Maybe this time is different

Charles Hugh Smith is a very smart guy, he writes regularly at "of two minds" blog. In a recent article he observes that the economic landscape seems rife with a form of magical thinking:

1. We can grow our way out of debt by expanding debt
2. We can pay for everything we want if we print enough money
3. Some miraculous new technology will provide limitless energy/food at near-zero cost
4. We can solve big problems with small reforms 
5. More jobs magically appear because ...technology!

The sheer level of magical thinking alone seems different. The debt, the printing, the near-sightedness, and the reliance on technology-as-messiah are all at historic levels. 

We are told by learned economists that this time is not different, and the collapse will be predictable, predicted, and unavoidable. That this next crash will be just as bad as all crashes before.

So, which is it? Are we at historically bad conditions? Or is this next crash merely a tiresome sequel to a dismal movie? 

As with many significant chapters in our lives, we get many possible points along the continuum. Consider the best case scenario, that history does repeat itself, we will simply get a reset of the stock market; the uninvolved will be financially clubbed on the side of the head, and the American people will trudge back to work on Monday, trying their best to dig out of yet another government sponsored landslide. 

On the other hand, this could really be a big one, where the unprecedented magnitude of debt, red ink, corrupt politicians and unprepared financial institutions, leads to a major turn in the fortunes of every company in the S&P-500. What then? 

Maybe this time it is different.

Processing the eliminated

Popularity should be no scale for the election of politicians. If it would depend on popularity, Donald Duck and The Muppets would take seats in senate. -- Orson Welles

I wonder if Welles foresaw Al Franken, or whether it was a lucky guess. It is popular among pundits these days to handicap the race for president. At this time, few pundits have really tried to reduce the election to a manageable set of characters. After all, in a card game, you don't throw away until you have to, and certainly pundits don't have to before the fat lady takes center stage. People who rely on pundits usually get bad advice, however. At the risk of sounding like one of those pundits, I am giving you the August scorecard, showing who is (or should be) eliminated, and who still stands to have a shot at the oval office.

I don't want to overstate importance of this office. Certainly it's going to be either a republican or a democrat, so how good can he/she be? Besides, if they stick to the constitution, they could be as great a president as Calvin Coolidge, or not, and become a miserable failure like his successor Herbert Hoover. If you don't know much about either of those two, than you have been victimized by your 12th grade history teacher, and should therefore follow my lead..

Here is my list of candidates that still have a decent chance of earning a vote, vs the ones who belong in the early debates.

First, the democrats and near democrats:

Hillary Clinton:  All her good ideas are illegal.

Bernie Sanders: Have you seen his platform?

Mark O'Malley: Thinks the problem is wages. Blames the climate for stuff. But someone has to win his primary, so I'll leave him in for now.

Joe Biden:  It could be a big effin deal if he runs. No way to know what he thinks, but he could win.

Chris Christie: Thinks he can stand in front of the next jet to take aim at a building. Picks fights with weed. Likes Obama money.

Donald Trump: Wants to ban guns except for police and military. Likes Obamacare. Hates the Constitution. Thinks Hillary is wonderful. Knows how to bankrupt things.

Now the republicans and near republicans:

Lindsey Graham: Wants to pick fights with everybody in the middle east, and half the citizens of the US. OTOH, he is okie dokie with limited government, and wouldn't start any wars all by himself.

Rand Paul:  Should know better than to get in a wrestling match with a pig. This probably isn't his year.

Mike Huckabee: Not Mike's year either. In Fact, Mike doesn't get a year.

Rick Santorum: Ditto

Rick Perry: I like him as governor of Texas. He should probably be preparing a secession brief; but as long as he's in there, let's hear about a few more departments he would eliminate.

Carly Fiorina:  And they say that Trump is a truth teller. He doesn't hold a candle to Carly.

Jeb Bush: Would make a better president than "W". What else ya got?

Bobby Jindal:  Gets a pass for now.

Marco Rubio:  VP material

Ted Cruz: Will probably inherit the Trump vote. It won't be enough. But I like him.

Ben Carson:  Talks a good game. Probably good to have in a scalpel fight, too.

Scott Walker: Oh yeah, I almost forgot about Scott Walker.

Here's what I think

• To hear people talk, there must only be two colors. There's black, and there's white. You're either black or white. But look around. How many colors are there really? Dozens? In my family alone, there are that many. Hundreds? Thousands? How do you devise any sort of different treatment based on color when there are thousands of different pigments and features of all kinds in this human race?What do you do; line people up by Pantone color? Then where do you draw a line? "All of you in front of this line get a break on college admission".  How white do you have to be to be white? And when do the benefits start accruing for that? (right). The fact is that any preference based on color is as ridiculous as it seem.

What ever happened to "Question Authority"? The same people holding up those signs in the 60s and 70s are the ones who want you to shut up and toe the line now.

• I suppose it's telling that 6-1/2 years into this president's time, few people have learned to spell his name, It's Barack. Barack Obama.

They say that history was made with the hiding of the flag of the Confederate States of America. I'd say the history it represented was buried. It's going to be harder to gain full understanding of the conflict now. Perhaps we are indeed doomed to repeat it.

• Nobody has a "right" to marriage. Gay or straight. Suppose you did, and you walked up to the marriage window; wouldn't they have to issue you a bride? Marriage is a commitment, a contract, and agreement between consenting parties. Calling it a right makes people think the uninvolved have to do something about it. We don't. 

Flags, Guns, Alexander Hamilton, and Rachel Dolezal

If you can blame a flag for the South Carolina murder of innocents, it's not a deep stretch to blame the guns next. If you fall for the former, get ready for the very short trip over to the latter. 

This society is stuck on symbolism. I have said many times, that persons who look for racism will invariably find it. Today, they find it in a flag. It's not just a flag, it's the colors flown by the last states that tried to leave an oppressive government. What the flag really represents is a memorial to freedoms lost. 

Maybe those who view the flag as a symbol of racism really do want the final image of lost freedoms to be suppressed. Getting rid of this memorial will make people forget about the most important of their lost freedoms. Ironically, this will make slaves of all of us. 

Now it seems they want to put a woman, any woman on a 10 dollar bill; and a woman, even a Hillary Clinton in the oval office. Why? It would be symbolic. After all, look what putting Obama in the White House did for race relations.

Perhaps Bernie Sanders should self identify as a black woman. Think of the ratings bonanza for the debates we'd have there.

And perhaps Rachel Dolezal should be on the Sawbuck. Or better yet:

 

On the Way to Samaria

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.  ― P.J. O'Rourke

We are occasionally accosted with the "Christian view" that government should grow it's charitable activities. It's what Jesus would do, we are told. When I hear this, I mentally sort through the countless parables and gospels I have heard to try and understand how the Christ supposedly delivered this message. I am at a loss. Ticking through the various scenes, all more or less memorable in their message, you see Jesus washing feet, tending to the sick, and feeding the hungry. In no instance is he portrayed as a social worker, city councilman, or as a community organizer. Those are clearly extra-religious appointments, and do not seem to have any basis in religion.

His most memorable story about charity is "The Good Samaritan", which is the story of a man who had been beaten and left for dead along the road. The man who came along gives direct assistance to the stricken man, and takes him into town, where he arranges for proper care, giving his own money directly to the innkeeper to pay for the cost of the recovery.

Notice the story was not about arranging a charitable trust, running around town and collecting dinars for the cause. No, it was about rendering aid. Personally making a positive difference in a man's life. That, my friends, is charity. Pledging your neighbor's tax money is not.

So, the religious argument always misses the mark with me. Ironically, many of its advocates are "for" the separation of church and state. So much for the principle of the thing.

A good summary of the bible and the government was written by Doug Bandow for the Acton Institute.

Did you know that private charity was outlawed in the Soviet Union?

In a limited government, charity is one of the many things that are best tended to at the personal level. The next time you see someone in need of help, cut out the middle man, and help him yourself.

Minimum Wage, Minimum Freedom

“Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force. Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.”

― Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

I only need one reason to oppose minimum wage laws: They are an unjust government interference in the otherwise voluntary exchange of labor for value. An economy will always suffer when free trade is blocked or prevented. Still, far be it from me to discount the many good reasons there are to oppose such laws.

• High minimum wage countries (Spain, South Africa) have high unemployment.
• Zero minimum wage countries (Switzerland, Singapore) have the lowest unemployment.
• Minimum wage laws make it illegal to hire people who are unable to add even $5 worth of value for an hour of their labor. So, the least skilled people receive nothing, and as a result have no feasible path of acquiring a job skill.
• The education system, which is intended to prepare people to function in the society play the cruelest joke, by teaching skills no one will pay for.
• When the lowest skilled persons are "assigned" a high enough wage, that job will be eliminated first, either through reduced service or automation. 
• People who have worked for years and developed skills that trade for $15 will suddenly be told they have wasted their entire career developing higher skills.
• If everyone in the neighborhood survived with their jobs intact, they would be competing with more dollars for the same goods and services their neighbors want and need, raising the price of everything, creating price inflation, and thus, defeating the original purpose of the wage price increase.
• Minimum wage laws hurt lowest income neighborhoods hardest, because the industries that operate there exist on the lowest profit margins. When the businesses are no longer viable, they will close.
• Minimum wage is a system of slavery; causing massive unemployment, and creating an ever growing dependent class. This is the real, insidious reason why the idea is promoted by the politicians. They can then control who hires people, and who doesn't.
• The reason our unemployment rates are so high today (and yes, they are as high as ever), is that the Bush-Obama recession was a significant deflationary event. It caused a critical number of people to fall below their point of economic viability. If minimum wage controls hadn't gotten in the way, and if the Fed wasn't intent on creating inflation to overlay the whole scenario, the recession probably would have ended of its own accord. Continued distortion of the true economic situation has not helped in any way.
• Just because the republicans are against minimum wage increases it doesn't mean minimum wage increases are a good idea. They are bad for all reasons, including all those involving  fairness, freedom, and compassion.

Personal freedom means economic freedom, and as a consequence, our rights to exchange our labor for value should never be infringed by a government. If I want to work for $5/hour, I should have that right. 

More Pieces of my Mind

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

-- Albert Einstein

1. The last word on Hillary: Not many remember the whitewater whitewash, where circumstances regarding Hillary's investment history in cattle futures, the failure of the Whitewater development, Fraudulent billing practices of the Rose Law Firm and many other Arkansas oddities were swept under the rug. Since the truths in these matters were never unearthed and examined by the media, we shouldn't expect these outlets to bring any light to the Benghazi and email server coverups either. We can simply accept, however, that she is who she appears to be; and that her trustworthiness clearly does not rise to the level of rank politician, let alone president.
2. Our society will be much better off when the narrative of "cop shooting unarmed motorist" does not include the unnecessary qualifiers of 'one was black and one was white'. It's as if those are the only two colors there are; The number of possible colors is infinite, and will be ever more so. We should be focusing now on the issue of officers using deadly force in routine traffic stops. As long as people think it is racism, we'll never be able to address the true threat.
3. We are told that this next federal election will be about economic inequality. It should be entertaining to watch the candidates insist they are unlike past democrats and republicans, who have collectively been in charge since the Grant administration. If income inequality is the problem, why should either of them be given the reins again? Income inequality has been the law of the land since 1913. Both parties have had over a hundred years to fix this.

Pieces of my mind

1. Calling attention to the color of people perpetuates those differences. To you and me the goal is equality. To the politicians, the goal is markedly different. Politicians gain by creating controversy and exploiting it. We would do better by treating each other well, and neutralizing any leader who sees a difference.

2. Communism isn't the problem. The problem is the Communists. Similarly, most "-isms" are harmless. Most "-ists" are not. Do not fear the ism. Communism simply does not work, in the same way that feudalism or racism does not. Therefore there should be no effect. Communists, on the other hand, can do a lot of damage.

3. Many forest fires are now caused by government. Efforts to control the ebbs and flows of nature usually have unintended consequences, and forest management is a good example. The government prevents homeowners from removing decayed bio-matter from their own property, and when it catches fire and burns dozens of houses down, they don't get the connection.

4. After the next black swan event, this economy will be known as the ____________ bubble era. We are now taking nominations to name this particular bubble. I'm thinking we may be looking at the "Corporate Profits" bubble this time. Money is flying in from all directions into a market that has been pumped up by lack of other investment options, plus, foreign escape to a stronger dollar. Corporations are taking low interest money and buying back their own stock with it. Unfortunately, the earnings will seriously underperform the expectations, and when it all comes to light, and the market falls 50%, it will look like all other bubbles through the lens of 20/20 hindsight. We should have seen it coming.

5. People have a remarkable ability to extract nutrients from all manner of animal and vegetable. About 10,000 years ago, we discovered grains, and these things have been modified regularly by anyone who swung a hoe in the early days. Since Gregor Mendel, these things have been modified in a more organized manner. The point is, genetically modified food is not a threat. It has been with us since the early days. More importantly, it is an opportunity to feed millions who might not thrive without it. That said, I'm thinking of going paleo. Why? Because it is the only diet that makes perfect sense in a survey of historical genetics.

About the Money

America has the best politicians money can buy. -- Will Rogers

Had to wonder: Does it really have to be about the money? I witnessed countless TV commercials in the last election cycle trying to convince me one by one that Charlie Crist and Rick Scott are two different people. That's where all the money went, and it added very little to the discussion. There didn't seem to be much of a difference at all between the two candidates. In that same race, the best candidate was a guy named Adrian Wyllie. In one poll, only 8% of those polled had even heard of him, yet 7%  thought he was the best candidate. Why was it so hard for his message to get out?

I recently came across an essay by Mark Brandley, who concludes:

... why are scoundrels successful in the political arena? Analyzing the nature of an election provides us with an answer. In order to win an election, candidates need to offer their supporters other people's wealth, and candidates must convince their supporters to vote in spite of the fact that individual votes will not affect the election. Accomplishing these two goals requires deception. Therefore, candidates who are willing to violate property rights — to steal — and be deceptive have an advantage over candidates with stronger moral convictions. So of course elected officials are corrupt. Candidates with moral integrity are at a severe disadvantage in the political sphere. Do not put your hope in political solutions -- 

The essay was written just over four years ago, and once again, the season is well underway. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney were taking turns standing in the establishment money machine; while other candidates are waiting for their turn in the grab shack.

All this money flying around doesn't help the information process, however.

The local TV stations rely on the money machine for their fall commercial spot sells, and therefore, the networks who depend on them do not want to do anything that would accidentally clarify the debate. No, No, No. After all, if there was a real difference between the two candidates, the debate would end prematurely. Keeping them close keeps the money flowing.

What if it weren't about the money? Freedom of speech issues aside, what if the TV spot buys had no real consequence? What if there were enough of a difference among the candidates that advertising was superfluous? Modern political theory requires that the politicians go after the middle of the road; i.e., to the marginal voter. And since both politicians want that same unprincipled voter, they can sway an election on the stupidest of promises. 

My personal way of dealing with it is that I no longer vote for politicians. I will only vote for statesmen. And since all Republicans and Democrats are by their nature politicians, I simply don't vote for them any more. It doesn't have to be about the money; especially if each of us take 15 minutes to learn about the candidates on our own.

I can safely navigate through TV commercials, since they are all for the status quo candidates and my DVR discriminates against all TV commercials anyway. The next thing to do is to become informed by the real candidates; the possible statesmen; the ones you will not regret voting for. Only then will voting be a worthwhile activity again.

.

We're doing this wrong, that has to be obvious. The solution is to make it not about the money.

Life, Death, and Climate

Many of the people demanding action on global warming are not finishing the thought. Warmer climates are responsible for more abundance and easier life management by many underdeveloped economies. A warmer climate has resulted in longer growing seasons, more bountiful harvests, and better living conditions around the world. The fewest weather-related fatalities in history are being recorded each successive year. One study found that 40,000 lives per year in the US alone would be saved by a climate that is 2.5 degrees (C) warmer.

Folks who want to reverse warming are asking the world to take three steps back. Unintended consequences don't matter to these dullards. They stopped thinking right after the protest rally.