Dear Wizer,
Afghanistan.
Signed,
Incredulous
Dear Incredulous, Your Wizer doesn't usually delve into foreign policy. The previous --oh--20 or so administrations have made such a mess of things that parsing it all out is not a practical goal. However, it does have a bearing on our reasonable expectation for personal safety, so I will say this about Afghanistan. This is a people whose biggest goal was getiing to the camel market before sundown. Now they see a bigger world. Where once their best weapons were scud missiles and box cutters, now there is a brave new world out there, with modern technology and cave making ordinance. Our administration wants them to be better organized now, with a central government, presumably so they can be coordinated in their contempt and ridicule of US citizens.
Whatever happened to leading by example? Why can't we just go about our business, and let the Aghanis and every other country on the planet organize in their own way? If we are a freedom loving people, we should love the Afghani's freedoms, and simply leave them alone. Theirs is a network of corruption that spans across the country. It's the way they prefer to work. We prefer to keep our corruptions in DC. Just because we don't like theirs it doesn't make me feel like I should go over there and play social engineer.
We go in there guns blazing like we're some sort of global SWAT team, and we wind up operating their friggin day care centers. Meanwhile, the ones who hate us have picked up a few new technologies to use against us. What WERE we thinking?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Dear Wizer #2: Bush Tax Cuts
Dear Wizer,
Bush Tax Cuts?
Signed,
Puzzled
Dear Puzzled, Yes, it can be confusing, because there is so much doublespeak involved. The "Bush Tax Cuts" refers to a set of tax reductions entered during the last recession that were designed to forestall the country from falling into a deeper recession. That action expires on January 1st.
The tax cuts were a way to kick a number of the cans down the road, because the dotcom bubble and 9/11 kind of swamped out the real economy there for a while. These cuts should have been made permanent, but for political reasons they were not. So now, there's all this confusion about whether we are talking cuts, hikes, and for who. So I'll try to break it down for you later in this article, but first a little history:
Way back in In 2008, the government sponsored mortgage industry failed due to lax lending standards and poor management. Then government sanctioned banks began to fail for the same reason, and then because nobody wanted to loan money to anyone (especially the riskiest of ventures), the government decided to own all the risk, including the shakiest of them all, the auto companies. Of course bigger stimuli are needed to keep all these plates spinning. So, we have big spending, and the propping up of Wall Street, DC, and Union HQs across the land.
Meanwhile, the real economy had not recovered from 2001, so the tax cuts' only function if there was one was to allow the underlying problems to go another 6 years under the radar. We are now faced with a scenario where doing nothing will increase the average guy's taxes by $3000/ year. That's just to keep things steady. Even the economically misinformed Keynesians and Socialists in and around the administration know this is a big problem. Take $3000 out of anyone's budget, and you will see what economic stagnation really means.
So now, there's this bill that the administration is concocting with the help of the senate, which is said to be bipartisan, and which will "extend the Bush Tax Cuts" another two years.
Here's the thing. It's not a good bill. You might hold the opinion that two opposing sides agreeing on something would make it a reasonable thing to do. The fallacy in that idea is that there are two opposing sides. Both of these sides want the wheels of big government to spin merrily along, and are simply praying that the economy will recover soon enough that they can take credit for having passed this stupid bill. Here's what it does:
Sadly, the only debate is not whether to kick the can down the road, but who's turn it is to get in the can. It's your turn, of course.
Bush Tax Cuts?
Signed,
Puzzled
Dear Puzzled, Yes, it can be confusing, because there is so much doublespeak involved. The "Bush Tax Cuts" refers to a set of tax reductions entered during the last recession that were designed to forestall the country from falling into a deeper recession. That action expires on January 1st.
The tax cuts were a way to kick a number of the cans down the road, because the dotcom bubble and 9/11 kind of swamped out the real economy there for a while. These cuts should have been made permanent, but for political reasons they were not. So now, there's all this confusion about whether we are talking cuts, hikes, and for who. So I'll try to break it down for you later in this article, but first a little history:
Way back in In 2008, the government sponsored mortgage industry failed due to lax lending standards and poor management. Then government sanctioned banks began to fail for the same reason, and then because nobody wanted to loan money to anyone (especially the riskiest of ventures), the government decided to own all the risk, including the shakiest of them all, the auto companies. Of course bigger stimuli are needed to keep all these plates spinning. So, we have big spending, and the propping up of Wall Street, DC, and Union HQs across the land.
Meanwhile, the real economy had not recovered from 2001, so the tax cuts' only function if there was one was to allow the underlying problems to go another 6 years under the radar. We are now faced with a scenario where doing nothing will increase the average guy's taxes by $3000/ year. That's just to keep things steady. Even the economically misinformed Keynesians and Socialists in and around the administration know this is a big problem. Take $3000 out of anyone's budget, and you will see what economic stagnation really means.
So now, there's this bill that the administration is concocting with the help of the senate, which is said to be bipartisan, and which will "extend the Bush Tax Cuts" another two years.
Here's the thing. It's not a good bill. You might hold the opinion that two opposing sides agreeing on something would make it a reasonable thing to do. The fallacy in that idea is that there are two opposing sides. Both of these sides want the wheels of big government to spin merrily along, and are simply praying that the economy will recover soon enough that they can take credit for having passed this stupid bill. Here's what it does:
- Extends (by 13 months) a generous federal subsidy for persons wanting to avoid work.
- Promises not to raise taxes for two years for people who actually do work, but requires them to subsidize this first group.
- Provides Congressmen with 300 more pages of earmarks and set asides for the "good of the constituency".
- Extends the misery that is New Orleans by continuing a now perpetual subsidy for not finding your own post-hurricane home (and countless other malappropriations)
Sadly, the only debate is not whether to kick the can down the road, but who's turn it is to get in the can. It's your turn, of course.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Dear Wizer #1: WikiLeaks
Dear Wizer,
WikiLeaks?
Signed,
Uncertain
Dear Uncertain: WikiLeaks is an operation looking for notoriety as a purveyor of secret documents. The documents are usually reports and memos detailing our country's low opinion of other country's bad habits.
The name WikiLeaks is poorly chosen because it means, literally "Quick Leaks". Most of the time, the leaks are very long in development, and not delivered quickly. In fact, last time I looked, the site was down. In addition, I would think that WikiPedia would have some sort of trademark position on the name, but I digress.
It's not unusual for the president's administration to take issue with organizations wanting to tell the truth (cf: Obama vs. Fox News). Whether the truth was exposed illegally is probably without question (I don't doubt we have a lot of laws for hiding the truth). The laws must be followed. Still, The Wizer applauds truth in all its forms, and the internet is the best system yet for organizing and making truth available. So in many ways, WikiLeaks is necessary, and in many more, inevitable.
Is this bad? Is what WikiLeaks is putting out "some serious bad JUJU"? Let's examine that. There are very good reasons to keep secrets from our enemies, especially the ones that are not already US Congressmen. Some of these secrets' exposure will cost lives. Certainly it's dangerous for the spooks in the field who have had their cover blown. As part of the damage, we've likely had some very helpful information outposts now hopelessly compromised.
But there's a little explored upside, too. Now, with all our cards and some of theirs on the table, everybody knows what we are thinking. That hasn't happened since Reagan. It's a big-time reset button, and is probably about time we started dealing in true facts. Most of what we do outside of this country has little to do with the business of running our country.It deals instead with our country's meddling with other countries. Don't get me wrong, we need to keep an eye on things in Teheran, Hanoi, and, obviously Marin County CA, but it's what we do with this intelligence that counts, and sometimes (perhaps most often) we do more damage than good. Like handing a bag of money to a dictator, or sliding a weapons contract under a door.
The truth doesn't necessarily change any policies. It will take votes (and a good many of those) to change things. But what the truth will do for us is shine a brighter light on our leadership as to how we are conducting our business with the rest of the world. I for one fea that less than a cloak and dagger organization with loose tethers to American reality.
I don't know what this guy (Assange) 's motivation is, and I don't think motive is relevant here. For all I know, he just wants to be rich, mysterious, and famous. He's got his 15 minutes already. For the most part, I didn't find any one piece of the information leaked as being all that interesting. So, the Saudis would like us to bomb Iran? big surprise there. The Yemeni want to provide cover for our ops? Sure, maybe one good movie can be made from that. In my view it's hardly important for anyone to understand Assange's goal, unless they intend to stop him. Is stopping the truth something we should endorse? No; but it's a losing battle in any case.
I do think Assange has done something of significance though: he broke through one of the false barriers to truth, and others will rush in to capitalize on it. Apparently there's a market for it (or there wouldn't be 100 news stories a day on the subject). Can Google-Leaks be far behind?
WikiLeaks?
Signed,
Uncertain
Dear Uncertain: WikiLeaks is an operation looking for notoriety as a purveyor of secret documents. The documents are usually reports and memos detailing our country's low opinion of other country's bad habits.
The name WikiLeaks is poorly chosen because it means, literally "Quick Leaks". Most of the time, the leaks are very long in development, and not delivered quickly. In fact, last time I looked, the site was down. In addition, I would think that WikiPedia would have some sort of trademark position on the name, but I digress.
It's not unusual for the president's administration to take issue with organizations wanting to tell the truth (cf: Obama vs. Fox News). Whether the truth was exposed illegally is probably without question (I don't doubt we have a lot of laws for hiding the truth). The laws must be followed. Still, The Wizer applauds truth in all its forms, and the internet is the best system yet for organizing and making truth available. So in many ways, WikiLeaks is necessary, and in many more, inevitable.
Is this bad? Is what WikiLeaks is putting out "some serious bad JUJU"? Let's examine that. There are very good reasons to keep secrets from our enemies, especially the ones that are not already US Congressmen. Some of these secrets' exposure will cost lives. Certainly it's dangerous for the spooks in the field who have had their cover blown. As part of the damage, we've likely had some very helpful information outposts now hopelessly compromised.
But there's a little explored upside, too. Now, with all our cards and some of theirs on the table, everybody knows what we are thinking. That hasn't happened since Reagan. It's a big-time reset button, and is probably about time we started dealing in true facts. Most of what we do outside of this country has little to do with the business of running our country.It deals instead with our country's meddling with other countries. Don't get me wrong, we need to keep an eye on things in Teheran, Hanoi, and, obviously Marin County CA, but it's what we do with this intelligence that counts, and sometimes (perhaps most often) we do more damage than good. Like handing a bag of money to a dictator, or sliding a weapons contract under a door.
The truth doesn't necessarily change any policies. It will take votes (and a good many of those) to change things. But what the truth will do for us is shine a brighter light on our leadership as to how we are conducting our business with the rest of the world. I for one fea that less than a cloak and dagger organization with loose tethers to American reality.
I don't know what this guy (Assange) 's motivation is, and I don't think motive is relevant here. For all I know, he just wants to be rich, mysterious, and famous. He's got his 15 minutes already. For the most part, I didn't find any one piece of the information leaked as being all that interesting. So, the Saudis would like us to bomb Iran? big surprise there. The Yemeni want to provide cover for our ops? Sure, maybe one good movie can be made from that. In my view it's hardly important for anyone to understand Assange's goal, unless they intend to stop him. Is stopping the truth something we should endorse? No; but it's a losing battle in any case.
I do think Assange has done something of significance though: he broke through one of the false barriers to truth, and others will rush in to capitalize on it. Apparently there's a market for it (or there wouldn't be 100 news stories a day on the subject). Can Google-Leaks be far behind?
Monday, December 06, 2010
On the Wizer's Virtual Nightstand
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
In October, Mark Thornton addressed the LvMI, republished in this article that show just how far Ben Bernanke appears willing to go to shorten our path to hyper-inflation. I recommend everyone do the following:
1. Start viewing the videos at inflation.us .
2. If you haven't been keeping up with Glenn Beck on TV, read Broke
3. Go to Jim Sinclair's Mineset and follow along regularly.
4. Get the podcasts from Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour
5. Start an emergency food, water, and energy stockpile.
6. Study up on residential farming, solar energy, and functional independence.
Your family is counting on it.
- Thomas Jefferson
In October, Mark Thornton addressed the LvMI, republished in this article that show just how far Ben Bernanke appears willing to go to shorten our path to hyper-inflation. I recommend everyone do the following:
1. Start viewing the videos at inflation.us .
2. If you haven't been keeping up with Glenn Beck on TV, read Broke
3. Go to Jim Sinclair's Mineset and follow along regularly.
4. Get the podcasts from Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour
5. Start an emergency food, water, and energy stockpile.
6. Study up on residential farming, solar energy, and functional independence.
Your family is counting on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)