Saturday, January 8, 2011

MSM Lauds Armed Citizens

OK this is Georgia, but never would you see a news report speaking well of a citizen who saved her life by being armed.  And the news segment is actually and ad, it seems, for "the judge," a pistol that fires shotgun shells!  Well,  now that is a way around the anti-sawed-off shotgun laws!  Just make a pistol that fires shot shlls!  (Ma'm... ah.. two hands, please...)  MSM is government controlled... if they are running such stories, it is because they are conditioning us to find police irrelevant.


More On Free Market Insurance

We have such a hole in our understanding of how insurance once worked, and would work, in an economy, if it were allowed to do so.


First off, insurance has to be voluntary, this is absolutely key.  No one must ever be required to buy insurance by any government.  Now, someone financing the construction of a building may require insurance as a condition of financing, but that is different, merely conditions of a contract which one may freely enter or reject.  Not only is it a bad idea, mandatory insurance violates our constitutional freedom of association and freedom to assemble.


Now let's look at insurance as it once was: arbitraging present cost of risk against future cost of risk in a dynamic milieu in which innovation constantly lowers the cost of risk.  In so doing, the cost of innovation drops.  As cost of innovation drops, the expansion of goods and services, by division of labor widens, ever expanding true wealth.

Let me unpack that:  in say 1720 two of ten ships that left Plymouth for the Orient never returned, so there was a 20% loss to insure against.  So a premium of 25% would be profitable (a loss of 20% with a profit of 5% means the insurers made 25% on their money).  Insurance companies then began offering better rates of say 22% if the sailing ships employed better design, scientific navigation practices, plus new weather and route knowledge, and finally better results through humane crew management.  by 1750, one in ten ships were being lost, the improvement due to he insurance company demanded changes.  So a 22% premium was cheaper for the owners of the ships, yet the insurance compaines made even more on their money! (10 point loss left 12 point profit, now making 120%, not 25%)  Of course competition forced insurance rates down,  costs dropped faster than premiums.

As cost of risks dropped, more people went into trade, we began seeing more and better products at cheaper prices, so more could have access to material goods.  Insurance is critical to this process, at least free market insurance.  Now apply that to every industry, not just shipping.

Today insurance is about pricing static amortization rates.  Instead of tracing AIDS back to its source, insurance today merely resists covering gays until government relents and allows added cost of risky behaviour to insurance premiums.  In a free market, insurance would have traced the cause of AIDS to its source, and then competed to get cures and malaise management costs as low as possible....

Bring back free market insurance.



Friday, January 7, 2011

What Happens After The Financial System Disintegrates?

Well, the game starts again.  Those who have power in wealth, and wealth in terms of ownership way beyond their capabilities of managing it, lose that advantage.  A skyscraper on the books at 300 million, becomes worth 2 million.  The billionaire no longer gets his calls returned, because he too is busted.  Slowly, but surely, the game starts again.

Unfortunately, those who were pushed form the top, or found the top gone as they got tantalizingly near it, lead bloody revolutions (never do the poor lead revolutions.)  I wish there was a way to skip that step.  A sense of humor helps.


Free Market Science Research

Here is an excellent article explaining how government funding inhibits scientific research and advancement.  It covers all of the bases, but I would just add an example....

For the project I am working on, I initially conceived it as much larger to start, but found management and finance lacking...  so I divided it up into what I could handle.  One cannot make such turn-on-a-dime changes based on back-of-an-envelope calculations, since so many other approvals must be gained before even talking about adjustments.

I took a statistics class in my MA program, in which the first session the prof stated it was absurd to expect any of us to learn any statistics in the one quarter required for graduation.  Therefore he would teach us how to be consumers of statistics, not producers of statistics.  After teaching us how to spot good and junk, he sent us out to pick any studies we wanted (within education, since that was the degree) and critique the science (valid and reliable).  Well, I was quite alarmed as my first assignment came due and I could not find any real science. I had tried from obscure but interesting studies to work done by the famous leaders in the field. Flawed all. I sheepishly turned in several reviews, apologetic that this poor student was either too dull to spot good work, or just extremely unlucky, and I said, "I just could not find anything that was not junk."

To which the prof replied with a grieved, twisted grin, "Exactly!"

I am reading a book on the French revolution right now, which I will review when I finish.  One of the basic complaints was since all segments of society had been bought off, there was no innovation from any segment. France was fast becoming poor and backwards. The problem was "patents" at the time meaning monopoly of some sort, in this case on an activity as opposed to "intellectual property."  Scary how closely we are tracking that debacle.


Thursday, January 6, 2011

What Happened To Forbes Magazine?

For the longest time Forbes was the only business magazine I read or recommended.  Great stories, good columnists, excellent fact checking.  Something happened last Summer, they did a redesign, and then ran an article by Dinesh DiSousa, a neocon hack, who trashed Obama and made wild, weird charges in the article.  I'd never seen anything like it in Forbes.

It seems to have gone downhill fast.  I used to subscribe to First Things, and journal of religion and politics, read it cover to cover, but after 9-11 it became home to the Theocons, who used it to mischaracterize CAtholic teaching on just war and obfuscate Vatican condemnation of the USA criminal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.  It seemed as though First Things simply signed up with USA warmonger agencies.


So is Forbes hard up, and taking bailout money in return for staying in business?  The Forbes article by DiSousa was an advance read on his book.  I am not linking to it because it is trash.


So "Blame Obama" Google update:

About 18,300,000 results

"Blame Bush" Google update:

About 2,090,000 results

Ha!  Who did more harm?


Big Society

The conservative government in Britain has put forth a manifesto they call "big society" as opposed big government.  Now that strikes me as just the right slogan...  I am not so much against big government as being for big society.  That is to say, more like Hong Kong, which free market social structures take care of problems, not government.  So let's see how UK conservatives view this, from wikipedia:

The plans include setting up a Big Society Bank and introducing a national citizen service.[4] The stated priorities are:
  1. Give communities more powers
  2. Encourage people to take an active role in their communities
  3. Transfer power from central to local government
  4. Support co-ops, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
  5. Publish government data.

Oh.  "Give communities more power?"  So the premise is all power flows from government. How about cut government programs and taxes concomitantly?

"Encourage people...?"  How about just quit discouraging them?

"Transfer power from central to local...?"  Didn't we transfer power from local to central cause the local tyrant was a bad thing?  How about end government powers?

"Support co-ops, etc...?"  He who pays the piper calls the tune.  Whatever the government supports, will be beholden to the govt, not customers. How about get out of the way, and let what forms, form?

"Publish government data."  O come on... you'll just make anything interesting or useful "secret."  How about any citizen can come in and inspect any government files at any time.

And a national citizens service?  You mean reintroduce corvee labor?  Don't expect any improvements from the UK conservatives...


Robert Reich On Public Pensions


Robert Reich explicates the public pension problem:

The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges — the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.

***Hang on Bobbo!  No doubt they would in the private sector too... the problem is in the “public” sector they are ineffective.  If student outcomes were stellar, if social workers improved home life, if ever, in the history of the USA, a public lawyer brought a company to justice, just once, and a govt accountant made sure (this is a hoot) that money was spent as it was supposed to be, then this class would not be a target. They missed Bernie Madoff for ten years, but got Martha Stewart for one disputed misstatement. Typical.***

Most public employees don’t have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous.

***Bobby, your playing with numbers.  “Most?!”  Maybe someone in backwoods Kentucky meter reader made that for ten years and went on to something else, collecting 19 grand thereafter for life, but not most.  But you know where this is going to go...  Uncle Sam will tax any govt pension above say $36,000 at 95%, when they do so on private workers incomes.  The difference is as self-employed, I’ll still benefit by directing my profits into business expenses.  There will be no escaping the tax on pensions.***

And most of that $19,000 isn’t even on taxpayers’ shoulders. While they’re working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. 

***Who pays govt workers salaries while they are working?  Taxpayers, 100%.  So the contribution govt workrs make out of “their” salary is 100% taxpayer paid.  The pension is 100% taxpayer funded.***

The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there’s no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. 
*** A non-issue.  Government workers throw elections one way or another.  With or without bargaining rights, politicians who featherbed unions get elected and re-elected.  If anything, this demonstrates the evil of house unions, something real labor abhors.  (I am a B longshoreman, and have worked as a teamster, and my mother called me a wobbly... I’ve also busted a union house, so I know both sides.  In a dispute between labor and management, trust labor.)***

Don’t get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well.

***Yes, it is a beginning, they will be cooked slowly, just as with their rules and regulations they made innovation and new job creation frozen across USA.  

Robert Reich is a top left wing money man, a former Sec of the Treasury.  He put forth the best argument the left has, and that should be scary to anyone who plans to depend on a govt pension, or social security.  It sounds like they are throwing in the towel.

Hoarding gold, storing food, arming up...  none of it will be as good as being self employed, to meet come what may.***



Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Pretty Amazing Flying Car

It's about seven minutes long, but this is encouraging...  what was once common in USA, innovators cobbling together a wonderful product.  A couple of points...  he'll probably find IPR will kill any chance of getting this to market, it is a fair-weather vehicle... and sadly he suggests it could be used for border patrol...  arrrggghhh!  We don't need border patrol, we need free markets and property rights!  A side note to this, the inventor's missionary parents were killed by savages when he was a youth, and the savages raised him... at last that seems to be the story...


Tuesday, January 4, 2011

China: Gold as a Currency?!

The following is a wealth of follow-up opportunities, especially toward the end, a conference in which gold as a currency will be discussed.  Wow!


22 Dec 2010
Leading Hong Kong Businessman Outlines China Opportunities
Asian Financial Forum Advisor Ronnie Chan Tips Retail and Properties 

22 December 2010 – Retail, property and the service industries are part of a long list of good investment opportunities on the Chinese mainland, according to Hong Kong-based Hang Lung Group Chairman Ronnie Chan.
Mr Chan, a businessman with a wealth of experience on the mainland, also said that health care, energy and green technology were solid options. “My family is investing in a lot of those things, so that tells you something,” he said in an interview with the Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKTDC) webcast service. “So I think the opportunities are great, and my company and others are benefiting.”
Mr Chan’s remarks can be viewed online at www.youtube.com/hktdc.
An honorary advisor to the upcoming Asian Financial Forum (AFF), Mr Chan also said he sees business related to China’s currency becoming increasingly critical to Hong Kong’s financial future.
"I think it’s probably fair to say that the renminbi will become more important in the international scene in the coming years and decades. I think Hong Kong is the most usable place, if you will, to help the renminbi transit into an even more significant international currency."
AFF 2011 Speakers, Workshops
AFF 2011 will take place 17-18 January at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. Held under the theme “Asia: Reshaping the Global Agenda,” the forum is organised by the HKTDC and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government. The event will focus on major issues, challenges and opportunities facing Asia and the mainland in particular.
AFF 2011 will offer market intelligence and insight along with networking for a wide range of professionals, including bankers, institutional investors, fund managers, business leaders, senior executives and regional policymakers.
Confirmed speakers at AFF 2011 are: China Insurance Regulatory Commission Chairman Wu Dingfu; Standard Chartered PLC Chairman John Peace; Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell; Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Australia, Bill Shorten; FIL Investment Management (HK) Ltd Anthony Bolton; UC RUSAL Deputy CEO and member of the Executive Committee Oleg Mukhamedshin; Bank of China Ltd Chairman Xiao Gang and many more from around the world.
AFF 2011 will include a series of thematic workshops covering issues such as Hong Kong as China’s global financial centre, gold as a currency, asset and wealth-management instrument, and the latest European regulatory framework and investment opportunities in Canada, Japan and Russia.
The forum will also include the half-day AFF Deal Flow session, featuring one-on-one meetings between companies and potential investors.
The January 2010 AFF drew more than 1,500 participants, a new forum record, including more than 60 high-profile speakers. Nearly 50 per cent of those who attended AFF 2010 were from outside Hong Kong, and attendance was up 37 per cent from the previous year. More than 370 journalists from 31 countries and regions covered AFF 2010.

HKTDC Webcast: http://www.youtube.com/user/HKTDC?feature=mhum#p/c/24B930828AC3811B/0/GtYMa4BMLGk or http://www.hktdc.com/info/webcast/v/en/en/1X04AT2J



Set The Insurance People Free!

A wonderful development in the history of free markets is insurance.  By pooling risks, we can advance division of labor because loss is lessened individually when loss is shared communitarily.  When insurance was voluntary we had tremendous innovation and wealth expansion.

There is nothing in the left liberal progressive agenda, or in the right wing conservative agenda, in which government is the answer, that is not better handled at a lower price than by insurance.  Food safety is a matter of  standards set by insurance companies that have to pay out if someone dies.  Construction integrity, safety and efficiency is a matter of insurance companies deciding what they will or will not cover. Police and fire protection is better and cheaper when insurance companies provide it to arbitrage risk and make money on loss dropping faster than premiums.

The welfare and war-mongers work from the premise that being a government worker metamorphizes a person into a saint, and well worth the money.  Sadly this is not true.

Let's get back to housing for a second.  When my house was worth 1.7 million, the insurance company would only insure it for $850,000.  How come?  Because that is all it was worth.    The insurance companies, with their massive financial resources, are well aware of boom and bust cycles.  And being born in international trade, ocean shipping, the insurance industry has always refused to insurance anything more that it is worth, for the simple reason, over-insured property (or over-valued) is a moral hazard, begging for fraud.

Now, to advance the war-and-welfare mongers progressive agenda, insurance had to be hamstrung to be an ineffective provider, the government had to take a monopoly on insurance.  So far they have monopolized flood insurance, workmans' comp, social security and countless other plans.  Anything else in insurance is so highly regulated as to be ineffective, and a cause of antipathy misdirected from the insured to the captive insurers.

Now the evil money lenders have a problem.  Yes they bought and paid for the USA government, but the insurance companies, expert at statistics, have proved they were burned by the banks.  You and I have neither the skill nor money to establish this.  The insurance industry does.  The insurance industry also has massive amounts of money it invests in many industries, where the money is parked in case of disasters they need to cover with insurance.  They too can buy congressmen and presidents.

The banking industry, the insurance industry has proven,  burned the insurance industry (as well as everyone else, but we cannot prove it.)  The losses are big, and the insurance industry is big enough to fight back.    This federal fight will get interesting.  If the insurance industry allies with Ron Paul to bring the banks to justice, then insurers will be America's saviours.

A reward for taking on big banks, and defeating the evil cartels, might be to re-establish a free market in insurance, a big step in re-establishing freedom in USA.


Monday, January 3, 2011

No Solution Without Falling Prices

Until and unless we see prices falling precipitously, almost all prices, we will not have the correction we need to clear out and start over.  The bank bailouts were to prevent the price of financial stocks to drop, wiping out an unsustainable banking segment, which in turn would have benefited the sustainable banking segment, and we'd be well on our way to recovery.  We are now well  on our way to more woe and likely war.

People assume China is in trouble for the same reason USA is, monkey business interest rates and printing too much currency. They will get into trouble too.  Of course, but so what.  China will go down financially when USA goes down, but China will have manufacturing capacity, skilled labor, industry and credit.  USA will be a world-leader in searching luggage.  Our other technology, self-reporting internet, anyone can copy and will.  If we get into war, China has whole cities, empty, ready to populate if they lose any.

China is not trapped by what we owe them.  I haven't heard a single person ever say this, but it is clear to me they are taking that USA debt, which is negotiable, and investing it around the world.  If and when the system goes down, and it will, we'll know because we'll see prices falling, the usa bonds China "owns" will be worthless.  But who cares, the bonds back infrastructure projects world wide, all pointing to China trade.  Any chance of USA trying to make claim that a Peruvian railroad is owned by USA due to it being back by USA bonds will be as doubtful as a USA bank trying to foreclose on a USA homeowner.  Prove it.  When USA has nothing to offer, and trade with China pays, then the bonds are irrelevant.  Peru will trade with China.

Because we constantly renew unemployment benefits, staff pretend work like TSA, FDA, DEA, USDA, etc, and bail out, bail out, bail out...  the drop and devastation will be exponentially worse than it has to be.  The longer we wait, the worse it gets.

We have horrible overcapacity and malinvestment in USA.  We could judo flip the Chinese right now by announcing we are withdrawing troops worldwide, and dropping our subsidies and restrictions, re-embracing free markets, cutting taxes concomitantly.  Now, warmongers will scream "this is isolationism..."  No, just USA will return to when we engaged people worldwide as small business, person to person, not militarily, as in death from the sky.  It is the warmongers of the last 100 years that caused USA isolation in the world today.

Of course, since we measure GDP or "wealth" in terms of how much money each person spends, including government workers, a period of fewer government workers, and widespread falling prices as people re-allocate to genuine market needs, USA would appear to be terribly poor while in fact it was recovering.

A free market assumes private currency, in in such a regime there would be no way to subsidize huge taxpayer ripoff payments to big pharma, big computer, big auto, etc.  Those industries would die, as news replacements flowered.  Unemployment would drop to near zero.

When we get back to wealth defined in terms of access to ever-expanding goods and services made possible by free market division of labor, we'll see we are getting ever better off.  Now, we are told, as things are getting worse, that the models shows we are getting better off.

In USA, people spend about 10 billion a year on professional sports, 10 billion a year on porn, 10 billion a year on video games.  None of these would likely be any where near what they each are, if they actually had to pay for the means of delivering their product (or is it a service.)  At the same time, the time spent by people viewing what they buy for those billions, crowds out time spent on better options, like a good musical or a high school sporting event. (It really is quite good, and only 90 seconds, check it out.)

Of course, too many people want the security of monday night football, tuesday night porn, wednesday night video game, obviously, to change anything.

So we need to carve out a part of USA for those who wish to do business in a free market.  A place were prices can fall, and recovery can happen.