Category Archives: Economics

Our Vice Moron at it Again

Posted on by

Imagine, in just a few years, solar shingles on your brand new custom house (all you high school graduates) that cost no more than regular shingles, that will power everything in your house, heating, AC the whole deal.  Imagine crops that don’t need soil (OK, maybe hydroponics) and no water (oops) and no fertilizer.  Magic crops.  “Literally just around the corner.”


And of course none of that can happen if the eeevil Republicans are in power.  Only more of ‘bama’s stash money can make the magic happen.  The private markets?  Meh.  All that’s done is fail continuously for 200+ years, apparently.  What’s been happening in the last few years– that’s the ticket, Baby.


Now if kids actually learned science, physics, biology or basic economics, they’d laugh that gibbering idiot off the podium.  This is where our Soviet-style education system comes in.  Of course now anyone can look up maximum and average available energy per unit area at their latitude at various times of the year, and the efficiency of the best PV panels, take into account the problem of tracking, or in the case of your magic roof shingles the lack of tracking, and so on.  And naturally, to get the most out of your magic solar roof shingles you’ll have to cut down the trees that shade your house, increasing the AC load.  Or maybe not, being as they’re magic and all.


He had a teleprompter, so I have to assume that he didn’t make that up as he went along.  There had to have been some planning behind it.


The Moron in Chief, to make himself look better by comparison, had pick the stupidest fool he could find I guess, and then put him out there to show the contrast, such as it is.

I like it, but…

Posted on by

…she should be suckling an adult if it’s supposed to depict The Obama Way.  Well, children, adults– everyone.  Maybe there should be a long line behind the kid, all carrying signs and complaining/competing over who gets to suckle next.

Benefits of the economic downturn

Posted on by

Several years ago when the news of the exploding debt and crashing financial markets was making the headlines son James ask what this would mean. I told him I didn’t really know because I had never seen anything like it before and to a large extent we don’t have any real history of this sort of thing before. In the depression of the 1930’s the government debt wasn’t huge to start out with and there was a completely different situation with the banks and lack of insured deposits. This is different.

The one thing I suggested might eventually happen is that governments would have to start laying off people and that many laws and regulations would essentially be ignored because there would not be enough people to enforce them. His response was something along the lines of, “So this is a good thing then.” Of course it isn’t and wasn’t that simple. There can be a lot of bad to go with the good. For example there may not be enough people to enforce the morass of all the millions of regulations but there probably will always be enough thugs to enforce the confiscatory tax rates, nationalization of health care, communications, food, and energy production and distribution.

The worst of the possibilities have not happened yet but a glimmer of the good has started to shine through:

In April the household survey showed that that there were 442,000 fewer people working in government than in March. The household survey has a much smaller sample size than the establishment survey, and so is prone to volatility, but the magnitude of the drop is striking: It marks the largest decline on both an absolute and a percentage basis on record going back to 1948. Moreover, the household survey has consistently showed bigger drops in government employment than the establishment survey has.

But of course it’s but a drop in the bucket. According to the article there are about 20.3 million people in the U.S. engaged in government work. I would be happier if there were 19 million fewer than that with most of those being in the military.

This Would be Cool

Posted on by

…but the manufacturer defaced it horribly by putting lettering and numbering all over it.  I wouldn’t mind owning one, but then I’d be forced to advertize for Colt’s without compensation, flashing that company name and address around everywhere I went.  They should pay me to own it.  And those serial numbers?  Those weren’t required by law in the 1840s and ’50s, and the gun would look SO much tidier without them.

(This in response to people who complain that my products have to be defaced with my company’s name and the model number, or the patent number in some cases.  It turns out that there’s also a significant culture in the muzzleloader world that hates the idea of signed or numbered guns.  That fact that maker’s marks, serial numbers, inspectors marks and proof marks have been a necessary and worthwhile part of manufacturing since Grok made his first stone club seems to get lost on some people.  Maybe the famous works of art would be worth more if they’d never been signed, too [they were such shameless self promoters they turned every work of art into an advertizing billboard for themselves].  We do refrain from using flashing lights in our logo if that’s any consolation.  Our engraved logos are matte black on matte black, but they’re still too obnoxious for some people)

More on the Plausible Threat

Posted on by

This is in response to Joe’s QOTD here by JFK

JFK’s concept is what I’ve dubbed the “Plausible Threat” influence in human interaction.  Reagan referred to it as “Peace Through Strength”.  My Plausible Threat concept is of the same nature, but is much more broad.

Why does someone do some something he doesn’t want to do, when he is told to do it?  Why does someone avoid doing something he wants do to, when told not to do it?  Often it’s because he sees a plausible threat of some kind looming over him, which will harm him in some way if he doesn’t tow the line.  It applies in all sorts of interactions and life decisions.  In some cases there is a moral factor, wherein a person’s conscience is more prominent in the decision making process.  In other cases it is the plausible threat that tips the scale.  In yet other cases the plausible threat is not enough, and a person or group will act in spite of it, i.e. it’s a gamble wherein the perceived benefits are deemed greater than the perceived threat.  The threat could be anything from minor social tension to global nuclear annihilation.

Our second amendment is, in part, to guarantee a natural right, but also it is to ensure a plausible threat as insurance against growing tyranny. 

We’ve seen on TV shows like Survivor what most people will do for a million dollars.  What would some people or groups of people be willing to do for several trillion dollars, their own army, and the power to substantially control millions of people?  It would take a very plausible threat indeed to dissuade the sort of motivations we’re seeing in that arena, and we have a long way to go before the whole of the people are armed well enough, organized well enough, and act in such a way as to dissuade the sorts of tyranny already in place, and the sorts that we have yet to see.

Liberty is Not on Trial

Posted on by

Don’t forget it.  This is (partially) in response to the QOTD below.

The argument for liberty is primarily a moral one.  Many people focus on cause and effect.  We could dig into detail after detail, analyzing this and that cause and this and that effect.  In that pursuit, yes, we will find much evidence in favor of liberty.

But liberty is not on trial.  Oh no, Young Grasshopper.  This may be news to most people, but it is the socialist/communist/Fascist (statist) bloc that is on trail.  I hereby accuse it of willfully conspiring to perpetrate envy, hopelessness, fraud, grand larceny, stagnation, decline, anger, hate, conflict, assault, battery, chaos, and mass murder.

It is not up to us to defend liberty as such.  We who support and uphold it are the plaintiffs, see?  Liberty needs no defense in that sense, because it has done nothing wrong.  It needs to be taught, yes, but if any fingers of blame are to be pointed, they should be pointed at the statists, and if any defense need to be mounted, let the accused try to defend their crimes.  Let them point back and leer at us— but always understand that they are the accused and we are (liberty is) the injured party.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Man, by nature, yearns to be free.  Sure; with our liberty intact, we do vastly better than we ever do without it, but the argument is primarily a moral one.  Right and wrong.  Freedom verses force.  Choice verses coercion.  Good verses evil.  America was founded on that principle.  Isn’t it time we strive to understand, and then to fulfill America’s Promise of Liberty?  For once?

The plaintiff doesn’t walk into the courtroom with a defense attorney at his side.  He may need a good prosecutor, but he doesn’t need a defense.  Republicans of course have never understood it.  A plaintiff or a procesuter who is constantly defending himself, with the perpetrator sitting in judgement, is a blithering fool.

More on Heavy Boots

Posted on by

Or is it Moron Heavy Boots?  Ry brought up the “Heavy Boots” phenomenon a while back, but I hadn’t heard of it until he explained it to me and I Googled it.  I was disappointed, but the story didn’t surprise me.  I’ve talked to a lot of people about a lot of things, having been in the service business and in consumer credit, for over 30 years.  Richard P. Feynman wrote about similar experiences he’d had in his teaching career.  It’s sad to realize how many people lack that little bit of curiosity that would lead them quickly to understand some of the basics of their world.

At the music store, I put up a poster-sized photo of the full Earth taken from space.  You’ve all seen it, and some of you will already know when it was taken, based on the history of the mission.  I looked at it a lot, just as a beautiful image that says something about the ingenuity of Man, before I realized that it told us a few other things.  So now I have some questions.  This is my Heavy Boots experiment but it’s on a bit higher level.  These questions are for those who have no idea when the picture was was taken without analyzing the image itself.  Forget the history and the mission, and so on.  It’s a simple question for those who know the basics of our solar system and of Earth’s place in it;
About what time of year was this photo taken?  How can you tell?  Also; About what time of day was it taken?  How do you know?

Here’s another one.  Looking at this image of the moon, assuming you’re facing East.  What time is it?  Why?

One of my older brothers liked to mess with people when we were younger.  When one of his young sisters-in-law asked him what those bumps between the lanes on the freeway were for, he told them they were part of a project for the blind– so blind drivers could tell when they were crossing lanes.  “Really?” came the reply.  He pulled off a lot of that sort of thing, trying to see just how fantastic a story he could tell and still get someone to believe him.  I suppose his behavior could be referred to as a search for Progressive voters.  If you’re ignorant enough, you’ll believe anything if it’s presented just right.  Our coercively-funded schools have that part covered.  They actively discourage learning.

Leno had a bit on his show last night wherein he placed a magician behind the counter at a convenience store.  There were some plastic Easter eggs in a counter display, labeled “Insta-Chick” or some such.  The egg contained a little foam “chick” that would expand in water.  The magician, introducing the new and rare product to the customers “placed one in a cup”, then “poured water over it” and a live chick came out instantly.  People believed it, even after he said they were “engineered in China” such that you could let them dry out again and reanimate them later, and you didn’t need to feed them.  More “Heavy Boots”.  “Vote for me— I’ll give you free health care” or etc. is along the same lines.

I try not to be discouraged.  There are a lot of people who don’t fall for this stuff.  They can tell from looking at a photo of our planet what time it was taken, know that mass exhibits gravity, know that we can’t all get free lunch forever and there’s no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Quote of the day—Helen Caldicott

Posted on by

Free enterprise really means rich people getting richer: they have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…Capitalism is destroying the earth.

Helen Caldicott
[The first part of the first sentence is technically correct but she (and most others) say it as if it were a bad thing.

500 years ago the worlds richest king, with all the wealth in his country, could not have purchased a zipper for his pants, an elastic waistband for his underwear, or a single Viagra pill. A bare-footed, half-naked man dancing around a bonfire with a bone stuck through his nose was nearly state of the art in medicine.

It was free enterprise, capitalism, that gave put zippers, elastic, Velcro, and Viagra within the reach of nearly anyone. An only slightly more select class of people can have state of the art handheld device which can deliver images at nearly the speed of light. Of course those images might be TSA pinups of your wife, your daughter “gone wild” dancing half naked in front of a bon-fire, or of your politician demonstrating the effectiveness of Viagra on his stainless steel pierced penis. But still, Velcro is pretty cool stuff.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Stockman

Posted on by

The Fed is a patsy. It is a pathetic dependent of the big Wall Street banks, traders and hedge funds. Everything (it does) is designed to keep this rickety structure from unwinding. If you had a (former Fed Chairman) Paul Volcker running the Fed today 7/8— utterly fearless and independent and willing to scare the hell out of the market any day of the week — you wouldn’t have half, you wouldn’t have 95 percent, of the speculative positions today.

…

When the real margin call in the great beyond arrives, the carnage will be unimaginable.

David Stockman
March 3, 2012
DAVID STOCKMAN: You’d Be A Fool To Hold Anything But Cash Now
[H/T to Rudy Kearney.

I’m not convinced cash and gold are the only thing to hold onto right now. Farm land, copper coated lead, and brass would seem to hold their value better than cash and probably gold. But I see his point about stocks and fully agree the carnage is going to be massive.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Manolis Glezos

Posted on by

Enough is enough! They have no idea what an uprising by the Greek people means. And the Greek people, regardless of ideology, have risen.

Manolis Glezos
February 12, 2012
Glezos is one of Greece’s most famous leftists.
This was in response to the looting, rioting, and burning of the city of Athens and other places in Greece due to cuts in government spending.
Greek lawmakers approve austerity bill as Athens burns
[I know what it means. It means:

  • If leftists can’t loot via political means they will loot via direct violence.
  • Leftists do not understand economic reality.
  • We can expect to see the violence spread across Europe and to America as economic reality runs its course.

Barb and I had breakfast with son James and his wife Kelsey today. They were contemplating what the economic collapse would look like. This is probably a glimpse of what we have to look forward to.—Joe]

Economics can be Fun

Posted on by

Someone understands economics (but has yet to learn about audio recording).  Via an an e-mail from Ry;

Blind faith

Posted on by

I’ve met and talked to a lot of anti-gun activists. With perhaps one exception I always got the impression they were generally nice people. Misguided, sometimes ignorant, and frequently not very bright but they were nice and I wouldn’t have minded having one of them as a neighbor or socializing with them if the topic of guns didn’t come up.

That said we sometimes ascribe evil intent to the anti-gun people. In the case of certain politicians such as Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and President Obama (none of which I have ever met or talked to) this may be true. But generally there is something else going on. The people just aren’t the “evil type”.

But of course just because someone is a “nice” person doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t inadvertently advocate for and enable something terribly evil all the while believing they were doing good. Like I said, a lot of these people aren’t that bright.

Lorne Gunter said something on this topic that struck me as highly likely (emphasis added):

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?

…

It was purely on blind faith that supporters of the registry — police chiefs, victims’ rights groups, women’s shelter operators and grandstanding politicians — assumed that making Canadians register their guns would magically cut down on violent crime.

Faith, in this context, means believing in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. It was, and is, blind faith motivating these people to continue advocating for gun control. As I have pointed out before and some of them have even agreed, they do not know, or care, how to determine truth from falsity.

As an engineer this is abhorrent to me. When I design a filter using an op-amp, a couple capacitors, and resisters I can predict the frequency response within a fraction of a decibel. But I still test it because it’s possible I made a mistake someplace or a part doesn’t meet the vendor’s specification that I used for the design.

When I design an algorithm for estimating the location of a phone based on the presence of visible Wi-Fi access points and cell towers I know pretty darned close what the accuracy is and how long it will take to do the calculations. But I still test it and there is a test team doing their best to shoot my design and implementation down.

I recognize that human behavior is far more complex and less predictable than electronics and software algorithms. But that just screams that tests have to be done on social experiments. Yet, these people are so stupid (or, granted, in some cases malicious) they not only don’t even bother trying to predict the results or think to do tests but cannot imagine why tests would be needed.

These people deserve all the “respect” of a cargo cult or Heaven’s Gate followers.

Unfortunately this faith is not confined to just gun control. It is my hypothesis that this same blind faith template would match most U.S. government program of the last 100 years.

Dear ‘Web Directory’ Company

Posted on by

Don’t waste your time or mine by calling me on the phone, asking me for my company’s name, address and such like.  Everything you need to know (and a thousand times more) to list my company in your ‘directory’ is right there on my web site.  If you haven’t looked at my web site, you don’t really care at all, and in that case I don’t understand what you think you’re doing.  You make no sense.  You’re phony.  Go away.

On a not altogether unsimilar note; Dear customer; I continue to fail to understand why you get on your computer, find our web site, and then e-mail us from the web site asking for a catalog.  There has never, in the history of retail been a print catalog that has as much information and imagery (including moving and talking pictures) as you have right now in front of you on the web site.  It’s always there, you can’t lose it in a stack of magazines and mail, you can access it from anywhere in the developed and semi-developed worlds, it won’t get damaged by your kids and pets, it won’t sit around getting in your family’s way, and your spouse won’t have to ask you six months from now if it can finally be thrown out.  I know that you, as the customer, are always right, and I appriciate your interest.  I just don’t understand some of your aspects.

Dear computer, computer software company, mobile device manufacturer or sellers and ISPs.  I frequently talk with people who do not have internet access.  I was told just today by a customer, for example, that he didn’t have a computer because he though he’d have to take a computer class and he just didn’t have that much interest or willingness to undergo what he believed would be a pain in the neck.  There are thousands and thousands of these people out there.  Maybe you don;t care about them one teeny tiny bit and that’s why you’re njot making any effort to get their business.  Instead all I can remember from any comercials is; “Spam, Malware, Viruses, SPY WARE!!!!  You could lose all your personal data!!!  Identity theft!!!  Your hard drive Will Crash, FOR SURE!!  Subscribe to our backup service or you’ll LOSE EVERYTHING!!!”  That’s your industry’s image in the minds of the people who represent the pieces of the pie you’re not going after.  They’re afraid, and for some good reasons.  It’s fine and understandable going after your competition’s customers, but there are a whole bunch of other potential customers no one’s going after.  Grow the pie, Man.

Yes I know; paragraphs two and three are closely related and both apply to my own business.  Yes, I’m being slightly hypocritical.

The laws of economics cannot be violated

Posted on by

Recently I’ve been listening to Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell as I drive to and from Idaho and on my commute into Seattle. One of the lessons was that if prices are fixed by the government you will have problems.

If the prices are fixed too low it results shortages, poor quality, and under the table payoffs to suppliers and/or government price control enforcement agents. If prices are fixed too high it results in surpluses, wasted resources, less efficient means of producing the product (no incentive to reduce costs), and a heavier tax burden. Letting the free market adjust prices dynamically results in much closer to optimal allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses.

This lesson has been known for decades, if not a century or more, but politicians have no incentive to adhere to the laws of economics.

Via email from Ry we have the further proof that the laws of economics cannot be violated without suffering known punishments:

A federal power agency discriminated against wind operators in the Pacific Northwest when it unplugged their generators to cope with a surplus of renewable energy on its transmission system this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled on Tuesday. It ordered the agency, the Bonneville Power Administration, to rewrite its rules.

Bonneville had argued that it had no option but to lock out the wind generators to protect salmon in the Columbia River.

While the agency could have reduced the power output of hydroelectric dams by routing excess water through a spillway, doing so would violate the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, it said.

…

But a group of wind companies filed a complaint with the energy regulatory commission saying that instead off turning off wind turbines, Bonneville should have resorted to “negative pricing,” or paying customers to take the excess power. Bonneville countered that this would conflict with its obligation to repay loans from the federal government and to provide power cheaply.

…

The problem could crop up more often as companies build wind and solar farms to meet state requirements for renewable energy.

“Negative pricing”?

We need a Constitutional amendment that guarantees freedom of commerce. That would have prevented the health care bill, the war on drugs, subsidies for farmers, and the $200 tax on firearm noise suppressors as well as crazy stuff like people advocating “negative pricing” for electrical power.

Atlas may shrug

Posted on by

Son James, his wife Kelsey, and I had an interesting conversation about the possible coming collapse of the Euro this evening. I read part of this story to them:

British embassies in the eurozone have been told to draw up plans to help British expats through the collapse of the single currency, amid new fears for Italy and Spain.

As the Italian government struggled to borrow and Spain considered seeking an international bail-out, British ministers privately warned that the break-up of the euro, once almost unthinkable, is now increasingly plausible.

Diplomats are preparing to help Britons abroad through a banking collapse and even riots arising from the debt crisis.

The Treasury confirmed earlier this month that contingency planning for a collapse is now under way.

A senior minister has now revealed the extent of the Government’s concern, saying that Britain is now planning on the basis that a euro collapse is now just a matter of time.

That’s the background. What’s more interesting to me is this article:

About a year ago, I spoke at a conference in Europe that attracted a lot of very rich people from all over the continent, as well as a lot of people who manage money for high-net-worth individuals.

What made this conference remarkable was not the presentations, though they were generally quite interesting. The stunning part of the conference was learning – as part of casual conversation during breaks, meals, and other socializing time – how many rich people are planning for the eventual collapse of European society.

Not stagnation. Not gradual decline. Collapse.

As in riots, social disarray, plundering, and chaos. A non-trivial number of these people think the rioting in places such as Greece and England is just the tip of the iceberg, and they have plans – if bad things begin to happen – to escape to jurisdictions ranging from Australia to Costa Rica (several of them remarked that they no longer see the U.S. as a good long-run refuge).

Of course. Once it is pointed out it is obvious.

Those with money will escape the collapse if it occurs. They will take a big hit and won’t be able to get all of their wealth out but they are generally smart and will generally succeed. The looters (by this I mean to include the socialist governments) will attempt to prevent the wealth from leaving but even if they were successful eventually the looters will run out of loot.

Much of the wealth and nearly all the brain power that generated that wealth will “take a holiday”. There is also a good chance, as in the book, that the escape of these people to another place will hasten the downfall. Rand may have missed a lot of the details but the basic concepts may be close enough that the end result is essentially the same.

Atlas may be shrugging.

This is Sort of Cool

Posted on by

I guess.  It’s an electric milti-copter.  It has one thing going for it that a number of flying machines don’t have– it’s actually gotten off the ground with a human aboard.  I don’t know what it has to offer that a regular helicopter or auto-gyro doesn’t.  Maybe it’s the power transmission system being electrical wires instead of drive shafts and belts.  I immediately though of a hybrid (gas/electric) system, and they talk about that on their web site.  Great as batteries have become, they’re still no match for gasoline.

Still, the main obstacle to wide-spread (affordable) personal aircraft is the FAA and similar, tax-payer-funded authoritarian gangs.  Note that one of the benefits to the multi-copter sited is the fact that it can be flown as an ultra-light– it gets past a lot of the aviation regs.  In a free market we’d all have viable, affordable options for our own aircraft right now.  Poor college kids would have them, as easily as they now have old beat-up cars.

I suppose that would scare the pee out of the authoritarian cowards, so maybe it could be said that we have our current, restrictive system as a means of avoiding the embarrassment for certain people who would soil themselves in public, falling into the fetal position and sucking their thumbs, or simply getting angry and losing control that way.  Frankly, I’d kind of like to see that.  Not in that it would be pleasant, mind you, but it would indicate that we’re on the right track.  In a society where cowards are given any notice other than to receive our contempt, or where cowards actually run things, there will be much impediment to real progress.

HT to the Blaze

Where Has This Newt Been All Our Lives?

Posted on by

I’d commented just this morning that I’d seen more than enough of Newt.  Then this was sent to me by a relative of a relative;

Not too shabby for a Republican.  The problem for Newt though is that we know Newt.  He has a history.  I can only assume that this was a trial balloon for him– to see how this sort of thing sells in the marketplace (in the minds of people like him) in which the industry of political rhetoric sells its wares.  He’s a craftsman in the art.  I still think the world is better off with Newt as a history teacher.

“Isolate and crush the secular socialist left” he says.  The only reference to liberty he makes is to religious liberty.  OK, what about the religious socialist left?  Why bring in the “secular” bit when you could just say “crush the socialists”?  He still talks about “running” the country too.  That bugs me– Raise your hand if you want to be run by someone in Washington.  See?  Didn’t think so.

Quote of the day—Glen Utzman

Posted on by

Only tax the poor, not the wealthy. This would motivate the poor to work harder and not be poor anymore.  [Paraphrased]

Glen Utzman
Fall Semester 2011
[Via daughter Kimberly who is taking a class from Professor Utzman.

While this does make a great deal of sense I somehow doubt the idea would receive widespread support.—Joe]

When looters run out of places to loot

Posted on by

Socialism is reaping the usual results in Greece:

Airliners will be grounded, trains halted and tax offices shut when Greek state workers strike against austerity measures on Wednesday, defying a plea by the government to rally behind its effort to fend off national bankruptcy.

Most probably don’t really understand what is happening. They think they can just demand the government hire people and people will have jobs. What their simple model doesn’t take into account is that they are no different than looters with the government doing the actual theft. The one level of indirection and the facade of respectability allows them to believe they are not engaged in immoral behavior.

The truth is that while economic laws are less well understood and probably more subtle than the laws of physics they are no less certain. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. They have been looting the people who produce for so long the producers have either left the country, given up, or have simply run out of wealth to loot.

I’ve often wondered what it looks like when those who know no life outside of looting run out of places to loot. We sort of saw what happened in the USSR in the ‘80s but that was before the Internet and they were a much more closed society than Greece.

Popcorn anyone?

This is why Boomershoot

Posted on by

Roseanne Barr advocates people who earn too much money and don’t “pay it back” to be sent “to the reeducation camps and if that doesn’t help, then being beheaded”. This was while being interviewed on Russia Today so I suppose she had a more receptive audience than in the U.S. I would like to suggest she move to Russia and run for President there because that isn’t the way things are supposed to work in this country.

I have another message for Barr and her supporters—the “reeducation camps” and the executions far too frequently advocated by my political opponents are why I put on Boomershoot and delete the records of who participated.

H/T to Tamara.