so while you're on the phone you have to find the right button to push, telling the printer it is now time to jam and wad a new sheet in its mechanism.

I can just see Butters, in his aluminum foil Professor Chaos uniform, evil grin on his face, as he builds the CAD file for the new HP paper tray; "He he he heeee.  Now the world will know the pain and frustration...."

Hey guys; ever though of having, you know, flat, smooth surfaces inside the paper tray?

#876,394.2;

Why is it that the printer and camera manufacturers actually hire (and presumably pay) extra people to write software, and then actually include it in their product packaging, just to take over my computer, turning it into an All-HP Fun House, or the Wonderful, Lollipop World of Cannon, instead of the computer I actually liked and paid for?  It's like putting dog turds in your product packaging.  You hire people to search for dog turds, you hire people to wrap those dog turds, and then you pay to ship those dog turds with each camera or each printer, so that I'll stick one in my optical drive and ruin everything, permeating my whole computer.  Gee, thanks.  All I wanted to do was print stuff, OK?  How hard is that to understand?  All I want to do is take pictures and put them on my computer.  Why does that require special dog turd software?  You know what I do?  I pull the card from the camera and use a damned card reader, 'cause that way I know I'm not sticking yet another dog turd in my optical drive.

(go ahead-- ask me how I feel about it)

A few days ago I reported I might have a chance to ask Mike Lux a a question or two. I got my chance last week and reported via Twitter here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The Twitter posts are below, indented, and in italics:

At the meeting room to hear Mike Lux speak. He should show up in a few minutes. Wearing my Rearden Steel t-shirt. World War Z on my Zune.

Rearden Steel is a little obscure. But it has a very significant meaning. I chose that shirt very deliberately. I'm pretty sure it was lost on everyone at the meeting but it made me smile.

World War Z just happened to be what was next in my queue for listening material but I thought it appropriate listening when about to subject myself to such a "progressive".

Lux says, "I believe the economy is fundamentally broken." "We are on the verge of a great change if we embrace it."

He talked of great moments in history such as the 1930s with the "New Deal" and the 1960s with the "Great Society" and civil rights legislation. He was disappointed with the Clinton administration that they didn't seem to have an real direction or make any progress. Now we have a chance to make some progress if we can just get our act together.

I still get a chill going through me when I think about this. Could it be our financial crisis was very deliberately brought on to make it more likely that socialism will be accepted by U.S. citizens? I had sort of half thought that this might be the last straw and people would have their complete fill of socialism and embrace the free market and our constitution as a result of our current situation. Can't people see that the Obama administration is only making things worse? Or will they be convinced that only he and socialism can save them?

Brrrrr... the chills that gives me.

He talked for quite a while about all the Bill of Rights violations by the Bush administration and expressed some concern President Obama wasn't moving fast enough to correct them.

I asked him to address his concerns over BOR violations by conservatives versus progressives ignoring the 2A and 10th.

I was the last person called upon. There were to be no more questions after mine.

His response was, "We just have a different interpretation of the BOR."

He also said the the government has the "right" to "invest" in the economy and "reform" health care via regulating of interstate commerce.

I corrected him on rights versus powers and he said he didn't know the difference.

Wow, just wow. He thinks mandated health care falls under the regulation of interstate commerce? I think that justification was lost on nearly everyone in the room. After this and my little email exchange with Senator Patty Murray how can a "progressive" claim to have any concern for the BOR or the constitution? How can they claim to have any principles?

Most of the central banks have a lot of PHDs, with no real world experience. They have read books, but have not been in the trench to "feel" what it is truly like. This is why government employees rarely have anything worthwhile that will ever contribute to society. There is not a single economic statistic that is even valid, no less any plausible guide as to what is going on. There are manipulated so much to try and influence the "public confidence" that it becomes a joke.

Martin Armstrong
July 10, 2009
The Goldman Sachs Conspiracy. The Real Dark Pool. Page 4.
[Sent to me by Chet with the comment, "Tinfoil Hat needed?"

I told him my hat was double lined already.--Joe]

Food. Shelter. Transportation. Security. Security is very important. Maintaining order and public safety requires discipline, and maintaining discipline, for a lot of people, requires the threat of force. This means that people must be ready to come to each other’s defense, take responsibility for each other, and do what’s right. Right now, security is provided by a number of bloated, bureaucratic, ineffectual institutions, which inspire more anger and despondency than discipline, and dispense not so much violence as ill treatment. That is why we have the world’s highest prison population. They are supposedly there to protect people from each other, but in reality their mission is not even to provide security; it is to safeguard property, and those who own it. Once these institutions run out of resources, there will be a period of upheaval, but in the end people will be forced to learn to deal with each other face to face, and Justice will once again become a personal virtue rather than a federal department.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices

This is for J H.  He and Joe were discussing statistics related to gun restriction in comments here.

This line of argument, taken by itself, is to say nothing of human rights, the right to live being most fundamental and the right to self defense going hand in hand with the right to live.

If we are to leave out any discussion of rights, and focus purely on how people get injured or how they die in accidents and crimes as a means of determining and justifying laws, then we'd start by banning the wheel.  Swimming pools, access to rivers and lakes, etc., and stairs would be ahead of guns in private hands as a focus of legislative restriction.  Somewhere in between would be legal restrictions on unprotected sex and leaving the home while ill.  But that would be government thinking of the people in the same way that a farmer thinks of his cattle.

It is when we look at guns in the hands of governments that we find mass death, numbering in the tens of millions, and there you find the primary purpose of our second amendment-- defense or deterrence against tyranny, or more to the point it should be seen as defense of human rights by those who hold those rights (we the people).  Who then should look at whom as property?  Keeping our servants in government (our cattle) properly de-horned is, historically, the more important concern if we are to have any sort of owner/property relationships with one another.

Once we've accepted the Nanny State as the ideal form of government, all bets are off anyway, and arguing figures and statistics alone is to fight the battle on your enemy's chosen ground.  Even being wrong in their figures, your enemy has won by deciding the terms of battle.  People are in fact injured and killed through the use of or involvement with guns in private hands.  That is a fact.  Hence the Nanny State will find an excuse to restrict them if that's what they want and if they feel safe in doing it.

The true winning argument is that the state has no legitimate jurisdiction over any behavior or possession that in itself does not violate the rights of other people.  If I have a gun in my pocket I haven't violated any other person's rights by that fact alone.  If I haul off and smack someone at random in the head with a baseball bat, it is not the fault of the state for allowing free, un-restricted access to baseball bats.  It is I who would have committed a crime by violating the rights of another person, for which I would rightly be held accountable.  In attempting to restrict generally the access to baseball bats as a result of my crime, the state would be perpetrating tyranny by way of making victims out of innocent persons.  We call that sort of behavior "prior restraint"-- restraining someone in some way prior to them having threatened or done anything wrong to anyone.

It is well and good to point out the stupidity of arms restrictions, and how their effects are virtually always counter to the stated goal of making people safer, but those issues are a distant secondary to the issues of human rights.  Otherwise we’d be confiscating automobiles, banning certain sports, et al.  Without human rights as the fundamental principle guiding our policies, the totalitarian state is an inevitability.

Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

Frederic Bastiat
[This isn't the first time I've quoted Bastiat see here, here, and here. I really should get a book or two on or by him.

Additional info about Bastiat from Wikipedia:

Bastiat asserted that the only purpose of government is to defend the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property. From this definition, Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defend life, liberty and property if it promotes socialist policies inherently opposed to these very things. In this way, he says, the law is perverted and turned against the thing it is supposed to defend.

Which is entirely consistent with our consititutions and entirely at odds with our governments.

Via Marc Gallagher.--Joe]

Via an email from Chet:

The source is here.

I'm sure glad the stimulus plan saved 150,000 jobs since February. Just for scale, assuming the claim was true, those alleged 150,000 jobs account for about two widths of the horizontal lines in the above graph--since the beginning of the recession in the middle of 2008 about 6.2 MILLION jobs have been lost. Hence those 150,000 make a difference of about 2.4%.

So the government authorized spending nearly $800 Billion of money they didn't have and now is considering spending more in a second attempt.

I think I see a trend here--these people just don't learn, do they?

The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.

Milton Friedman
[Friedman probably was talking about economics but, as I'm sure he knew, the statement is much more broadly applicable than that. Those that would ban or even restrict gun ownership appear to be in denial of or are oblivious to the truth of the statement.--Joe]

From the Wall Street Journal:

The economic stimulus plan has created or saved 150,000 jobs since its inception in February, a senior White House Budget Office official said Wednesday.

Rob Nabors, the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, told a congressional panel that the jobs figure is based on an economic model used by the Obama administration.

I wonder if that was using the same economic model that generated this graph (from Kevin):

At Microsoft when our tools yield results that even a little bit erratic we investigate and fix them. I would suggest the Obama administration examine their tools but I am suspicious the tools involved are producing the results desired by the administration and they see no need to even investigate--let alone fix them.

Some people call them vultures. I call them capitalists providing a much needed service. It's no surprise the people calling them vultures are in San Francisco:

The California IOU has become the prey of so-called vulture investors who hope to profit by buying them on the cheap and redeeming them later.

The idea is that "distressed asset investors" (their nicer name) will pay less than face value to mom-and-pop businesses that receive IOUs but need cash immediately to meet payroll or other expenses. Once the IOUs mature on Oct. 2, the investors will cash them in for their full value plus the 3.75 percent interest the state is offering.

They call the IOU "the prey"? What does that make the state of California? Bambi's mother? The parents of baby seals? In reality the state is the predator. The state contracted for services and/or goods (or taken excess money in taxes then failed to return the excess as promised) and is now failing to live up to the contract. Had they given IOUs to those that had not provided goods and/or services, such as welfare recipients, I would be less harsh in condemning the state. But to receive something of value and then fail to compensate them as agreed is really unacceptable.

But these people see the state fail to live up to its obligations creating countless victims, the capitalists provide relief to the victims, and then they condemn those providing the relief--that is some sort of insanity. Sometimes I have to conclude that Michael Savage is right on at least one point--Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

The sad part is that the IOUs are, in essence, a new form of currency. I'm certain the state will soon realize this and start offering to pay in IOUs instead of money. The people, knowing they can sell them for 85% (whatever) of face value will ask for IOUs with face value of $118 for every $100 (85% of 118 is ~100) of goods and/or services. The state will, in a sick, perverted, rationalized sort of way, figure their money mostly problems are solved and not cut back on spending. This will drive the state faster and harder into the financial abyss.

Expect that result to be blamed on "vultures" as well.

You can pick a socialist out of large crowd in about 3.5 to 3.85 seconds.  He's the one angrily protesting the use of the word "socialist" while simultaneously advocating socialism, while simultaneously trying to sound educated.  That's quite a trick.  You have to give socialists that much; they can be fairly good at multi tasking and they have been known to work hard.  Loudly advocating stagnation and decay, while strenuously denying it at the same time, all while taking and disposing of other people's property and money, while compiling massive lists of massive lists of massive sub lists of dos and don'ts for all of us to follow, all under various threats, isn't easy.  Fighting the revolution and getting the constitution written and ratified was a minor task by comparison.

In comments here, Endif, running full speed and damn the torpedoes into my nets, referred to the federal takeover of banks and automakers (and presumably everything else the government has taken over in whole or in part, from education to agriculture to energy and transportation industries, to drugs, alcohol and gambling, etc., etc., etc., etc.) as "Investment".

Socialists get all agitated and defensive at the mention of the "S" word.  What is to be done about it?  What term designating state sponsored coercion would they accept as properly defining their belief system?  We know they quit liking the term "Liberal" and they never understood that "Fascist"  applied to them.  You call one of them a Fascist and they'll take offense, thinking you're calling them a conservative.  It's great fun but it doesn't lead to even a rudimentaqry level of understanding when two people are using the same words but speaking entirely different languages.  They seem to be using "Progressive" less and less too, now that more people know where and when that political term originated.

What's happening in the U.S. is more akin to Fascism.  It's all the same to me, or to put it another way; the subtle distinctions between different versions of state sponsored coercion don't interest me, nor do the distinctions between the Crips and the Bloods.  Nor do I much care what the advocates and practitioners of socialism prefer to be called-- I just know what they don't like being called, and that in itself is interesting.

Tell us which you prefer, Socialists, the word "socialism" or the word "Fascism".  If you dislike being called a socialist, surely you have some specific preference.  We know you don't like "Nazi" mainly because you think it too means conservative.  "Moderate" works for me, since moderates are people who have accepted the premises of socialism but aren't willing to admit it.  "Socialist in denial" is pretty descriptive too, if redundant.  Ooh; how about "Investment Coordinator"?  Hey, I like that.  We can henceforth refer to socialists as Investment Coordinators.  They'll like that, I bet.  But wait; what would we call real investment coordinators?

On second thought, I'll keep calling socialists socialists.  We all know what it means, even if socialists try to act like they don't.

One interesting observation is that once collapse occurs it becomes possible to rent a policeman, either for a special occasion, or generally just to follow someone around. It is even possible to hire a soldier or two, armed with AK-47s, to help you run various errands. Not only is it possible to do such things, it’s often a very good idea, especially if you happen to have something valuable that you don’t want to part with. If you can’t afford their services, then you should try to be friends with them, and to be helpful to them in various ways. Although their demands might seem exorbitant at times, it is still a good idea to do all you can to keep them on your side. For instance, they might at some point insist that you and your family move out to the garage so that they can live in your house. This may be upsetting at first, but then is it really such a good idea for you to live in a big house all by yourselves, with so many armed men running around. It may make sense to station some of them right in your house, so that they have a base of operations from which to maintain a watch and patrol the neighborhood.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I'd feel a whole lot better about those last two sentences if they had been written by P.J. O'Rourke instead of someone purporting to give serious advise.--Joe]

I'm just wondering aloud here.  When will we decide that women are regular citizens, instead of treating female shooters as though they are a separate class of citizen?  I understand that there is a perception that women need their own, separate training classes and all that, so they feel comfortable.  Is that condescending to women or am I missing something?  At what point, or under what circumstances, will we be treating female shooters the same as we treat male shooters (within the sport I mean)?

Maybe it's a dumb question.  Maybe men can't help but see a woman as something special and maybe that attitude is bound to find its way into our chosen sport.  Maybe some women are so accustomed to being treated differently that they expect it without a lot of thought.

Maybe the question is simply premature.  Any female shooters want to comment on that?  Do you believe you need separate training or separate categories in a competition, and if so, why?  Should there be guns made for girls, and others for the boys and if so, why"  Marketing strategies are beyond the scope of the question.  Hell, maybe it's all about marketing, in which case, never mind.

I could understand if shooting involved some heavy lifting, but even then we've all seen some women who can out-lift some men.  So you want different weight classes, like in wrestling?

Here's another.  How long is it going to be before the various races of humans are treated the same in general, in the media, and in the courts?  I understand personal preferences, but that's quite different.  I'm talking socially, politically and legally.  When will I be able to tell a black guy he's being a fool without being accused of racism, or tell a Mexican woman she's wrong without her getting in my face on some racial or sex-related tangent?  When will we be able to disagree without changing the subject as a form of crutch?  I really am getting sick and damned tired of this, so I am herein putting my foot down.  Knock off the race and sex defenses.  Some people are using it as a tool and I'm not buying it.  Not at all, and I'm getting right back in your face if you try it with me so don't even start.

When, or under what exact specified circumstances, will the gun-restriction advocates declare their work done, pack up their tents, and get jobs?  Any time you hear one of them guffaw over the assertion that they won't quit until all guns are banned, your immediate response must be, "OK, then tell me precisely when or under what circumstances you will stop, declare victory, and find something else to do, 'cause what I see is that any time you get a win, you're right on to calling for another restriction.  This has been happening for over 70 years, so, you know, we have a pretty undeniable track record here.  Go ahead.  Lay out the circumstances.  I have all day."

Staying on the title subject;
A problem with saying, "this far and no farther" is you've already established that a) you're willing to give ground, and/or that b) you've accepted or granted your opponent's basic premise(s).  Some things are properly subject to compromise (such as where to go for lunch, assuming you want the company) and others are not (such as basic rights).  When it comes to basic rights, the response it not, "this far and no farther".  Properly, the response is zero tolerance, same as it would be for a robber or a rapist.  If someone violates your basic rights, they are criminal and it is not incumbent upon you to prove your magnanimity by compromising with them.  You fight to win, then you fight for compensation and restitution, then you fight for justice, assuming your opponent is still breathing.  Few if any in Congress, for example, seem to have a clue how that might happen with regard to their violations of our basic rights.

I think the Russians are catching on to this capitalism thing:

Pirate Hunting Cruises Being Offered in Russia

Pirate hunting cruises along the African coast are being offered by private yachts in Russia. For £3,500 per day customers can sail along the coast of Somalia at low speed to entice a pirate into attacking.

Former special forces troops are on board to make sure no harm comes to the wealthy punters. If a pirate does take the bait, they are met with machine gun, rocket, and grenade fire. For an extra fee, customers can hire an AK-47 and join in.

[Via an email from son-in-law Caleb.]

From here:

I still haven't done all the economics reseach I keep meaning to do so I'll just dump a few quotes from the source and let someone else interpret the data:

To say this situation is unprecedented does not do justice to the word.

Hyperinflation, or even strong inflation predictions in the near term look rather silly in the face of this data unless one is only looking at the printing and not the destruction in credit.

...

Think consumers are about to go on a spending spree after a massive $13.87 trillion collapse in net worth? Think banks are going to start lending with this employment picture and household debt? I don't and boomer demographics makes the situation even worse. Don't forget the bleak employment picture. There is no source of jobs.

Those who get hyperinflation out of this picture must be reading the playbook in Bizarro World because it sure is not the playbook here.

Sleep well.

Via an IM from son James I found out that some cities are excising dead tissue before it becomes gangrenous:

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

...

Flint's recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.

The local authority has restored the city's attractive but formerly deserted centre but has pulled down 1,100 abandoned homes in outlying areas.

Mr Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

Thousands of homes. Wow. That would be quite a ghost town.

Although it seems a little odd in our time it wasn't all the uncommon, at least in the western United States, for towns to spring up around mines, flourish for many years then be abandoned. For it to happen around some other industry in another age shouldn't be all the surprising I guess.

Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless.

Milton Friedman
[The Feds are buying debt. Where do you suppose they are getting the money for that? They are printing it.--Joe]

Now, it just so happens that most things that are positives prior to collapse turn out to be negatives once collapse occurs, and vice versa. For instance, prior to collapse having high inventory in a business is bad, because the businesses have to store it and finance it, so they try to have just-in-time inventory. After collapse, high inventory turns out to be very useful, because they can barter it for the things they need, and they can’t easily get more because they don’t have any credit. Prior to collapse, it’s good for a business to have the right level of staffing and an efficient organization. After collapse, what you want is a gigantic, sluggish bureaucracy that can’t unwind operations or lay people off fast enough through sheer bureaucratic foot-dragging. Prior to collapse, what you want is an effective retail segment and good customer service. After collapse, you regret not having an unreliable retail segment, with shortages and long bread lines, because then people would have been forced to learn to shift for themselves instead of standing around waiting for somebody to come and feed them.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices

Socialism. It's made of FAIL:

The state budget deficit has nearly doubled in the past two months, climbing past $15 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger disclosed Monday.

The sober news comes a week before a May 19 statewide vote on a set of ballot budget-related measures that, if defeated, would push the deficit past $21 billion, Schwarzenegger warned in a letter to legislative leaders.

It was Socialism that brought about the collapse of the U.S.S.R. It will be socialism that brings about the collapse of the California government. And I'll not be surprised if it brings down the U.S. government as well.

And as painful as it will be to most people I'll still laugh because I'm not above saying "I told you so." And I'll have all the food, clean water, and the guns and ammo to defend it while the socialist "intellectuals" are unable to find a way to dispose of their own waste in a sanitary manner let alone find water or food fit for consumption. They can tell me, again, how important, how right, how justified they are in their cities as they cry themselves to sleep with an empty stomach, in their own filth, in the dark.

Sometimes I will read about "creeping socialism". No one with a room temperature IQ, half functional news sources, and at least one foot outside the nearest mental hospital can avoid the conclusion socialism is in high gear and about to shift into overdrive at full throttle. GM, Chrysler, and the banking industry in this country are already being crushed by the socialists. Our path leads to Venezuela:

Venezuelan soldiers at an event presided over by President Hugo Chávez on Friday celebrating the seizure of contractors’ assets.

President Hugo Chávez asserted greater control over the country’s energy industry on Friday by seizing the assets of some foreign and domestic oil contractors while his government grapples with a sharp decline in oil revenue and mounting debts.

...

Venezuela, which relies on oil for about 93 percent of its export earnings, has not paid some of the oil contractors since late last year, according to filings by companies like Williams Companies, based in Tulsa, Okla., which said last month that it did not expect to receive $241 million it was owed here. Petróleos de Venezuela had been seeking a reduction of about 40 percent in its overall debt to the companies, which is estimated by industry analysts to be about $10 billion.

Our “people will never again be anyone’s slave,” Mr. Chávez said Friday.

Industry representatives in the oil-producing state of Zulia said uniformed soldiers had begun occupying oil installations on Thursday, shortly before the National Assembly approved a measure allowing the takeovers. The move deepens Mr. Chávez’s control of the oil industry, following the imposition of higher royalties on foreign oil companies, raids on their offices by tax authorities and the nationalization of large oil-producing projects in recent years.

"...never again be anyone's slave"? Really? What do you call it when someone claiming superiority over you takes the results of your work for their own use without compensation? It seems pretty clear to me the oil contractors are being treated like slaves. And as things continue to deteriorate both in Venezuela and the U.S. expect more and more slaves to be created.

I'd ask my cousin who used to work in the Venezuela oil industry what he thought of the situation but I can't. He died while in Venezuela a while back under suspicious circumstances.

I’ve covered what I think are basics, based on what I saw work and what I think might work reasonably well here. I assume that a lot of you are thinking that this is all quite far into the future, if in fact it ever gets that bad. You should certainly feel free to think that way. The danger there is that you will miss the opportunity to adapt to the new reality ahead of time, and then you will get trapped. As I see it, there is a choice to be made: you can accept the failure of the system now and change your course accordingly, or you can decide that you must try to stay the course, and then you will probably have to accept your own individual failure later.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[Is society collapsing? I don't know for sure. What I do know is that we haven't had so many banks and major companies failing anytime in my lifetime. I know there are very, very few things governments can do better than the free market. I know government "solutions" are almost always worse than the original problem. And I know that our government has expanded and plans to expand into more areas than any other time in my life. I've not personally seen society collapse but it seems to me this is likely to be what it appears like in the early stages.--Joe]

This is an open letter to all the talk show hosts, pundits, party hacks, cheaters, scumbags, sick twisted freaks (you know who you are) and pro-freedom bloggers.  We could spend the rest of our lives cataloging the outrageous behavior of nasty, America-hating, ignorant, self-loathing, cultist, freedom-hating, anti-human, leftist politicians including Progressive Republicans.  We know they're bad, OK?  If there are three or four people who still don't get it, that's all right.

I'd rather try to figure out how we're going to get some principled Americans nominated so we're not always forced to choose between bad and worse-- between more socialism slower, and more socialism faster.  This last national election was a real puker.  The Republican Party is, at the moment, just as lost, dumbfounded, selfish and clueless as ever.  They're a herd of does, staring blankly into the headlights of an on-coming truck, and the worst part of it is; they don't even suspect that they're clueless.  They in the Republican leadership think they have some really clever answers, which amount to more of what got us into this mess.  I recently heard it described as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  That fits very well.  The Republicans have some really super great, super ultra smart ideas for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  No really, listen...  (all the while we have this simple, proven model for success, and it's being ignored.)

We need to change that.  You need to change it.  I need to change it.  There isn't anyone else.  I suppose, since it's up to us, it will have to be on the local level for most of us, being as we're not billionaires.  That's OK.  We can still do what we can do.  A lot of people are jazzed up right now.  They just need somewhere to start.  Well, pick a place, a local issue or a local politician that needs a hand (or a very public spanking) and get to it!

That there are clueless people is not the issue.  There will always be the clueless.  They'll sit on the sidelines, worrying about who likes them and who doesn't, trying to figure out where the "center" is so they can position themselves in it and claim superiority for having done so, while someone else does the lifting.  Are you a sitter or a lifter?

I have a bad feeling that things could come to blows before this government is brought under control, and I really don't want that to happen.  Do you?  This country is far too important in the grand scheme of things.

And with that; I don't have much more to say on here, other than to repeat myself or talk about the weather and what I did last weekend, unless it's to tell you what I'm doing on the local level to influence politics.  Now I think I have some calls to make.

(Note that I placed this in nearly every one of Joe's categories. It's relevant to everything we do and every opportunity we want for our kids in the future)

Via Tam I found this article talking about the boom/bust cycle for the oil producers in Pennsylvania:

Even after 150 years of this roller coaster, we're still far from implementing a better system to price this essential commodity.

An easy answer, and one often brought up in casual conversation, is some type of price control. The government would say oil prices can't go below $50 or above $100, or some such number. Oil companies would have a guaranteed minimum price, and consumers would have a guaranteed maximum price. Everyone wins.

Wow! Just wow! Not only has that sort of thinking been shown to be a disaster in numerous countries around the globe for hundreds of years but President Nixon even tried it here in 1971 and it was a huge failure. Just think for a few seconds will you? To let that sort of thinking actually get to the verbalization stage shows a profound ignorance of reality.

The article eventually is skeptical of the idea but then goes on to only slightly obfuscate the fundamental flaw in their thinking and arrive at a conclusion that is equally ignorant:

A better alternative, experts say, is to encourage long term, stable policies that focus on both increasing supply and shrinking demand.

On the supply side, encouraging greater access to resources and a stable tax policy that gives breaks for oil production is what the oil industry is looking for.

On the demand side, stricter fuel efficiency standards, better urban planning, alternative fuels and a big tax on gasoline would help cut use.

"We've never had a real, long-term strategy to address the energy problem," said Bruce Vincent, vice chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of American, an industry trade group. "We need to have a comprehensive strategy that works for America."

More government intervention when you just got through coming to the realization that government price fixing probably wouldn't work? They almost get it but not quite.

Now there is a government policy that would optimize supply and prices. And it would do that optimization in real time and completely without political favoritism. It's a Free Market. But apparently they are too ignorant to have heard of it.

The newly created money will follow the laws of gravity and flow downhill to the bond market where the fun is. Risk-free bond speculation will further reinforce the deflationary spiral until final exhaustion occurs: the economy will collapse as a pricked balloon. Instead of hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar, you’ve got deflation and the destruction of the economy.

Denninger says that the “death spiral” will lead to fire sales of assets in a mad liquidation dash and, ultimately, to the collapse of both the monetary and political system in the United States as tax revenues evaporate. He opines that probably not one member of Congress understands the seriousness of the situation. Bernanke is risking something much worse than a Depression. He is literally risking the end of America as a political, economic, and military power.

Indeed, the financial and economic collapse of the last two years must be seen as part of the progressive disintegration of Western civilization that started with government sabotage of the gold standard early in the twentieth century. Ben Bernanke, who should have been fired by the new president on the day after Inauguration for his part in causing irreparable damage to the American republic may, in the end, have the honor to administer the coup de grâce to our civilization.

Antal E. Fekete
Professor of Money and Banking
San Francisco School of Economics
March 30, 2009
Why Obama’s Stimulus Package Is Doomed to Failure
[No. This isn't an April Fools joke. But I don't know for certain that he knows what is talking about either.

Have a nice day.--Joe]

Jim: If Barney Frank could reach into my pocket he would take everything in my wallet and...
Sean: If Barney Frank could reach into your pocket that isn't all he would grab.

Sean Flynn
March 26, 2009
During a conversation about economics and politics.
[I had lunch with Jim, Sean, and Steve yesterday. It was great. Jim and Sean, always fantastic with their wit and insight, were in top form.--Joe]

The world looks as if it has been left in the custody of trolls.

Father Robert F. Capon
[Yeah, things are pretty messed up.--Joe]

It's kind of sad irony when the head of the EU is criticizing the socialist schemes in the US.

James Huffman-Scott
March 25, 2009
Regarding EU chief: U.S. economic plans ‘a way to hell’
Via IM.
[There is no way I can add anything meaningful to that.--Joe]

Let me just tell you, Congressional/Executive Branch Scumbag, Esq., if you do this… if you take this turn… I won’t even think twice. I will move my firm to Switzerland, or to London before the year is out. Those employees who do not follow me, I will have to fire. The corporate taxes I pay will no longer be yours. Instead, they will go to something useful, like a nice tunnel through a mountain for high speed trains that actually work. Further, I will dedicate a substantial portion of my personal time, effort and capital to frustrating your every attempt to collect personal taxes on me thereafter- given your draconian anti-expatriation laws. But that’s not all. My job is to make money for my clients, in whatever way I can. I will short your flagging financial firms mercilessly and remorselessly. I will buy QGRI puts to bet against any firm that took bailout money. I will buy credit default swaps on every firm you put your greasy paws on, because I know your fingerprints are laced with poison. For every boneheaded centralist move you make, I will be there, profiting from your lunacy. I will never again take a client who pays taxes in the United States. I will not permit any capital or profit to be diverted to any such. I will do this because in the same way you believe it your divine right to punish “greed,” I consider it my duty to punish the stupidity and arrogance that is central planning, and because I believe in economic freedom. I will divert as many of your resources to my new home and its relative economic freedoms as I can. I will promote free markets in this way, and I will never look back. You will have made it clear that you are my enemy, and I do not forget such declarations.

I take no pleasure in this fight. I did not ask for it. I only asked for liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Deny me these at your peril. In the end, I can only hope I'm not alone.

Austrian
March 22, 2009
Wait a second... you want to blame ME for the financial crisis?
Via Ry.
[It seems to me there are hundreds or thousands of ways one can legally declare war against the enemies of freedom. Look around and find yours.--Joe]

Abandon all hopes of utopia - there are people involved.

Clayton Cramer
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/clayton_cramer/
[Dystopia, on the other hand, is well within our grasp and I fear we are approaching it at warp speed.--Joe]

So that’s what we have now. The ship is on the rocks, water is rising, and the captain is shouting "Full steam ahead! We are sailing to Afghanistan!" Do you listen to Ahab up on the bridge, or do you desert your post in the engine room and go help deploy the lifeboats? If you thought that the previous episode of uncontrolled debt expansion, globalized Ponzi schemes, and economic hollowing-out was silly, then I predict that you will find this next episode of feckless grasping at macroeconomic straws even sillier. Except that it won’t be funny: what is crashing now is our life support system: all the systems and institutions that are keeping us alive. And so I don’t recommend passively standing around and watching the show - unless you happen to have a death wish.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I don't know whether to believe we are really in a life or death situation but I suppose it is possible. What I am fairly confident of is that the current administration doesn't have a clue as to what to do. They may think they have a clue but it's all "hope and change" and almost zero knowledge.--Joe]

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without.

Interest charges not only eat up a household budge, awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity.

Lazarus Long
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, page 30.
"The Notebooks..." was extracted from Robert A. Heinlein's book Time Enough for Love in which Long is the main character.
[Although this advice was intended for marriages between humans in a common household, probably including group marriages, it seems to me it applies to much larger groups as well. I'm thinking of our city, state, and Federal governments.--Joe]

We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.

Milton Friedman
[It's true. But the people running the "system" refuse to see it that way.--Joe]

When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him -- that's where the money is.

Robespierr
[I'm pretty sure this was not the Robespierr. It's just some random quote I picked up a decade or more ago probably from a Usenet group or something that I thought was appropriate for today's economic situation.--Joe]

Here is the key insight: you might think that when collapse happens, nothing works. That’s just not the case. The old ways of doing things don’t work any more, the old assumptions are all invalidated, conventional goals and measures of success become irrelevant. But a different set of goals, techniques, and measures of success can be brought to bear immediately, and the sooner the better.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[On Saturday my Dad, my brother Doug, Ry, and I were all sitting around talking about the hazards and opportunities our current economic situation. Doug pointed out that five or ten years from now will be able to see all kinds of opportunities that are available to us right now if we only could see them. I don't think anyone disagreed with him. But none of had any real clues as to what those opportunities are.--Joe]

My definition of social justice: those who refuse to work deserve to go hungry.

Clayton Cramer
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/clayton_cramer/
[It seems to me that this definition of social justice will soon becoming the norm.--Joe]

I think it's astonishing, they're ruining the US economy, they're ruining the US government, they're ruining the US central bank and they're ruining the US dollar.

You are watching something in front of our eyes, very historically, which is basically the destruction of New York as a financial center and the destruction of America as the world's most powerful country.

Japan's economic "lost decade" was caused by trying to bail out the banks, and the West risks running out of money if it doesn't let the bad banks fail now.

Systemic risk is going to be the same in 10 months, 5 years or 10 years if the fundamental problem is not solved.

The idea that you have too much debt, too much borrowing and too much consumption and you're going to solve that problem with more debt, more consumption and more borrowing? These people are nuts.

Wall Street and the City of London are going to be "disastrous" for years, like in the 1950s and 1960s, and in 30 years, finance will "dry up and wither away" as we are entering a "long period of hard times."

Power is shifting now from the money shifters, the guys who trade paper and money, to people who produce real goods. What you should do is become a farmer, or start a farming network.

Jim Rogers
March 3, 2009
Jim Rogers: Let AIG Go Bankrupt, Not America
[If true, "real goods" probably involves more than just farm/food products. My guess it will include security, water, shelter, sanitation, communication, and transportation as well. Probably in about that order.--Joe]

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Milton Friedman
[One would think that those people who advocated for the "stimulus package" would have heard of this bit of wisdom before. Some will say overlooking Friedman can be blamed on deficiencies in our public school system. Others will claim many of those pushing the stimulus package know exactly what they are doing -- creating a socialist America. I think it is likely they are both correct in their claims.--Joe]

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Star Parker
February 9, 2009
Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
[I figure there is about a 60% chance Americans will continue voting to move onto the plantation. The future is grim.--Joe]

Greg D., an average Joe and friend on the east cost reports: "Funny story (sad really), we have been trying to buy extra .380 here in SC and also in GA and it is non-existent. Everyone who carries is stocking up. But I was in Maryland -- where no one but a friend of the governor can carry, and the shelves were full." According to anonymous economists, this is caused by the law of supply and demand. Knowledgeable insiders report that president Obama is trying to repeal that law.

Alan Korwin
March 2, 2009
Ammunition Scarce Somewheres
[With all due respect to Mr. Korwin I fairly certain president Obama believes he already has repealed almost all economic laws.--Joe]

"That was uplifting." That was what Barb said after I read this to her:

President Barack Obama has set his course for battle with America's powerful interest groups over his ambitious, some say radical, spending blueprint that aims to remodel American society.

Even as he has rammed through emergency economic spending that easily could top $1 trillion, Obama has asked Congress to adopt a budget that is ripe with programs to improve the lot of lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the wealthy and the farming and industrial complexes under their control.

...

On the budget plan Obama presented on Thursday, the president said it would help millions of people but only if Congress overcomes stiff resistance from well-financed lobbies.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and video address. "My message to them is this: So am I."

Under the president's proposal, America's wealthiest 5 percent would pay a whopping $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade, while most others would get tax cuts. Industries would buy and trade permits to emit heat-trapping gases. Higher-income older people would pay more for government health insurance benefits. Drug companies would receive smaller profits from the government. Banks would play a much smaller role in student loans.

We are living in interesting times.

Sleep well and have a nice day.

I rather surprised the New York Times actually printed this story since they can never say anything good about private gun ownership on their editorial page.

It's sad that the woman is facing, in essence, a loss of innocence. But she also goes through her thought process and is realistic about why she needed to buy her first gun:

Back in late September, when my bank stocks began to tank — slowly, then all at once, as Hemingway described going broke — another wall in my life began to crack, as rumors of break-ins rattled my peaceful neighborhood in Allentown, Pa.

...

A few weeks ago, my husband went away on business, and after two sleepless nights starting every time the old steam radiators knocked, I finally decided I wanted protection.

Jimmy took me to the Army-Navy Store on Grape Street. It was 11 o’clock on Sunday morning, and 15 normal-looking — I was relieved to see — people were leaning on the gun counter at the back of the store. Jimmy explained the differences between the Glocks, semiautomatics with magazines, and the Smith & Wesson revolvers with six bullet chambers. The clerk told us a lot of handguns were out of stock; arms sales around the country have been increasing in inverse proportion to the collapsing economy and in response to the unsubstantiated buzz that the new administration is going to tighten gun control.

“You want a revolver, to start,” Jimmy said. I pointed to a dull pink Charter Arms revolver with a two-inch barrel: the Pink Lady. It looked like a toy. Jimmy laughed. “You don’t want a pink gun.”

I watched the woman at the counter next to me test the feel of several Glocks while the young girl with her thumbed an electronic game. Then finally I picked out a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum, “the gun I started with,” the clerk said. I handed him my driver’s license and filled out the paperwork. He left us to run my license number through a criminal-records system called QuickCheck. Two minutes later I was qualified and, between gun and ammo, $762 poorer. The revolver I bought has a black handle and a four-inch stainless-steel barrel. There’s nothing pink about it.

I've had this in the back of my mind for weeks.  Then two events brought it to the forefront.  First, a customer wrote this wonderful comment in an order form;

Your lessons and videos in your Resource section WERE LIKE GOLD to me! I thought only I had questions that you answered there (i.e., how to attach plastic rail guards easily, can AKs shoot clay targets, what EXACTLY is the difference between stamped and milled (it is like EVERYBODY already is supposed to magically know this somehow!), difference between red dot and other sights, and so on). Seriously, I have tried to learn about AKs now for 2 years, most of my knowledge comes from Gabe Suarez (who strongly promotes Ultimak as you know) but you really filled in holes in my knowledge quickly on that one resource page. THANK YOU! Please keep teaching us, it builds amazing trust between us and you and we appreciate it!

It's great to hear from customers, especially happy ones.  And I know the feeling.  When I was in High School I was expected to know things (event schedules and such) that were never told to me and were not posted, as if osmosis had been expected to work for knowledge transference.  "What do you mean you didn't know about the meeting?  Everyone else knows!"

Now to the reason for my posting said "lessons and videos" on my web site.  I did it because I was tired of answering the same questions over and over, and explaining the same things in detail to people who just did not get it, plus I was frustrated with trying to sell a product that (it seemed) few people understood.  I spent some time putting that stuff on the web site as a labor-saving measure so I could spend more of my time being productive, and because the more people understand some of these products the more people will buy them.

But there is a much broader point to this.

Regular readers know that I'm a fan of Walter Williams' writing.  He recently put up a nice bit entitled "Economic Miracle" describing much the same thing;

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

To the customer, it may seem that our putting up a user resources page is an act of charity, or some other form of magnanimity (after all, it is free of charge).  It may in fact have that effect on people, but the bottom line is; this sort of thing happens millions of times per day, all around the world, all out of self-interest.

In a free market, we have to do a better job of serving the customer than those around us, or we fail to prosper.

Let government interests meddle with free markets and it all starts coming apart.  It happens a tiny bit here and a tiny bit there.  At first it may show up as a minor annoyance-- maybe a slight price increase here or a drop in service over there.  Eventually it leads to higher risk, fewer start-up businesses, more failures, the formation of de facto monopolies through the process of government licensing or subsidies, people holding back on investments in capital improvements, etc.  You can rarely ever put your finger on it directly, and if you listen to politicians, things are going to be just fine as long as you keep them "in charge" of things.  Finally it leads to stagnation, lawlessness, and decay, as can be seen in parts of the U.S. and in other countries.

For those of you who voted for Obama; I'll spell it out for you.  Capitalism works better than any of the alternatives.

When a non-technical person says, "reset" I have to examine the context carefully and frequently ask more questions. They could mean anything from closing an application and restarting it to unplugging the computer without going through a graceful power-down process.

Steve Ballmer is saying:

"I often think of this as an economic reset. It's not a recession from which you recover,"

I think this is much closer to someone else yanking the power cord from the wall on your computer while it is still running than simply closing an app then trying it again. I just hope the computer doesn't catch on fire and the electrical wiring in the building fuses into a blob of molten metal during this "reset".

As you all know the downturn we are operating in is more severe and global than anything we have seen before.

We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered. Many people will be under extreme pressure and many companies mortally wounded.

Rupert Murdoch
February 24, 2009
Peter Chernin's little shocker
[Risk and opportunity abound. Keep your eyes open for both. I'm listening to The Black Swan which appears to be applicable to the times as well.--Joe]

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds.

Edward Abbey
(1927 - 1989)
[For some reason this struck me as perhaps describing our political and economic future. Dangerous but yet full of opportunity.

But then on a physical front I'm suspicious that our universe is actually a black hole with an event horizon several billion light years across and we are rushing toward the singularity at the speed of light on the time axis. So, in the long run, it doesn't matter even if we do get off this planet and out of the solar system everything we know will be ripped apart down to the sub atomic particle level eventually anyway.

Have a nice day.--Joe]

There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: "In the long run we are all dead." And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.

Henry Hazlitt
Economics in One Lesson
Part One: The Lesson
1946
[Yes. That was said in 1946.--Joe]

Right now the Washington economic stimulus team is putting on their Scuba gear and diving down to the engine room to try to invent a way to get a diesel engine to run on seawater. They spoke of change, but in reality they are terrified of change and want to cling with all their might to the status quo. But this game will soon be over, and they don’t have any idea what to do next.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I found eight quotes for my database so far and I'm only about half way through his post.--Joe]

If this and this (both via Say Uncle) pass and the Feds don't bring in their lawyers and thugs I hope they soon start selling variants built on this:

Picture also from Say Uncle.

California, Kansas (another H/T to Say Uncle), Washington State and many other government entities are in or near economic crisis mode. If the Feds think it is politically unacceptable to allow banks and automakers to go bankrupt what are they going to think about states going bankrupt? Bailouts for local governments must be in discussion behind closed doors if not openly.

But the Feds are broke too. It just doesn't show up quite a readily because they own the money printing presses. President Obama says he "will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year" (H/T to Tam and pdb). That can mean little more than increased taxes. If history from other countries in similar situations is any guide when things get bad enough you can expect direct confiscation of your retirement funds and savings as well as nationalization of various industries who remain profitable. The rational used will be something along the lines of "the government must not fall so anything we do to prevent it is justifiable". They have guns and they won't be afraid to use them to take whatever they think they "must" have. The U.S. Constitution was written with enumerated powers granted to the government but court rulings early in the last century shattered those walls. The Federal government will attempt to get more and more "control of the situation". More planning and "guidance" from the "central committee" such as the "car czar" and more regulations for the banks (which helped bring them down to begin with) will fail in a big way. Many of the politicians and "intellectuals" have no industry (real world) experience. They have been living off of the public dole where money is obtained via the point of a gun (taxes) and they don't have a clue (see also this comment clues, lack thereof) as to how reality really works. Obama is believed to be the savior of the world (see the I Love You Obama Woman, the response from France, as well as all the other adoration such that we have never in our lifetime seen for a U.S. president--only dictators in other countries). To the best of my knowledge he is the most inexperienced president our country has ever known, he is facing the biggest crisis our country has seen in 80 years, he is a socialist, and his advisers are socialists. His solutions are all going to involve more power and control for the Feds. More power and control in the hands of those that have only the flimsiest of connections to the real world and no experience. It's a recipe for disaster.

The only bright spots I see are some states, such as Montana, Tennessee (see the first two links in this post), Arizona, Washington, Oklahoma (via Sebastian), and New Hampshire (via Sebastian and email from hunter006) are thinking about going all Ninth and 10^th Amendment on us. There could be some serious cracks appearing in the creeping Federal tyranny we have been experiencing. Within a few years we could be (almost for certain?) looking at some new form of government. What will it be? The Orwellian vision of a a boot stamping on a human face ... for ever? Or something else as certain states and people take a successful stand against the socialists?

I've been thinking for a long time that the world is due a new form of government. Tribal leaders, witch doctors, kings, dictators, democracies, republics, and others have all had their day (and dark nights) in the limelight. But instantaneous communication and near instantaneous travel makes for some interesting thought experiments. I'm not sure The Probability Broach type world is practical but there may be something else that is. This crisis may be the impetus to figure it out.

For the economy in general, doing nothing is vastly preferable to doing the stimulus package, but doing nothing is not a political option; indeed, it would be political suicide. Given the dominant ideology and the political institutions that now exist, economically rational public policy is incompatible with political viability.... Having hit bottom, the politicians can only do one thing: keep digging. If Hell is down there, they’ll reach it, sooner or later.

Robert Higgs
Senior Fellow at Independent Institute
The Lighthouse Volume 11, Issue 7: February 16, 2009
[I was tempted to just use "rational public policy is incompatible with political viability" as the QOTD, but the mention of politicians attempting reach Hell was just too appealing.--Joe]

Rest assured, there will be a great majority who will not stand against tyranny. Those who have "gone along to get along" and those who have continually voted for the "lesser of two evils" will capitulate and surrender their weapons, as cowards normally do. They will rue the day they failed to support those who stood for liberty such as Ron Paul. Remember, they were offered liberty, but chose instead to support the status quo, because, in their eyes, liberty could not be elected.

Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008

February, Friday the 13th, 2009 - the day the dream died. No dirge is playing, not yet, but wait...the lamentations will come.

And to everyone who voted to enslave the freest people on earth...

I curse you. 48% of of your countrymen curse you. Future generations will curse you. Your own descendants will curse you.

May that knowledge be like a yoke around your neck- the weight of it strangling you, pulling you down into the filth where you belong.

Breda
February 14, 2009
no love
[People should be making their lists.--Joe]

Via US News:

President Obama's senior intelligence adviser says that the world financial crisis has surpassed terrorism as the country's "primary near-term security concern," pointing to unrest in countries around the world as commerce stumbles. It was an unusual briefing by the new Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who was briefing Congress on the U.S. intelligence community's annual threat assessment, which in the past has usually focused heavily on issues like Iranian nuclear weapons and progress in the global effort against terrorist groups. "Time is probably our greatest threat," Blair said. "The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to U.S. strategic interests."

I wanted to write my essay on economics this weekend but I may have something that is a higher priority get in the way.

I'll get to the economics eventually. It's really, really important. Here and here are some short courses to get yourself up to speed.

You're going to be paying for passing out this Monopoly money for the rest of your lives, even if you were just born today and live to be 100, and in return, they'll graciously allow you to keep a little bit extra of your own money. The only people to whom this could sound like a good deal probably get outwitted by flatworms on a regular basis.

There are mornings when I just put my head in my hands and think "Screw it, let it burn." But I don't have kids, so that's an easy out for me...

Tamara K.
February 13, 2009
Taking Retards To The Zoo.
[I do have kids and I think the same thing at times. I figure my kids, smart and hard working, will end up on top of the ash heap and will build a better civilization having observed first-hand the stupidity of socialism.--Joe]

Robert Higgs, senior fellow in political economy for The Independent Institute, gives us some of the history of how the socialists ran roughshod over the Constitution in the 30s:

Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government's powers were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly enumerated in our founding document and its amendments. Search the Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific authority conveyed for the government to spend money on global-warming research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, or countless other items in the stimulus package and, even without it, in the regular federal budget.

This Constitutional constraint still operated as late as the 1930s, when federal courts issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress, and the Supreme Court overturned the New Deal's centerpieces, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and other statutes. This judicial action outraged President Roosevelt, who fumed that "we have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce." Early in 1937, he responded with his court-packing plan.

Although Roosevelt lost this battle, he soon won the war. As the older, more conservative justices retired, the president replaced them with ardent New Dealers such as Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frankfurter, and William O. Douglas. The newly constituted court proceeded between 1937 and 1941 to overturn its anti-New Deal rulings, abandoning its traditional, narrow view of interstate commerce and giving the federal government carte blanche to spend, tax, and regulate virtually without limit.

After World War II, the government enacted the Employment Act of 1946, codifying the government's declared responsibility for managing the economy "to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power," and it has actively intervened ever since, purportedly to attain these declared ends. Its shots have often misfired, however, and we have endured booms and busts, a decade of stagflation, bouts of rapid inflation, and stock-market crashes. The present recession may become the worst since the passage of the Employment Act.

I expect the socialists to complete their take-over and solidify an iron grip on us this time. As Newsweek said, We Are All Socialists Now. The court precedences set in the 30s essentially guaranteed it. The only way that I can see that has any potential to get us out of the abyss is to go deeper into it.

I was recently talking with a friend about the risks of hyperinflation with the dramatic increase in the money supply and the "stimulus plan". Our currency may become worthless so what would be the best barter currency? They pointed out that gold has the problem of the smallest coins are not something you could use for relative inexpensive items like a bag of groceries, or a pickup load of wood for your fireplace. And a candy bar? Gold coins just don't work in a lot of transactions.

Noticing a container of loose change on the kitchen counter I suggested our existing coins may not be devalued as much as the paper currency. The "copper" (mostly zinc now days) has a "melt value" of about $0.02 (see update below) right now due to the high price of metals. I also suggested ammo and bulk food that stores well like dry peas, lentils, and beans. Maybe, we agreed.

Early this morning I woke up with another answer, toilet paper! I then became discouraged because I realized that too would be devalued because of the over supply of paper currency that could be used for the same thing.

And Barb gets irritated with me because I'm such an optimist.

Update: My source on the "melt value" of a penny was apparently wrong. According to this site the current value is about $0.00297.

Let me tell you story. I know a guy. He’s a financial planner/investment banker type who from time to time helps me out. In November I had lunch with him after the first initial crash and wanted his opinion on the gather storm clouds I saw just over the horizon. He told me a few interesting things one of which kinda scared your Hero Halo a bit. He said, ‘Halo, I am advising my clients who have enough liquid assets to secure remote, sustainable property. I’m advising this because for very little capital outlay, they can have a lot of security.’

Ted, I looked right into this guys eyes and saw a certain fear that I have never seen before. This is a man who manages literally billions of dollars worth of assets and he looked as though his entire concept of reality had been shaken to the core. I wasn’t really sure what to do. In all the years I had been dealing with him I had never seen this and wondered why now? What’s different this time? Well, there are many things, but when a guy with these kinds of resources at his disposal says stuff like this, it might be time to start listening.

Titanium Halo
February 5, 2009
Sheep Say, “Baaaaaa”
[I've been putting a lot of time into economics recently and hope to have a post on the results of my research sometime this weekend. As a teaser let me just say:

• The "stimulus plan" violates my Jews In The Attic Test.
• Daughter Kim's economics class is reading books that talk of the U.S. government and the CIA "forcing free trade", and how "capitalism destroys community ties".
• My research has involved talking to people from China, India, Ireland, Romania, and Sri Lanka. People speak in hushed tones with a very somber demeanor. It's bad everywhere.
• While discussing the politics of our new socialist nation, even without explicit mention that my Jews In The Attic Test was being violated, a friend recently told me that an AK has an expected life of about 50K rounds and even though they have several such rifles it wasn't enough to solve the problem even if they had enough rounds and didn't encounter resistance.

We have very, very big problems ahead of us. And the worst part is that the people that caused the problems will likely get more support as the situation gets worse. They will demand more and more "help" from those that put everyone in jeopardy. And the unless very aggressive action is taken by people, who have shown very little backbone in the past, the last people to go down are likely going to be the people that created and aggravated the problems.

I know who John Galt is, but where is his gulch?--Joe]

The global Depression scenario is now dominant. Here are some of the drivers:

• An utterly complete regulatory capture of the US government (the advent of the Obama administration has done nothing to change this). Regulatory capture is when monied interests take control of the government institutions that are supposed to regulate/control them. In OODA terms, this is a loss of control over the critical orientation phase of decision making loops. As a result, a vast looting of the government's coffers is now in process.
• The D-process (de-leveraging and deflation) feedback loop is now entrenched. This is a neat term developed by Ray Dalio of Bridewater Associates (Barron's interview). The D-process is what happens (rarely) when too much debt is accumulated. Excess debt must be eliminated before growth can return. In the US case alone, excess debt load is $20-25 Trillion. Since global governments are unwilling and/or unable to wipe out the world's creditors (they've been captured), the process will drag on and on. Stimulus and bailout packages, constructed in a way to protect the wealth of the world's creditors/rentiers (looting), won't work. It will only prolong and deepen the failure as the D-process feedback loop intensifies.
• A large number of countries from Japan to Spain to Latvia are already in depressions. These failures will serve as a drag on the entire global system, catalyzing the feedback loops of the D-process.

John Robb
February 9, 2009
THE DEPRESSION SCENARIO IS HERE
[In selecting the QOTD I was tempted by "Dude, wtf? is it time to arm ourselves or join the mormon church?" in the comments to the above quoted post. But the main post won out.

Others (probably a crackpot, but who knows what could happen) are advocating the cancellation of all debt.--Joe]

Suppose my family was deeply in debt, income was trending down, and some members of my family were unemployed. Would it improve matters if we borrowed a bunch of money and spent it on things like painting the house, new clothes, and a new car?

I don't think so.

Suppose it was my little North Central Idaho town of 20K people that was deeply in debt, income was trending down, and unemployment was trending up. Would it improve matters if the town borrowed a bunch of money and spent it on random stuff?

I don't think so.

Repeat at the large city level.

Repeat at the county level.

Repeat at the state level (California for example).

Is it going to make things better in any of those cases?

If not, then why would it make sense to do it at the national level?

My father in law sends me all sorts of chain mail.  My response follows at the bottom, but for the intro, here's the chain letter:

Subject: A Billion?

How many zeros in a billion?

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

(Actually, that's 1.5 billion, but that's not the point)

B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes at the rate our government is spending it.
 
While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) is presently asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans.  Interesting number...What does it mean?

A. Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child) you each get $516,528.

B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787.

C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D. C
 
 HELLO!
Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, we had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?  Can you spell 'politicians'?

And I still have to press '1' for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times

What the heck happened?
 
For my money it is called greed.

----------------------------------------------

My response:

They left out special, punitive state and federal taxes on guns and ammunition, which account for a large portion of the cost of the product.

The list of taxes does not address the many and various requirements and restrictions on businesses.  One small example out of thousands is; a window was broken in our Clarkston, WA store during a robbery.  Had it been in Moscow, we could have called one of several glass shops and had it replaced the same day.  Because this happened in Washington, there is a tempered safety glass requirement for storefronts that increased the cost of the window by several hundred dollars (wanna bet some legislator’s cousin owns a safety glass business?).  But that wasn’t the main expense created by the law.  Far and away the biggest expense was that we had to wait several weeks for the window, meaning we had no storefront for that amount of time-- just boards.

That cost, and thousands like it, never figure into the costs with which we are saddled by local, state and fed restrictions. 

Add things like minimum wage laws, which outlaw many entry-level jobs outright.  Add laws requiring handicapped access, which can amount to 100s of thousands of dollars for a small business, even if they have no handicapped customers.  The list of such requirements and restrictions would take more than your e-mail in-box could hold, and these all amount to increased cost of doing business.  Often, the reporting and compliance requirements necessitate the hiring of extra employees-- people doing jobs for the government, paid by the business owner, producing nothing.  Ever see a WA state sales tax report?  Every city and county can have its own tax rate.  Since our music store does business in two states, and in many cities throughout WA state, we have a huge tax report for WA State (Idaho's is about the size of a post card).  As a very small business, the WA reporting requirement costs us and our customers at least as much as the actual tax money paid.

And did I mention that property taxes and utilities prices are higher for businesses than for a residence?  How many people know that unless they're in business?

Now add to the list of costs; the number of businesses that couldn’t bear these burdens, and just gave up and quit.  Then add the number of businesses that started up in other states because they had more freedom there (this is known as "brain drain" and it happens in all socialist societies-- the creative and the productive want the hell out of there).

But that’s just the beginning.  Add the untold thousands of creative people who never went into business because the hurdles were just a little bit too much to bother with (business being a stressful and risky proposition in the best of situations) and/or they knew the "safety net" would take care of them anyway, or they could get a government job with full benefits.

And so the monster grows-- fewer people paying taxes to support an ever-growing government sector.  Three trillion dollars annually and growing fast (it’s gone up almost 50% during this current "conservative" administration).  Divide 3 trillion by the total U.S. population, boys and girls, if your calculator can handle that many digits.

Many of these costs are impossible to measure.  They don’t show up on the spreadsheets or in the statistics, but I submit that they account for the greatest percentage of the total cost of socialist/statist systems.  But then, some would (and often do) applaud anything that shackles the creative, productive human mind and forces it to either serve their purposes, or just give up.  Everyone knows the score-- business (peaceable, voluntary exchange) is greedy and deserves to be punished, whereas "public servants" are altogether selfless and benevolent, right?