Category Archives: Economics

Radical Democratic Vision

Posted on by

That’s Left-Speak for “a People’s [communist] Revolution”.  Cornel West wrote an article for the NYT to describe it.  “Martin Luther King Jr. Would Want a Revolution…”

Often has the left attached itself to good causes, co-opting them and bending them into radicalized socialist movements.

Have you heard much about the protests on Wall Street?  Me neither.  Here is Cornel West leading a group of drones in one of those protests.  Listen carefully.  He wants an “American Fall” to coincide with the recent Arab Spring.  The Belt-way left is in a pickle.  The base was fired up and ready to go, but they didn’t get their revolution.  They feel it’s time to pounce.  They’ve taken off the masks, taken to the streets, and now they’re feeling let down.  Wait ’till they’ve simmered and seethed for another year and then see their hopes and dreams, their radical democratic vision, slip away.  That could get ugly.

This is why we aren’t supposed to feed the bears in the national parks.  You give them a little bit of socialism here and there, and before you know it they’re ripping the doors off your car trying to eat your children.  Then you’re forced to shoot them.  It’s inhumane.  DON’T FEED THE SOCIALISTS!  The Republicans have been happily feeding socialists for generations, trying to prove their own good intentions, the fools;
“Look!  Aren’t they cute?  And that one has some little cubs!  Awww!  I’ll be nice and give them my cold french fries, so they don’t go away unhappy…” 
I think we should convince some park rangers to have words with the GOP leadership.

Quote of the day—Mike Jensen

Posted on by

I’m all for shared sacrifice.  But I think it should be shared sacrifice of those responsible for this mess in the first place.  So instead of punishing the super rich, who didn’t spend us into oblivion, let’s have shared sacrifice among those responsible for this mess.

I propose this:

  1. Collect the name of every member of Congress—Republican or Democrat—who ever voted for a federal budget that included a deficit.
  2. Determine which of these members are still living.
  3. Add the names of all living presidents.
  4. Increase THEIR taxes.

I propose that we tax all former members of Congress at a 50% flat tax rate.  Former presidents would be taxed at a flat 75% of annual income.  Finally, current members of Congress and the current president would be taxes at 100% of their annual income.  Any other Americans who would like to can volunteer to join either of these groups (time to walk the walk, Warren!).  These tax rates will stay in effect until the debt is erased and we have a balanced budget.

How about we stop coddling those who caused this problem in the first place?

Mike Jensen
August 30, 2011
Coddling
[Yup. Those responsible should be the ones to pay the price for fixing the problem.

And if insufficient progress has been made by the time their term in office is over consideration could be given to auctioning off their body parts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Krugman

Posted on by

Fortunately, physicians no longer believe that bleeding the sick will make them healthy. Unfortunately, many of the makers of economic policy still do.

Paul Krugman
September 19, 2011
Decline in manufacturing capacity is probably only the beginning of the bad new: Paul Krugman
[He is apparently oblivious to the irony as he goes on to say, even though the U.S. Government is broke, “For the time being we need more, not less, government spending, supported by aggressively expansionary policies from the Federal Reserve and its counterparts abroad.”

Krugman believes that budget austerity is the equivalent of “bleeding the patient” when sane people would recognize it as reducing the hemorrhaging. One has to wonder if Krugman is practicing doublethink, doublespeak, or both. In any case he has crap for brains if he thinks the majority of the people will believe him.—Joe]

Living With Sclerosis

Posted on by

In this case, the sclerosis of the USPS.  My wife thought I’d taken care of it, and I thought she’d taken care of it, so neither of us took care of it and our P.O. box rental lapsed.  “No problem” says the postmaster to my son on Friday, “you can still renew it on-line by the end of day Saturday.”

After much searching I find the PO boxes link in that grey fine print at the bottom of the page.  Then I have to create an account.  Funny – I’ve never run into this hurdle before, “profanity in the password. please choose another password”.  I always figured no one would ever see your password, so why the hissy fit?

After much fussing around, I finally get to enter my particulars.  “Street Address”  That’s an easy one.  It’s been the same for decades.  As far as I know it’s been the same since the house was built, more than 100 years ago.  “Invalid Address.  Please select from the the alternatives below.”  There were none, so I click through and this time it accepts it.  Next is “Post Office Box Number”.  So I enter that along with my zop code.  That box number with that zip code has only existed since that post office was built, sometime in the mid 20th century, so I can understand how they might not have gotten it entered into their database yet.  So it comes up “invalid Post office box”.  I quit.  I did get a nice e-mail notice this morning though, thanking me for setting up an account.  It listed four or five things that were really super great about having an account with them, one of which was “manage or renew a post office box”.  Super.

So I went in to the post office this morning, saying I’d tried the on-line thing and failed, explaining in detail.  “Oh, No!” the flabby man behind the counter says, “you should have entered your PO box number, not your street address…”
“It asked for the street” and I spell it out for him “Ess Tee Awr Eee Eee Tee, Street Address.” He ignores that. “So what can I do”  Now this is the Monday after the Saturday that was our last day to renew.
“I have to change the lock, and you’ll have to pay the fee. How many of the new keys do you want?”
“I’d rather keep the same keys if it’s all the same to you. Charge me the fee and you can avoid the absurdity of changing the lock” Well that put him all in a pother.
“I’ll have to fool the computer….” and he pittered and pattered around the office for a bit, printed something off, cussed, threw it away, printed something off again, I wrote the check, thanked him, and was on my way.

All I could think of after that ordeal was the old saying among business owners everywhere; “If they ran a business like that, they’d be bankrupt.”  Oh wait.

It also reminds me of Douglas Adams’ Vogons, or of Ayn Rand’s description of the Soviet Union as a “morbid absurdity”.

Seldom Do I LOL…

Posted on by

…even when I’m watching good comedy.  Maybe it comes from growing up in a large family.  If you LOL, shut up already.  I’m trying to listen, and anyway, how can you listen while you’re cackling?  (In a live social situation, at least the deliverer of the comedy usually has the sense to wait for some degree of quiet, so that’s different)  Stuff like that.  But I LOL’d at this, from Tam;

Meanwhile, I’d like to offer my services to moderate the next GOP debate:

“Now, if you will all look down at your podiums, you will notice that you’ve all been provided with a short document. A few of you might even be vaguely familiar with it. If you don’t mind, could you each just look in the part headed ‘Article II’ and point out to me the sentence or phrase that indicates that ‘job creation’ or ‘the economy’ is within the presidential purview?

We’ll start with you, on the end, with the hair. No, not you… the other one on the end, with the hair…”

It’s absurd in its truth.  Funny and sad.

When thinking of the most recent, absurd rationalizations and excuses for government meddling, and the obvious expectation from politicians that we revere them (why is never explained) I find, more and more frequently, the phrase, “None of your filthy, stinking, rotten business, you sniveling, made-up, hairsprayed, lying piece of shit with the painted-on smile” comes to mind, followed by the thought that if you actually told them to mind their own business they wouldn’t understand– they actually believe that your business IS their business.  Tam made it funny is all.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I should clean my guns.

Quote of the day—John Robb

Posted on by

Looking for a safe asset class today, is like a Soviet bureaucrat in 1989, sensing trouble ahead, looking for the directorate with the safest job.

John Robb
August 30, 2011
JOURNAL: Where Should I Put My Money Before Things Collapse?
[I think there is some truth in the statement above but there are some flaws in the rest of the post. He seems to believe the problems are with capitalism rather than government interference in the free market.

What do I think are safe “asset classes”? The essentials of life: water, food, shelter, communication, health care, security, and the means to produce them. Which isn’t all that far off from what Robb advocates.—Joe]

It’s a start

Posted on by

I’ve often wondered if budget cuts would lead to less infringement upon our freedom. This is just a drop in the bucket and the effect will probably go completely unnoticed at our level. But it is a start:

The Transportation Security Administration is soon hoping to offer buyouts to about 3,000 administrative workers, one of dozens of federal agencies aiming to trim the payroll amid a budget crunch.

TSA is seeking authority from the Office of Personnel Management to offer buyouts to about 3,000 administrative and managerial workers based at its Northern Virginia headquarters and at regional offices nationwide, the agency said late Thursday.

Something that is more than a little telling about this organizations is the following from the same article:

The agency has offered voluntary early retirements to workers since December 2004 — about a year after the agency first opened.

It sounds to me like a major function of the agency is redistribution of wealth. When the budget crunch really hits I won’t have any probably advocating for the letting these guys and the politicians who enabled this sort of crap fend for themselves.

Hunger is coming

Posted on by

I’ve been saying for years that hunger is coming and that lots of people are going to die. I can’t find it on my blog but I know I have said it many times in private, “People have to get hunger before they revolt.”

Instapundit linked to the overview (via Kenneth Anderson) and David linked to the paper supporting my claims.

One of the biggest questions that comes to mind is what about the government forced famines in the Ukraine in the 1930s? Were there riots then? If so we know they weren’t sufficient to overthrow the communists but they didn’t have personal firearms either.

I agree with some of the others, the August 2013 date is a little too precise. The world could have bumper crops for a while and push the date out or there could be a bunch of crop failures and the date gets closer. But the bottom line is the conditions for revolt are approaching. As a general rule revolutions are bad for liberty. Will the U.S be different? What needs to be done to hold on to a free market and freedoms in general if there is a revolution? Would the preservation of private property via the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms be sufficient? Or will the forces demanding the abolition of private property be overwhelming? If the latter then it is my opinion that many more millions will die.

A Little History

Posted on by

I’ve long suspected (“suspected” as in I hadn’t set out to prove it, though I knew for sure anyway) that many of our gun restriction laws were vigorously supported by the gun industry.  It’s the only explanation for some of the import restrictions, and it makes sense to explain licensing requirements for manufacturers– protection for the established companies against cheap imports and upstart competitors, respectively.  This motivated American companies, and even the NRA, to get into bed with the anti-rights movement.  Add to that the government’s multi million dollar contracts potentially held over company’s heads, and you have an extremely powerful influence against liberty.  I bring this up because this sort of thing has been going on all throughout our society for, well, essentially forever.

Researching an answer for a customer, which is something I spend a lot of my time doing, I came across this (emphasis mine);

“The patent on the M1 carbine was owned by Western Cartridge Co. and David “Carbine” Williams, and still in effect when Penney and Arnold wanted to begin manufacturing M1 carbines in 1958. Penney and Arnold contacted Winchester-Western and offered them a percentage per carbine manufactured, in return for permission to manufacture the M1 carbine. John Olin, owner of Winchester-Western, refused. Olin, Winchester-Western, and more than a few other American manufacturers were opposed to all of the surplus weapons being returned to the United States, where they were being sold at prices the manufacturers couldn’t compete with. This opposition eventually led the manufacturers and the National Rifle Association to support the Gun Control Act of 1968, which, amongst many other things, prohibited the importation of U.S. military surplus.“

The capitalist in me, which comprises my entire being, says; “Why didn’t Winchester and other manufacturers buy up all the cheap imports, then, or at least strike a deal with the new company?”  But some obvious questions often go unanswered, or un-asked.

Point being; a huge number of the vast mountain of restrictions and barriers to entry into the marketplace we have now, started with a politician getting into bed with someone in business, and working out a deal.

What to do about it?  First be aware of it.  Then understand that our government was set up, partly, to avoid this sort of thing.  Hence I lay the majority of the blame on the corrupt operators in our government.  There will always be one person willing to sell out his country for money, but government is specifically charged with protecting liberty.  Tar and feathers, anyone?  And be aware of what your favorite advocacy group is really doing before you give them money.

Jesus the Socialist

Posted on by

This has come up over and over, but then the leftist playbook is only about four pages, and those are all double-spaced.  If you have to lobby for your B.S. for 150 years without pause, you end up being very repetitive.  When your repetitions are all lies, you also end up looking both stupid and insane, which of course makes a good enough definition of socialism right there.  This was my comment over there;

I never read the whole Bible, but I did see the movie. [back when I was a kid]
If Jesus ever lobbied the Roman government, calling for forced redistribution and centralized control, I haven’t heard of it.  Let’s demand that the socialists point us to that passage in the Bible.  He didn’t lobby the government employees to form public employees’ unions who would then take to the streets, calling for revolution if they didn’t get their way, did he?  Let’s see THAT part in the Bible.  (if Jesus did that, he must have been a dumb jerk anyway, and I wouldn’t listen to him)

If we were put here with free will, then forcing “charity” takes away that free will along with the distinction between those who give willingly and those who “give” only under threats from the government.

The socialists know all this of course, so let’s not make the mistake of taking their gibberish seriously– they’re just making up lies to sow doubt among the less attentive of Christians.  The only time we should ever take socialists at their word is when they’re making their threats.  They have a long history of carrying out the most outrageous of threats.  In that case we must be very serious in our resolve to defeat them.  Otherwise, socialism is nothing but a sick joke.

When Jesus shows up in person, dressed in a black ninja outfit with his own team of storm troopers to take my property, I’ll believe he was a socialist.  Until then; Girls, you be trippin’.  I’ll go with Douglas Adams’ definition of Jesus; “A man who got nailed to a tree for suggesting we be nice to people.”  I suppose today he’d be labeled a “terrorist” and the Brits would shut down his Twitter and FaceBook accounts.

The War Got Us Out of the Depression?

Posted on by

That’s the claim.  World War Two got us out of the Great Depression.  It’s become an almost Pavlovian response.  Mention the end of the Great Depression, and the pre-programmed, rapid-fire response is “The-War-got-us-out-of-it!”  Ring the bell and the socialist dogs drool.  No thought about how such a thing could be– Just blind faith that it was so.

I heard one of the talk shows hosts (I think it was Limbaugh) bring this up recently.  The very same people who claim that W.W. II “got-us-out-of-the-Depression” are now the ones claiming that the current “Bush Lied, People Died/Inside Job” wars are dragging down the economy.  I don’t think the socialists can have it both ways.  We have troops in active fighting in what, four countries now?  I lost count, and it’s not “fighting” anymore, but “Kinetic Somethingorother” anyway.  We should be doing great about now if their Keynesian economic theories are correct.

Sure.  Just try this experiment with your own business or family; apply all your best efforts, using all your best resources, to build all your best products, for four years, go deeply into debt doing it, and then package up all of that best stuff, along with all your best workers, and send them overseas to be expended with no compensation.  Then build new houses for a German family and a Japanese family, going further into debt to do that, while you engage in years of litigation and appeals with a Russian family with no clear outcome.  See how rich you are at the end of it.

You can’t advocate two opposite ideologies at the same time.  One negates the other.  Either Keynesian theory is spot on, or it’s crazy.  Your perpetual motion machine either works or it doesn’t work.  Don’t claim both or you’ll look even more blitheringly stupid than you looked when you only said your perpetual motion machine generated a net energy output (oops; I’m assuming you know what “net energy output” means, which, if you believe in Keynesian economics, you don’t. Sorry).

PS.  I read several years ago that we don’t have “Infantry” anymore.  Oh no.  That would be much too.. “yesterday”.  Now we have a “Soldier-centric Force Structure” so it’s all new and shiny, you see.  Makes all the difference in the world.  To a moron.

Since having a “War Department” to fight real enemies sounded too unfriendly, and we now have the “Defense Department” and “Peace-Keeping Forces” instead, I figure it won’t be long before we have the “Department of Peace” that will bomb the shit out of you if you advocate liberty.  You’d better hope that the Peace Squad never shows up in your neighborhood.  It’ll be a bunch of government hippies shooting up your private flower pots.  Or something.

Capitalism: A Necessity

Posted on by

My 17 year old wrote this essay for his English class this summer.  While the Brits are rioting over what kind of socialism they want, and American public employees have taken to the streets for more of our money, calling for revolution if they don’t get 100% of the coerced funds they think they want, this is a timely piece.  Advocating freedom is always timely though.  I didn’t help him a whit (other than to try to raise him right) and here I left in the parts with which I had minor gripes over syntax, or over a word or two;

Capitalism: A Necessity

We live in a world full of criminals, fools, rapists, murderers, and countless other evil-doers. Many of us are left to deal with the ramifications of these burdensome people. However, evil-doers are not the only issue; many well-intentioned people make mistakes that affect millions. In considering these seemingly never-ending problems of the world, one is left with quite a dismal picture. The subsequent thought is, how can these problems be solved? Is it possible? How can we make society better? There are many ideas about how to best deal with society, some of them promising to perfect it and eradicate crime and evil. In all reality, there will always be evil and evildoers. However, a condition can be imposed which makes life better for all of us, protecting us, and allowing us the freedom to think, create, and trade with others. This condition is Capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system of government which allows individuals the most possible freedom while, at the same time, protecting them from the potential harm of others. This is because its main function is the government recognition [of] individual rights. Individual rights are “conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival” (Rand, Man’s Rights). Among them are:  that a person has the right to their  own life, that a person has the right to liberty (or the freedom to think and act), and that a person is free to “pursue happiness,” or to do what they please. A person assumes these rights with the caveat that they may not violate any other person’s rights. A system such as this protects individuals, while still allowing them freedoms proper for their survival.

All rights are actually corollaries of the right to life. Man is a living creature; naturally, he must have the freedom to perform all actions necessary to stay alive. Also, Man is a thinking creature; he relies on his creative faculty to produce the tools necessary to live. Therefore, in order to have the right to his own life, he must have the freedom not only to create, but to own what he creates. Otherwise, he is a slave, subject to the whim of a master (Rand, Man’s Rights 322) and has no right to his own life. Essentially, all other rights ensure Man’s right to life which, in itself, is a basic condition for his survival.

Capitalism holds that government’s only enterprise is the protection of these basic rights. It was also the form of government originally intended for the United States by its founders. As stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Declaration of Independence). It is clear in this excerpt that the founders of the United States thought of government as a protector of the people rather than a controller or a regulator.

A well known  aspect of Capitalism is the absence of economic regulation, or a free market system. No economic regulation can exist in a capitalistic system because it inherently inhibits people’s right to free trade – therefore violating their right to life. A common argument against Capitalism is that a lack of regulation would allow business to grow exorbitantly, take advantage of society, cause poverty and contribute to a general degradation of people’s lifestyle. However, in a free market, if a business is not practicing in a manner that is beneficial to the public, a niche is created for another business to enter, and the public is free to boycott the business in support of an emerging one. As long as a business does not violate another’s rights, they are free to act as they wish. However, in the situation where a business is violating other’s rights, judicial action would be appropriate, just as with any other criminal.

Capitalism is the only system of government that does not require, and in fact prevents, control by force. It ensures that no force may ever be initiated and that the only appropriate force is self-defense. The only method by which any trade may occur is by mutual consent – a transaction in which both parties involved must agree. In this system, it is inherent that both parties benefit; both consensually walk away with something they consider more valuable than what they traded. Other systems of government such as Socialism and Fascism are based on the notion that each individual in society is less valuable than a “public good” and that force may be initiated on society for the sake of this “public good.” In reality, this translates to an ever-growing government control of the citizens. These systems, unlike Capitalism, fail to recognize that society is actually a group of individuals rather than a single entity. In a capitalistic system, individuals are free to act in their best interest and are barred from violating another’s right to do so, creating an optimal situation for the success of society.

An argument made against Capitalism is that it inherently results in people unable to take care of themselves being left to starve because of the lack of redistribution programs such as welfare. However, in a Capitalist system, people are free to help other people as they wish. If an individual believes another person or group should receive help, then that individual can provide monetary support or bolster more widespread support. Additionally, charity organizations can flourish and help millions worldwide. By no means does Capitalism prevent needy people from receiving help. It actually works more efficiently than a welfare system; Capitalism does not support people who, entirely capable of caring for themselves, decide instead to take advantage of a government redistribution system unless other people willfully decide to support them. In a Capitalistic system, force upon any party is forbidden because it violates people’s rights, so redistribution is impossible.

Capitalism is the system that best allows man to produce wealth – anything of value which helps improve his survivability. It does this by giving man the freedom to think, discover, and act on his own volition without oppression from any entity (government, criminals, etc.). Man did not evolve as a highly specialized community species such as bees or ants. By nature, man works best if he is allowed to make his own choices. The early caveman did not create the spear because his only motive was to work for a “public good” – to improve the lives of other cavemen – he created the spear out of his self-interest in his own survival. Even so, the result was an improvement in mankind as a whole; because they saw the first, other cavemen’s lives were improved by using his idea for themselves. Capitalism does not ensure a perfect society. Rather, it ensures the conditions which best allow society to function. It does this by protecting Man’s rights.

 

Works Cited

Decaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (1776). Print.

Rand, Ayn. “Appendix: Man’s Rights.” Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, 1967. Print. This chapter specifically outlines the nature of man’s rights and their necessary existence.

The public college teacher gave him a “B”.  I’m a little bit suprised she didn’t lose composure and start breaking things.  Maybe she’s been in contact with her higher-ups, trying to find ways to deal with this problem “under the radar”.

State Sponsored Media?

Posted on by

Speaking of the tools and mechanisms of oppression, have any of you noticed how many government or Ad Council ads there are on AM radio lately?  We’re being told where to find out how to raise our kids, fasten their car seats, talk to kids about drugs, notice the signs of a stroke (call 911) quit smoking, and ZOMG– be afraid of your food!  In the 20 minutes or so I listened to KMAX this morning, there were two or three government ads to one commercial ad.

Now; I haven’t looked into who runs the Ad Council or where its funding comes from, and I don’t know how many of the government ads are actually paid for as opposed to being forced as “public service announcements” but it’s looking more and more like there is already a mechanism in place to further control radio stations– threaten to their pull ads, which are becoming a majority of the ads on the air.

I thought y’all might want to look into this, as there has been “chatter” for years about how to clamp down on talk radio and yet no one is talking about the recent uptick in Big Brother ads.  I smell “Hope and Change” in this.

Same planet but different worlds

Posted on by

As everyone knows by know S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating after the debt ceiling was raised.

I then heard some pundits on the radio saying this was the fault of the Tea Party and Republicans. If they had raised the debt ceiling earlier instead of engaging in brinkmanship it would have happened. The increased interest rates the Federal government will now have to pay will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of dollars each year and taxpayers can “thank” the Tea Party for that.

The major news media gleefully repeats this line:

Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default” — and that, subsequently, “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.”

WHAT?!!! Where are their layers of editorial oversight?

Did anyone bother to actually read what S&P said was their reason for the downgrade? It was right there in their press release (emphasis added):

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

The rating was lowered because progress containing the growth in public spending is less likely that previous assumed. Who was it was trying to contain growth in public spending? Unless the media and the liberal politicians are living in a different world than I am that was the Tea Party. The Tea Party was not sufficiently effective in reducing spending so S&P downgraded the debt rating.

Thomas Sowell has it right. There is no point talking to them. These people are suffering from Peterson Syndrome. They do not have the mental tools to determine truth from falsity and with the pedal to the metal they are driving the U.S. into a financial abyss.

Invest in food, gold, silver, and copper jacketed lead.

Update: The Washington Times, although somewhat more obliquely, says the same thing.

Update2: WizardPc has a humorous take on it.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better

Posted on by

S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating. And it’s not looking good for the future either:

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

And with each downgrade the interest rates increase which makes the debt burden more difficult to bear which makes it more likely another downgrade is coming.

Hope and change just keeps coming.

Mass printing of money is almost for certain in our future. I figure than in another couple years I can probably pay off our mortgage with that half ounce of gold in one of my safes or a few hundred pounds of lentils…

Gold and silver

Posted on by

The price of gold is now $1670.00 an oz. Silver is $41.80.

I think it’s the hope and change taking effect.

Quote of the day—Tea Party

Posted on by

US Treasurys Now a Toxic Asset.

TeaParty@TeaParty.org
August 2, 2011
Subject line to this email.
[If only there were somebody we could unload the toxic asshats in Washington on. Someone with an abundance of tar, feather, and rails would please me.—Joe]

Debt reduction via a police state

Posted on by

As the Federal debt started exploding a few years ago I tried to look ahead and figure out what would happen. Lots of bad things of course, but one potential outcome, as I mentioned in a blog post a few days ago, was that a new wave of politicians would get elected and scrap most or all of the nanny state agencies to cut expenses. Sort of “every cloud has a silver lining” kind of thing.

I should know better than to think any government operation could have a “silver lining”.

What I had never considered, not even in my most pessimistic moments was that the Feds would find a way to turn the crisis into a way to further expand their control. Instead of control weakening as funding became harder to get there is a path whereby funding is obtained by increasing control. Sure, I know about the war on drugs and confiscating property “involved” in a drug crime being used to fund law enforcement. But this is much, much worse.

I recently had a reliable source tell me the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory agencies have been told to explore how they can supply their own revenue such that they become self supporting. “Run like a business” and even potentially make a profit. My source explicitly called out the EPA and OSHA but one can easily imagine how this mandate will be extended to the ATF and hundreds of other government organizations.

If the color didn’t just drain out of your face and you nearly fainted you either don’t have a very good imagination or you have a government job.

The only way these regulators can “make” money is through fines and confiscation of property. One of the examples given to me was of dust production in a particular type of facility of which there are thousands all across the country. I’ll not name them to avoid giving the Feds easy targets but these facilities have existed for many decades and are an essential part of our infrastructure. The regulations say that if more than 0.125” of dust builds up on the interior surfaces of the buildings they must be cleaned or else they can be fined. The problem is that no one knows of a fix for the problem. It would take 7 to 8 hours to clean a facility. It’s a problem similar to the classic “If one man can dig a post hole in two minutes how many minutes would it take two men to dig a post hole?” It just can’t be done in less than 7 to 8 hours. Once the facility goes back into production the dust will exceed spec in about 30 minutes. Obviously a facility that is in maintenance mode 15 times as much as it is in production mode is not viable. So maybe they could just pay the fine and figure that is “just the cost of doing business”. That doesn’t work either.

If the Feds come back a week later and they are out of spec the fine can be doubled. And doubled again the next week (or day) if they are still in production. Basically it amounts to after the first fine the operator will have to shutdown the facility or find a permanent fix to the dust problem—and no such solution exists. Dust, in many situations, cannot be significantly reduced.

Numerous other examples were given to me of extremely low-hanging fruit that the Feds can “harvest” at will if they only know where to look. This type of problem exists essentially everywhere. It’s Huffman’s rule of firearms law on a massive scale applied to nearly every industry and every person (remember Three Felonies a Day?). That is how they can generate revenue, “become profitable”, and our country becomes a police state.

Quote of the day—Samuel Butler

Posted on by

All progress is based on the universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income.

Samuel Butler
[While this is widely attributed to Samuel Butler it is not found in a search this particular Samuel Butler’s work. It could be it is a different Samuel Butler or the collection is incomplete. But regardless of who should be given credit I think it is worthwhile to note that while this statement has a great deal of truth to it catastrophic failure is also associated with living beyond one’s income. If you question the validity of this latter claim you should run for public office. If you “know” it is false and can convince enough people of your delusion you too could become president.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Madison

Posted on by

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison
1794
For context and related quotes see here.
[It’s too bad we don’t have still have a constitution Madison would recognize. If we did we wouldn’t be in the middle of an economic and financial crisis.—Joe]