Archive for December, 2009

Can We Count on Foundational Climate Data?

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the back story about the German 6th Army’s destruction at the battle of Stalingrad is an apt metaphor for how global warming is being inflated.

After thee Russian Guards Armor had encircled 6th Army under Field Marshal Von Paulos, OKH and OKW were keen to free them. 6th Army was the spearhead of the German Army and contained the most battle hardened units. A communiqué went out to Von Paulos asking how much reserve supplies were at hand for a breakout.

Paulos then sent a communiqué to his commanders who then sent them out to their subordinates. The subordinates knowing that whatever they reported, more would be asked of them than their reported supplies would allow, so they withheld some from the tally… as a buffer. The commanders then added the reported amounts, then subtracted some, to make up for the fact that more would be asked than the supplies would allow. Then Paulos did the same thing. By the time the supply report got back to OKW and OKH the amount of supplies reported was a fraction of what was available. Making the picture more grim than it in fact was. The total amount was under reported at every step of the way to the point that, a breakout was not ordered, and 6th Army perished as a result.

Global warming is similar in that all it takes is for the ground units to inflate or deflate their reports a little. In the aggregate the slight over reports add up to a great over report of temperature rise. Each person thinks he or she is helping by showing the crisis is urgent and so is buffering the data a little. Just as the subordinate officers of the German 6th Army under reported their supply situation to “help” by being able to do the impossible if asked, some modern weather data collectors might inflate their numbers a little. Inflating the foundational information and skewing the reported rise in global temperatures dramatically.

For example the National Weather Service reports the Heating Degree Days. The heating degree day is a scalar of how much the daily average temperature was above or below 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

To illustrate, I have taken some days from December 2009 that were reported in the Burlington Free Press, the paper of record for the State of Vermont;

dec18 2009 wsscm 2

On December 18, 2009 the National weather service reported 48 heating degree days for December 17th 2009. The High was 9 degrees and the low was 1 degree. 9+1=10 10/2=5 The average temperature for December 17th 2009 was 5 degrees Fahrenheit in Burlington Vermont. Subtract 5 from 65 to get the heating degree days and you have 60. But the National Weather service reported only 48 heating degree days for that day. Under reporting the actual figure by 12 degrees. Last year that day the Weather Service reports that the high was 31 and the low was 30. So 31+30=61 61/2=30.5 round up and you have 31. The average temperature for December 17 2008 was 31 degrees. Subtract 31 from 65 and you have 34 heating degree days for December 17 2008. The Weather Service reports exactly 34. The averages for December 17 are 32 for a high and 17 for a low. 32+17=49 49/2=24.5 round up to 25. Subtract 25 from 65 and you have 40 heating degree days for December 17th on average and that is what the National Weather Service reports is normal.

The question I have is why is December 17 2009 so underreported for heating degree days? The heating degree days as I have show were actually 60 when the National Weather service reported only 48. That would have made the average temperature on that day 17 degrees. Double the highest temperature seen on that day. This skews the seasonal heating degree days by showing less than there really was.

I have included another day to compare. December 21 2009. They under reported the heating degree days for the year prior;

dec 22 2009 wsscm 2

What do you think about that? I have found that at least once a week the heating degree days are under reported or, in the summer, the cooling degree days are over reported The heating degree day figure is a foundational figure used in computing global climate change. As the heating degree days are under reported and the cooling degree days are over reported it skews the IPCC’s reported global temperature increases. In the aggregate, all the little over and under reporting adds up to a lot, due to errors in the “original” data. At least the data that hasn’t been destroyed.

Check it out yourself in your local news papers. The math isn’t hard. Maybe it’s time we started looking into things for ourselves… and stop trusting people who have shown themselves over and over to be untrustworthy. Under tyrannies, the people have no means, in the democratized countries we have the means. Until we give it up to the global warming panic mongers.

Lets hope and work so that the little buffers, don’t have the same result on us… as it did 6th Army.

Opium of the People

Monday, December 28th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that government largess is the opium of the people. Once people get addicted to government spending they loathe giving it up. Even when it is in their personal best interest to do so.

When Medicare passed according to a congresswoman on Fox news, there was only 26% of the American people that supported it. Now when asked if they support medicare over 80% say yes. That is because in the premise of the question “do you support medicare?” is the assumption that if you do not, you want all the people who are now getting “free” medical care from the government to get thrown out and left in the cold with no coverage. Most people stop there logic here.

However if there was a better alternative for indigent people to get medical attention, when they need it and that doesn’t require government intervention, most would support the alternative. Other examples of government doling out “free” money are equally as enlightening.

Like the public dole. During the 1990’s there was a concerted effort made to move people from welfare to work. The effort had some success. Many people moved from one side of the equal sign to the other. They are now contributing to US National GDP. I believe that some of the economic growth seen in the 1990’s was due to this program. Without this concerted effort though the number of people on the dole would be much higher.

Fortunately, for the government pushers, we are now in a recession of the government’s making. So they hope to regain some of the lost addicts. They can now get as many people on welfare as possible. All the while telling them that they cannot make it. It is impossible. They are too stupid to ever be more than a welfare recipient.

From the perspective of the welfare recipient it seems a pretty good deal. Sleep in every day. No place you have to be… except the welfare office once a month. Your bills are paid and you have free health care. If you decide to go to work and add your productive labor to the collective GDP, then you loose free healthcare, free housing, free food, your bills are no longer paid and you have to worry about bills.

But when a person moves from the dole to fending for oneself they gain much more than they loose. All the things mentioned in the previous paragraph are just that… Things. Nothing more. What will be gained by working are many and profound.

Independence from others. We can never be totally independent it is our nature to socially interact and raise our collective lot thusly. But we as individuals can gain a level of freedom within the framework of society if we pay for our own things. This independence is more than just physical.

We become independent in our minds. Paying for your own way is empowering by giving our sense of justice a widget. The more widgets we give our personal sense of justice the better our self esteem, the better our sense of self and the better we hold ourselves. Today’s society doesn’t have much use for the way in which we hold ourselves. The inevitable depression is handled by antidepressant drugs. Not by fostering a better feeling of self worth. We seek to minimize the negative effects of our intemperance.

The dole destroys self worth just like drug addiction. When someone does something that is not in their nature, to get something that they feel they need, their sense of self worth is diminished. We are all diminished when this happens. When ever a person falls short of his or her potential, especially when it is government that provides the friction, society is diminished.

But just because something walks like a duck, squawks like a duck and looks like a duck…

Machinery and Law

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that a well designed machine has as few parts as possible, is put together as simply as possible and performs it’s function very well. Law is no different. It should be simple, well written and perform it’s function well and with no unintended consequences.

During the Second World War the German army produced a tank that was considered to be, if not the best of the war, among the top two. It was the Panzer Kampf Wagon Mark 5… The Panther. It had a heavy gun from the start and was able to pierce the armor along the frontal arc of the Russian T32. (The tank for which it was designed to destroy). The tank was fast overland for it’s day and had wide tracks for better soft terrain maneuver. The Achilles heel of the PzKW Mark V was it was notoriously prone to breakdowns. Any unit equipped with the new tanks was sure to have at least a few down for maintenance at any time. Reducing the effectiveness of the unit. So despite it’s surface beauty and function it was flawed. That flaw made the tank that fought beautifully, destroyed in the motor pool, not on the battlefield. The machine was too complicated. The internal complexity undermined the outer function.

There are many examples of machines that don’t work because they were too complicated. Law that is too complicated only serves the interests of attorneys. Society is poorly served when the law that we are held to cannot be known to us. Especially when ignorance is no excuse under the law. When laws are so complicated a reasonably intelligent person with due diligence cannot perform functions that law requires of him… Law becomes tyranny. Tax law is only one example.

Regulation that is very complicated is also poorly thought out. Like a machine that is too complicated. Ask any engineer if it is harder to design a simply made machine that will work or a complicated machine to do the same job. They will answer the more simple a machine to do a function is, the harder it is to design, but the longer it will last, the easier it will be to work on, and the less it will break down. The simple machine is the function of a diligent engineer but a complicated machine is the work of a sloppy engineer. Complicated law and regulation is the work of sloppy legislators and is prone to unintended consequences, revision, running afoul of some other regulation or regulatory body and the more it will be despised.

Moreover complicated law increases the need for lawyers. Lawyers that make law that suits their needs, (not the needs of society). Law that sows more chaos than it quells. And law that makes the people fear their government.

But when you think about it isn’t that what complicated law is supposed to do. Make the people fear their government? When you never know when you are acting outside legality you are never safe from the law. If you don’t know the law pertaining to your every day business you don’t ever know if you are breaking the law. To know if you are breaking the law you must know what the law is. To assume that because you are acting morally is to be in utter ignorance of the purpose of law. That is, to protect the property of those in power and plunder the property of those not in power.

In the end, in machinery or law, you only get the product of the person who designs it. If engineering was a popularity contest instead of merit based I bet we would still be cutting with churt and lighting with flint.

Humanity has moved to a place where we have machines that do incredibly complex tasks and break down rarely. We have achieved the balance between function and complexity in our machines. Too bad our legislation hasn’t progressed a bit since Roman times.

Oh well… I hear Ballet With Baal has a new episode!

Demand for Labor

Sunday, December 20th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the best thing government can do for the working man is to make the demand for labor greater than the ability of the market to deliver. To do so resets the value of labor and allows the working man the ability to raise his lot.

The swamp of humanity that Malthus supposed has not come to fruition and can be tossed out. Population growth is slowed to the point in industrialized countries that the average age is going up fast. Problems of how the few youth will pay for the services of the many old are manifesting.

Market forces can never be ignored. When ever demand exceeds supply the aggregate price will rise. Labor is no exception. So whenever demand for labor exceeds the supply of labor the price goes up. But market forces are powerful. As the price of any commodity goes up more of the commodity is produced. So as the price of labor increases the supply will increase. By bringing in people who had little reason to work. (People who formerly had taken advantage of government largess). Most of the time the value of their labor is less than the value of government services they receive. Only when the value of their labor gets to the point where it makes economic sense to move into the labor force will people that receive government services do so.

As more people move into the workforce the ranks of the poor will necessarily go down. Poverty will necessarily become a thing of the past. But, more importantly, as almost everyone of working age in a society work, (add their productive labor to the aggregate), the wealth of all of that society grows… inevitably. The more people that work in a society, the more wealth there is in that society, the stronger the “foundation” of that society. The less people that work in a society the less wealth there is in that society.

How can government help drive up demand for labor in it’s territorial jurisdiction? By lowering friction to business… Regulation, taxes, licenses, and graft are friction to business. Another more pernicious source of friction are parasitic lawyers and legal system that creates chaos to enrich itself. Export and import tariffs and regulations continue to drive down the demand for labor in a country. Government largess is another insidious incentive that keeps the demand for labor low by creating a permanent underclass that has only the buying power, government, (societies roof), suffers it to have.

The roof cannot long support the foundation.

But by far the biggest drag on the demand for labor in a country is a lack of justice. Nothing else is as corrosive of the wealth of a nation. In a country that has no real justice, only the appearance of justice, poverty is always rampant. Starving people litter the streets and countryside.

Look at modern Kenya. There is a drought there. Starvation is gearing up to take the lives of thousands of people, and reset the epigenetics of the next two or three generations. Now what is the effective cause of the starvation in Kenya? Is it the drought or is there some root cause that is only made apparent by the drought?

The last elections in Kenya were marred by violence. Many were killed and the turmoil is only just under the surface. Justice is not to be found. People cannot be safe in their possessions. I submit, the lack of justice is the root cause, of the imminent starvation in Kenya and the drought is an aggravating factor.

Can you think of one country that has, or had, no justice and is/was wealthy? Not one exists in the history of man. Many were wealthy and lost their wealth when they became corrupt but not one has risen in corruption to wealth. The two are like matter and anti matter. They cannot exist together. Where there is injustice there cannot be general wealth. But where there is wealth, injustice will eat from the inside, that wealth, as surely as a nematode in a caterpillar.

Injustice lowers the demand for labor because of many factors one of which is the incentives that are set up. No one gets ahead by his or her own labor, they get ahead by stealing the possessions and labor (slavery), of others. Therefore, as possessions are used up and not replaced by the labor of the many, necessarily, the aggregate wealth of the county goes down. And, inevitably, as the wealth of a country goes down the demand for labor goes down as well… a nice feedback loop.

Living Breathing Document

Friday, December 18th, 2009

Dear Friends,

I wrote this awhile ago and republished it in March. Given the expansion of government we are seeing it seems relevant.

The basis of Constitutionalism is that, if the maximum limits of a government were written down, adhered to strictly, and difficult to change. The government would be free, fair, stable, and weak. As long as the government was acting in a way that didn’t contradict the constitution, the people had no complaint. If the government acted extra constitutionally, the people did have a legitimate gripe.

History had shown that governments become corrupt, and tyrannical over time. The political innovation of Constitutionalism was to be the fix for this tendency. Livy’s history of Rome is a good example of the rise and decline of a civilization, and the rise of the next. There are many other examples of this tendency. Gilgamesh’s dynasty in Ur, The Spartan civilization, The Warring States Period of Classical China, and the Mongols. It was obvious that some form of muzzle must be placed on government. I am amazed that the politicians willingly applied the muzzle of Constitutionalism to themselves.

The very strength of a constitution is it’s great moment. The amount of force needed to change it. Without this immutability, a constitution is not worth the paper it is/was written on. If the constitution can be changed easily the powerful will change it to suit themselves. It will be changed first to keep the Elite in power. Then in the name of safety it will be paired back to nothing.

To say that the constitution is a ‘living breathing document’ and that it can be ‘reinterpreted’ to ‘grow with the times’ is really to say that “the dammed thing means whatever the hell I say it does.” The first way is more expedient, the second more accurate. The problem with this reasoning, is that, if you agree with the changes made today, you may not agree with the changes made tomorrow. ‘Rights’ and ‘Power to regulate’ that can be read into a constitution, outside it’s original intent, can be just as easily read out, or enlarged.

Saint Augustine said, in the city of man, that “People get the government they deserve.” When people let their rights slip away, and let their constitution be changed by an oligarchy of five, they will deserve the tyranny that they visit upon themselves and unfortunately, their children.

In fact, we are seeing these very gouges taken out of the US Constitution. The First Amendment is there specifically to protect POLITICAL speech. Not pornography. That pornography is also protected is a side effect. We see that political advertising is now illegal. Saying something bad about a person who is in office before an election is now illegal, unless you are a special organization, 527k or some such. This requires reams of paperwork, a roadblock to individual participation at that level.

The government was not to make laws respecting religion and not establish a state religion. It has been twisted so that we do now have an official state religion, Atheism.

The Second Amendment is, we are now told, was put their to protect the government’s right to keep and bear arms. This is absurd, even taken at face value. Why would the framers give the government the right to keep and bear arms in an addendum to the actual constitution. An addendum there specifically to protect the rights of the people. An amendment that is redundant, in that the power of the government to keep a standing army is in the main document. The Federalist Papers, Number 10 Madison mentions that the people regularly have guns in their homes. We shall see what the Lawyer oligarchy says about the Second Amendment pretty soon.

The most ignored Amendment is number 10. Every possible avenue of human endeavor has been interpreted as interstate commerce. Apparently if you pick your nose it can be regulated by the Federal Government, due to the possibly of it’s being sold across state lines.

We are on a slippery slope. Meddling with the constitution as much as has been done in the twentieth century is foolish. The slope is getting steeper, and we are moving faster. I don’t see a bottom in site, do you?

Health Care Reform

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if I were to be president, (God forbid), and I wanted to make health care reform my priority I would publicly adopt a three or four year plan.

The first year I would announce the initiative and ask for public input from the other side. After a reasonable time getting options from all sides I would then set down with the leaders of the legislature and discuss what might be the best and where we should point the debate.

The second year would be devoted to public debate. Put a generic one page bill on the table. Then debate in the open, fairly, and with all points offered. I would then get some money from congress to have a poll. Get the opinion of the American people. Having a year to debate and crush the vitriol from the issue would tire some of the partisan rhetoric. Taking a year or two to debate a bill of such magnitude would be simply common sense.

The third year would be writing the bill. More debate would follow. I would insist the bill be no more than one hundred typed pages. If it needs to be longer than that it is overreaching. Publish the bill in major news outlets and have the final debate then vote.

Of course this description belies my, (blissful) ignorance of the sausage making that is… modern legislation. The quality of which we all see.

When government takes on a Herculean task as reforming something, as complex and affecting every citizen, like the American health care system, it should act slowly, openly, and deliberately. Debate should be public and one goal should be front and center. “The interests of the American people come first.” In this way the president would get the people on his side.

The American people are not stupid despite what our leaders think. We make cunning decisions every day. It is the nature of the capitalist system we live in. We have to be sly enough to detect a scam. Or else we learn to be. We have to be cagy about our work and investments. If we are entrepreneurs we have to be amoral with our employees. (In the case of having to lay someone off to sustain the business). People who live in a capitalist system are naturally sly when it comes to being horn swaggled.

Being naturally cagy Americans are also busy people. We have a hundred irons in the fire. Days and nights filled with active production American people’s time is limited and valuable. Politics takes time. Americans would rather the government just went on and didn’t interfere with their lives too much. But are too busy to get involved. Nothing gets an American’s ire like having his wealth taken. In this way people are people. As were the people in Machiavelli’s Florence, people loath loosing wealth, especially to a scam. And nothing gets the attention of an American quicker than a scam he detects threatening his wealth (or health).

Like, why does this legislation have to be passed in the dark of night, as fast as possible? Thousands of pages no one has read and yet there is negotiations about the content? Why does it need to be thousands of pages? Why do the taxes kick in immediately and the benefits later? Is it wise to raise taxes in recession? Why all the scare tactics? Apparently if government doesn’t take on this giant entitlement the US will go bankrupt? Is it thousands of pages to guarantee no one will read it… American’s see the inept slight of hand.

So, by acting like a shifty eyed car sales man, the government is getting exactly what it seeks to avoid… attention. The government wants the American people to just go on about their lives and ignorantly let their liberty be stolen. But in it’s zeal to grab power the progressives have overreached. The American people are awake. If this leviathan of a bill passes there will be hell to pay at the ballot box.

Hell… there probably already will be.

Human Sovereignty

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

Dear Friends, It seems to me that any utilitarian/stoic philosophy of government must have at it’s core the belief that people are “ends in themselves“. To believe otherwise opens the door to despotism.

To be an “end in oneself” means that there is no other reason you and I are here except that we are. We are not here to serve some other purpose than what we will. We are sovereign. The belief that we are an end in ourselves is the premise of the belief that it is wrong to enslave another. (To make use of a human being as a tool).

To make mankind the end and people the means… as does communism, socialism and progressivism, is to lower our status to slavery. A tool for the Elite, through government, to exploit. The enlightenment was for naught. Hume and Kant argued to the air. For our new philosophy has us back to the right of kings, (in another guise). Socrates arguments about justice were premised on people being an end in themselves… sovereign. Because if we are not sovereign then justice is a figment of our imaginations. A slight of hand to keep us gullible weaklings in line. To serve the Elite.

So any logic proposed that denies in any way the sovereignty on the human being is fundamentally flawed and is sophistry. Logic that appears correct but really is meant to deceive. In fact to tricking another into choosing a path that is disadvantageous to him.

What would be examples of this form of sophistry? Arguments that are premised that you or I should have our property taken from us, by government, and put to a use that is not advantageous to us. Like taxing us for supporting some good that the Elite see fit. Art, earmarks, “special” contracts granted, favorable legislation, etc…are some examples. When money is coerced from us, and spent on something that we don’t use and will never use, it is denying our individual sovereignty.

Another example would be if government borrows money in my name and sends it to get a certain faction more power. That is patently against the best interests of society in general and mine in particular. The ability for government to borrow money without restraint is a direct affront to the sovereignty of the human being.

What difference between the Pharaoh who coerced a month a year from his subjects to build a monumental tomb for himself, or the president, that coerces three months labor worth of money from his subjects? The Pharaoh is less demanding of his subjects property.

If property, in the form of money, is coerced from us and spent to protect us from tyrants that would invade our country and subject us to despotism it does not deny our sovereignty. The slippery slope is close at hand however. Is it, in our true best interest, to use our money to “protect” us from an invader that would liberate us… from tyranny? Or to coerce us to spend the blood of our children to protect a tyrants power? What do you think the answer is?

Free will of the governed. One of the cornerstones of constitutionalism. That the governed must freely will the government they are subjected to. Constitutions were meant to keep the powers of government in check. When we see constitutions that exceed one hundred pages it is plain to see that people don’t trust governments. But, a would be depot is always singing the siren song of wanting to “help” his people in some way. If only he had the “power” to “help,” he would improve the lot of his people… They decry that constitutions are by their natures sets of negative rights.

Cambyses (as related in Herodotus) asked his most trusted advisor one day, “what do the people think of me?” The advisor pleaded that the opinion was not his but the people thought Cambyses drunk too often. To which Cambyses pulled out his bow, knocked an arrow, and fired the bolt directly into the heart of his advisors oldest son. Cambyses then said “I have drunk quite a lot today, if I in fact do drink too much my aim would have been off. If the arrow has not pierced the heart of your son, I agree, I drink too much.” Then ordered the palace guards to cut open the child. The guards said the arrow went directly through the heart of the youth.

The youth’s death proved, by the logic of the governor, Cambyses didn’t drink too much… He was used effectively.

Copenhagen

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that if the treaty at Copenhagen is passed and the industrialized world sends climate reparations to third world countries, the best investment in the stock market will be in armaments manufacturers. The money to be made there will be phenomenal!

What is the first thing a tin pot dictator does when he is handed money? He upgrades his army. Eventually building his confidence so he thinks he can tyrannize other people too. So he launches a war. This is the natural state of affairs of tyrants. Read history.

The central theme of the climate talks in Copenhagen are climate reparations. The industrialized world has contributed to “green house warming” in industrializing. So the people of the industrialized nations should pay the tyrants of poor countries to make amends for the climate damage. Damage that will be disproportionately born by those in impoverished countries. The negative externality of industrialization. Assuming global climate change is anthromorphic (man made).

Sending billions of dollars to third world dictators will inevitably lead to war. There is no other outcome possible. As soon as they get their hands on the money they will arm themselves. History is the perfect example. No nation has become wealthy without arming to protect it’s wealth. It is human nature. The problem here is that when billions of dollars are transferred to third world tyrants through the utterly corrupt UN not a single penny will get to the man on the street… Unless a car bomb blows up a convoy of money.

When something is gained with little or no effort little or no value is given it. Another maxim of human nature. When the governments of impoverished countries get money it will be spent on every foolish notion that the dictator’s mistress has. The legislative bodies will squander millions and will further impoverish their people. Instead of building infrastructure they will “go out to eat” with the money. It will be like when a person hit’s the lottery. They usually crash and burn. But don’t count on the UN to help.

The UN will look the other way as millions are stashed. Exactly like the “Oil For Food” scandal. The UN scandal that no one was punished for. A scandal that directly led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Oil for Food was a debacle and showed in no uncertain terms the corruption of the UN when it comes to money. Even Kofi Annon’s son was implicated. But again no one was punished. Not even the appearance of accountability was offered. To expect an utterly mendacious group like the UN to handle money is like expecting Bernie Madoff to hand out the money!

Regardless of the fact that the globe might be heating or cooling, (some of the original data was destroyed by the IPCC so their findings cannot be verified), mankind’s hand in it is diminutive at best. Note that Mars has warmed in lockstep with Earth since 1959. (The year Earth started heating).

Here are a few corroborating links;

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/gallery/PIA04295.html

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_rel/

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17977/Mars_Is_Warming_NASA_Scientists_Report.html

Of course Climate scare mongers torture logic to claim that Mars warming is due to albedo and not anything common to Earth and Mars… Like the Sun. They claim it is more likely that Mars has somehow changed colors the very time we evil people are warming the planet by improving the lot of Mankind. Merely a coincidence according to them. One in a billion coincidence.

In this case we must forget the most simple cause and go for the one that will, predictably and certainly, have negative externalities like, Wars, impoverishing the industrialized world, lower standard of living for everyone on the planet and setting up the framework for a world tyranny. This, when Mars negates the possibility, that climate change is man made? Add to it that the IPCC has been caught in the worst sins a scientist can commit, in the name off man made climate change and I ask why?

Industrialists will be further enriched. They have clout and like enrichment no matter the bad effects to society. More importantly, socialists, communists and progressives will get their greatest desire… POWER.

Power to control the heat in our homes, how far and what we drive, what we eat, even our procreation, they will have a valid reason to intrude into every facet of our lives! Between climate change regulation and the government Health care takeover in the US those seeking power over the masses will have the tools at their disposal.

But hey… I‘m sure they are as virtuous as the driven in snow…

Bubble Bubble, Toil and Trouble

Sunday, December 6th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me people are incapable of learning from the past. Doesn’t anyone think, maybe, gold prices might be bubbling a little bit? I mean come on… unprecedented run up in price, all time highs being set daily now, and most importantly people are buying gold because it is going up so fast. Isn’t that the very definition of a bubble forming?

Hard to see where a price bubble could be a bad thing… but lets look at the subject.

Real Estate bubbles are historic in that they have been happening since the middle ages and probably before. Stock bubbles are a more recent phenomenon and commodity prices are classic bubbles. Think about the price drops of some commodities that have experienced their price bubbles bursting. Think rhodium between 2004’s price buildup to 2007’s climax of $10,000.00 an ounce. to $1000.00 an ounce in 2008, (a 90% price drop). Gold is a commodity just like rhodium and is subject to the same market forces.

Another thing driving up the price of gold is that production is outpaced by demand. Demand that is largely driven by an expectation that the price will go up indefinitely. But I ask you what happens when the price of a commodity goes up drastically? Production of that commodity goes up as soon as it can be ramped up. When gold was relatively cheap many gold mines became unprofitable. They are being brought back on line as we speak. They are a source of a potential prick.

The profoundly unwise monetary policy of the US is also another factor in the gold bubble. The US government has been printing and borrowing money way too fast. This is damaging the perceived value of US caveat currency. When this happens people seek a better store for their wealth. Gold is a historic store of wealth. But if the price of gold were to drop in half, (which is not unlikely in a bubble burst), then what good that store? Once the price bubble bursts the price will be suppressed for some time.

If America’s caveat currency looses it’s value do to it’s foolish spending, do you think the US government might entertain the thought of nationalizing the gold supply, seizing personal gold held by it‘s citizens? Like has done in the past by progressives. Making a potential barb from the us government.

China is buying gold at a fast pace. As both a store of wealth and as a tool to balance it’s currency. But if the perceived value of gold were to drop for whatever reason, China could bankrupt herself, but the price would still plummet. Opinion is like that… it can turn on a dime and is as powerful as a tsunami. That is what makes bubbles so dangerous.

Coming on the heels of the financial industry’s near death experience a gold bubble bursting could send the world into depression. The caveat being the bubble could go up for several more years, (rhodium rose for three years before the fall), making it more dangerous or it could burst tomorrow, if the conditions present themselves.

By their nature bubble’s are unpredictable. The only thing that generally defines a bubble is after it has burst people claim it was obvious. The truth is few people see a bubble forming… but everyone sees it burst.

I am not saying money cannot be made in a bubble. The trick is to get out just before it bursts. Those that do make out exceptionally well. Those that don’t… Well, some try to fly.

Are Our Votes Really Free?

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Dear Friends,

I am always amazed when I hear someone say they have always voted for one party and will never vote for the other. Especially when they don’t agree with one sliver of the platform of the party they vote for.

Many older people fall into this category. They will say they are democrats and will never vote republican. When I ask if they are advocates for abortion rights they say emphatically no! When asked if they believe that the government has a role to play in improving people’s lives. They act like I’m insane to ask such a thing. Because they want the government out of their lives. They believe in lower taxes and more freedom. But always vote for the democrat party?

The reason is they were raised to believe that republicans are the party of the rich. They aren’t rich and so they aren’t republicans. This semi myth is propagated by the unbiased media. The republican party was a party of the rich when Hoover was president and was a progressive. The republicans have been shedding the old guard since.

Several decades ago a term was coined… Rhino republicans, by the conservatives in the republican party. They didn’t believe the republican party should stand for exactly the same things the democrat party stood for. Unfortunately the leaders of the republican party are still the old guard. They are progressive to the core. So the republican party is still somewhat a party of the rich. What is not well publicized is the fact that the democrat party is even more a party of the rich.

Rhetoric to the side, the democrat party is run by and for, the rich. That they claim to stand for the little guy is just politics. They no more stand for the little guy than did Chairman Mao. Unless you believe that to stand for the little guy means to impoverish him, starve his children, murder him if he dissents, and suppress his rights. If that is your definition of “helping the little guy” you are a progressive!

Now that progressives control the democrat party and still retain some control of the republican party in the US the American people are at great peril. Progressives are not good people. They have advocated evil measures in the past and have shown no remorse for them. What evil doctrines you ask? Breeding people like cattle for one. The progressives had no problem with eugenics at the turn of the twentieth century. They were good friends with Hitler and Mussolini. They have advocated as lately as the 1970’s putting sterilants in the drinking water of the US. Among many others. (Of course they wouldn’t ever have to be subjected to these extreme measures themselves).

These measures are premised that human beings are not an end in themselves. To believe these things are acceptable actions by a government one must believe that people are no better than cows. To equate people to cows is evil. To believe that people are simply subjects to experiment on is evil. To have the hubris to actually advocate theses things is evil. Ergo Progressives are not good people.

How to change the trajectory of the US? The only way is to get people in office that see human beings as an end in themselves. To simply ask if they see people as an and is of no use. Politicians are consummate liars. They are typically sociopaths and have no remorse about anything they do. Look at history and read Plutarch. To that end, getting good people in office, there must be an effective means.

As a means to get better people (non progressive) some argue that the republican party should be purged of the Elite. Rush Limbaugh is on this side. Some argue that a third party is the only answer. Others have empty hope. You can come up with your own answer but it must be done. Everything the government is doing right now is imperiling the American people’s rights, liberty, economy, and posterity.

Progressives are wealthy, powerful, cunning and patient. They have worked it so that every American must vote for a progressive whether a democrat or a republican. Their second biggest ally is the unbiased media. But unwitting dupes that vote without using their minds are the progressive’s ace in the hole.