How Business Happens

Taxes Up 30% On You

2012-01-31T22:34:00.000-08:00

They won't be done until they are 90%... as long as the US Govt and the powers that be show that the USA citizens can be mulct out of everything they have, they dollar will remain attractive. Resistance will be crushed. You can run, but you cannot hide. The only safe place is self-employment.

Etiology, Adaptation, & Progress of an Innovation

2012-01-31T03:20:00.000-08:00

Innovation keeps business healthy by matching people’s needs as they change, promoting natural selection through adaptation.. In agriculture, redesigning fruit and vegetables is a biological imperative, because nature abhors consistency and adores adaptation.

Now once upon a time the socialists who run Amerika had reduced our food supply to the limits of bread being Wonder and Cheese being Velveeta. Wine was Lancers. That is it, folks, nothing to see, keep moving.

It got to the point that 40% of the produce department sales were in potatoes and apples, and the two kinds of apple were red delicious and golden delicious. Nature abhors stasis so much that ever-renewed varieties end up tasting like sawdust, and important benefits, like micro-doses of cyanide you get from eating the seeds are rendered empty too.

It is impossible to take the seed out of an apple and plant it and get the same fruit off the new tree. Of the six seeds in the apple, each seed would give you a different apple tree, again, none of which would be the original whence the seed came. Whatever fruit you might get, it is also likely to be inedible.

Among apples, occasionally a tree would produce a fruit that is edible. In that case, the only way to gt more of the same is to graft a branch of that tree onto another apple root stalk. All apples in the store came from a tree made by grafting edible fruit branches on other stock. Man has done this for millennia.

A few hundred years ago Gregor Mendel figured out how to hybridize, so we take white peas and red peas and get pink peas. Or take attributes of apples and turn them into specialized apples. Big breakthrough, that.

That Gregor Mendel revolutionized food production by studying the science of inheritability, adaptation and hybridization is largely unknown. Working at the same time, Darwin developed a balderdash hypothesis of evolution and is world famous. This is another example of where good ideas fail to gain prominence and bad ideas get adapted by the powers that be to serve the powers that be.

Anyway, nature so abhors consistency that when entire orchards of one kind of apple tree, say Braeburn, are growing to fruition, a few trees will go “sport.” And that is an apple no one ever saw before will grow on that tree, completely contrary to all efforts at uniformity. If that sport is attractive, then that too will be grafted and we have a new fruit.

Now, such natural progression cannot be patented, so those who hate mankind look to intellectual property rights as a way to patent a kind of fruit so not only can no one else sell it, you cannot even grow one. Wicked.

Nature screams “have variety!” and BigAg/BigGovt will get violent if you trade raw milk or offer other than velveeta, or grow your own to share, or use a "patented" ag item. Raw cheese an milk variesmany ways each batch, all for the good. Govt says you must drink pasteurized (dead), homogenized (same) milk. Very wicked.

Populations are easier to dominate if they have less food to eat and less choice. Standing in line becomes a purpose in life. So it was not accidental that 40% of produce sales were potato and apples, one kind. Small biz innovators brought us variety and better quality and nutrition. In the 1950s there were "Cheese conspiracies" where small groups would import god cheese and split it up in someone's home. Some of these efforts grew into food chains.

But the varieties caused a problem inasmuch as the cashier/checkers could not tell one apple or potato from another, so for expediency would just ring them up as the cheapest. Stores lost money selling better fruit and veggies.

How to solve this problem? With something called PLU codes. They name all fruits and veggies so when a clerk enters the code the computer knows the item and gives the price. Just print codes on labels and apply them to the fruit and veggies.

You can download the code book here.

So, put the codes on paper labels on the fruit, at random, say every three or 4 pieces, and they are marked enough for the store to find the plu when checking you out. Hard to do by hand, so applicator guns were invented.

Hand applying labels became way too time consuming. And it was a competitive advantage for the packers to sell the fruit pre-labelled. So machines to apply them were invented. Early machines crushed fruit, so later machines were developed to be gentler.

The PLU codes ended up getting eaten, to the chagrin of moms, so the code label stock was redesigned to be of soy “paper and ink.” Now edible.

Next the labels were doggone sticky, and hard to pull off if that is what you wanted. So the labels were changed from round to pear shaped. The round part had glue and he little part had no glue. Therefore you could easily lift the little part to pull off the whole label.

OK... but the OCD market in USA is huge, so, I am not making this up, there are labels that dissolve into soap when you wash the fruit. The ways you can make a buck in USA!

But wait, all that paper is ugly and kind of a waste, so how about skipping the paper and just printing on the fruit itself?

And then there are people who seek out organic, and spurn frankenfoods, so what to do for them? Include the info in the code itself.

Now, because there are small business entrepreneurs, the innovators,we have much wider variety. in time the conservators will adapt the innovations, apply their economies of scale, and the result will be more better cheaper faster to teh poit the poorest person will have the benefit of our innovation.

Innovate, on, Garth.

Labels You Can Use To Kill

2012-01-30T17:25:00.000-08:00

Out of Fashion, from oldest to most recent:

Christian

Heretic

Witch

Jew

Communist

In Fashion:

Terrorist

USA has decided it can murder on its own say so. No rule of law. No one is objecting.

Blame Obama, Hillary vs. Mitt, violence

2012-01-30T07:51:00.000-08:00

In the last year, as a google search term, Blame Obama went from 25 million hits to 250 million hits. But Blame Bush is way up to, now 43 million hits, from 10% to 20% as many as Obama. He is catching up! But he was in office twice as long, not to mention his dad, another Bush, was in for 4 years. Blame Clinton brings up as many as Bush, but there are two Clintons to blame.

All this is to run Obama out, so Hillary can be president. Mitt will become the Republican candidate because polls will show he can beat Obama. But when it gets down to it, elections will show he cannot be Hillary. Mitt is a socialist, and socialists do not like him, conservatives do not like him, so hillary will win.

In the meantime, calls for violence continue to be made. Just remember, if they call for violence, they work for the powers that be. Sure, protest and get tazed, peppered or even a nightstick shampoo, but never strike first or strike back. (And even the most superficial head wounds bleed like crazy, so they make great photo-ops).

When Communists Confab

2012-01-29T08:42:00.000-08:00

When the Chinese Communist party meets, the reports before during and after are circumspect. the October 2011 meet was significant for it was the last before the change of leadership. Whole lotta jockeying for position.

But I was told sometign I think is more interesting about the meeeting, or a point that in fact has been reported, but may be more significant than noted. The BBC says:

He said the economic achievements of the last 30 years could be lost without "institutional" changes.

My correspondent notes that the chaos that foreigners experience and complain of in regards to trading with China, too flexible rules, whimsical contract adherence, disorderly market may be indeed painful to the 2 or 3 % of say the US market that is engaged with China, but those same problems aggravate the 100% of the Chinese in China who must endure the same problems.

He noted a fact that is well known, but significant in relation to the above meeting: in spite of having on quarter of the worlds population, there is not a single worldwide Chinese brand name. Not one. And within China, there is not a single brand trusted in China.

Even Apple Computer had its entire stores copied, with employees hired, ones who believed they were working for Steve Jobs. This is chaos.

How this came to be, what the Communist Party plans to do about it, what is likely to happen, and what it means to those who trade with China (and to those who don't), I'll be reporting on over the next few days.

Whatever It Takes vs. Personal Transformation

2012-01-28T12:18:00.000-08:00

One often hears the phrase "whatever it takes " in regards to building a business. The idea is to get the job done, one may have to compromise, get creative, or perhaps bend rules. Certainly it means one may have to draw on extraordinary resources to get the job done.

What if what is needed is actually some sort of personal transformation to "get the job done."

What if one finds that their expectations for success are not met with what they bring to the process, so instead of searching for compromises or rule bending, they instead find that an internal personal change is what is needed. I guess this is a form of "whatever it takes," but I suspect it is a rarely considered path

It is becoming clear to me that one of the most attractive parts of self-employment is personal transformation, but that is always the most part or life, let alone self-employment.

Full Faith & Credit

2012-01-27T05:15:00.000-08:00

Geo Soros, who has bought and paid for the Occupy Movement, "predicts" a riot among his minions in the Movement. Well, isn't that why he paid for them?

Capitalism provides for concentration of wealth from the savings of many into the hands of a few. The means are fractional reserve banking and usury (love of money is the root of all evil, and Soros is money.) People do not care for impoverishment, even when impoverishment is condign punishment for participating in a system they know is wrong.

In any event, Capitalism is legitimized and protected by the state, which has a monopoly on violence. For the dollar to remain the reserve currency, and for Soros, whose wealth is reckoned in dollars to remain "rich", USA must make clear to the rest of the world that not only can it extend its power, but more importantly, it maintains control over the USA taxpayers.

When all debts, public and private, can be paid (and can only be paid) in our monopoly currency, all wealth is defined in terms of USA money. AS long as the USA govt can credibly maintain it can tax the American people to back any debt, then our money remains good, more or less. At the point that is called into question, then our system falters. See Greece.

Greece is spending huge amounts on weapons and security systems. So is USA. Instead of freedom, we are building camps, wiring borders and setting up walls for precisely the same reasons, in the same order, that East Germany used for building the Berlin Wall.

That the state is ready, willing and able to employ violence is a common youtube theme. But for people concerned with wealth, as in their own, proof that USA will crack down hard on any dissent is welcome.

That the Occupy people will turn violent would show the resolve of our government when it cracks down good and hard. The wealthy will rest easy. For the rich, violence in the streets cannot come soon enough, and the satisfactorily violent response, in these uncertain times. And if it does not come soon enough, the FBI is there to provoke violence where otherwise there would be none.

Anyone who advocates or takes part in violence is working for the bad guys. Whether or not he who makes the suggestion works for the govt. After violence, it only gets worse.

Good News For Apparel Importers

2012-01-26T21:03:00.000-08:00

Mish Shedlock has a graph that seems to show massive inflation and dropping demand for apparel in the USA, starting about Oct 2010. If so, this is great news for anyone starting an apparel business, because those importers with fixed overhead and debt to service will find they cannot stay afloat under these circumstances. Otherwise perfectly viable businesses will fail, creating a vacuum for new businesses, with lower overhead (your business) to come in and fill the void. This will help prices drop, and we cannot have an economic recovery without massive falling in prices, wages, costs, taxes, etc. Don't feel bad, plenty of people knew what was going on, so anyone failing had it coming. They can start up from scratch, just like you are.

But there may be another interpretation of the graph, and that is, clothing importers are going up market. The graph shows the price per M3 of fabric garments... it does not show the quality of the fabric or the complexity of the construction. I do not know the answer to this question, but one could find out by studying the HTS and NTDB trade data.

Either way, it is a good time to start up.

The Beginning of the End of Starbuck's

2012-01-24T10:17:00.000-08:00

Starbucks began testing the sale of beer and wine in Seattle a year or so back, exactly the right thing to do in this economy, and that is go up market. They are also carefully testing, which is very smart. They see the middle class is being slaughtered in USA, so they are going after the market that still has money.

Now here is the problem for Starbuck's and every other business in America: if a business is making money, it is subsidized. The subsidies cannot go on, and that which cannot go on will end. In time, this market will dry up too. At that point, the Starbuck's brand will die with the customer base.

JCPenney and Sears were closely identified with the rural, rock-solid, ag world of USA 100 years ago, and never transitioned. Both businesses live off a life-line of usury, which offers diminishing returns given its predatory nature. That world is gone. Walmart is the suburbs and freeways and welfare checks, still going strong.

Who has money for $4 coffees? People on their way to work, people married to people on their way to work. Who is working? Vast swathes of government workers, and growing, including military, law enforcement, lawyers, etc. Medicine. Ag. Banking and financial services. Education. Web-related industries. Some housing. No matter what you mention, it is heavily subsidized. Without China lending us money, we cannot keep these going. When they stop, it will get even rougher, for far more people.

We have no alternative. If those "jobs come home" There is no one ready, willing or able to do the work. The Chinese people were culturally adept and personally eager to embrace modernization and industrialization. They were quite ready for freedom. Not so in USA. Entitlements, and an aggrieved sense of entitlement, reigns. Just look at the Tea Party, with its insistence on revenge where we never insulted, the Occupy Wall Street, demanding they share with the rich in the looting of the poor.

Why is nobody demanding freedom to work? Why is there no candidate pushing this point, not even Ron Paul (he is for it, but not pushing it.) Because there is no demand that can be registered.

It is out there. But it is very marginal. It is showing up in gray and black markets. As you build your business, pay special attention to other small businesses. Regardless of what happens, and the troubles ahead, the inconsequential businesses today will survive the changes, in the measure they have real customers who make valuable things and services.

If you invest in the means of production to serve an ersatz market, when they market evaporates, your means of production, in effect your savings, will become worthless. Think of Bowling Alleys circa 1968. Wineries in 2012.

Be careful as to whom you organize to serve. make sure your customers actually produce something viable and sustainable. You will grow with them, and your investment in the means of production will increase in value. So, the means of identifying such customers becomes important.

We have the means, with what I have been teaching, but we need to find more like them faster. Is there a way to do so? hmmmmmm...

Apple, New York Times, Jobs, Cheap Labor

2012-01-23T14:02:00.000-08:00

25 years after I began teaching that cheap labor is not a factor in international trade, New York Times gets around to saying the same thing. Let's go through their article:

The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.

***As long as we insist on capitalism, instead of free markets.***

Apple has become one of the best-known, most admired and most imitated companies on earth, in part through an unrelenting mastery of global operations. Last year, it earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.

***The small import company I worked for in 1980 earned $156,000 per employee... quite good, but because of USA tax and regulation policy, those companies no longer exist.***

However, what has vexed Mr. Obama as well as economists and policy makers is that Apple — and many of its high-technology peers — are not nearly as avid in creating American jobs as other famous companies were in their heydays.

***Our country is in trouble because we have submitted to utter idiots that do not understand that a company hires the people necessary to get the job done. That is what Apple has done. No more No less.***

Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s.

***And the United States government made sure that our economy failed.***

Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.

***It is where electronics are made. ***

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.

“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

***Well, it is the pinnacle of government intervention, which is a part of capitalism.***

“Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers, even when it wasn’t the best financial choice,” said Betsey Stevenson, the chief economist at the Labor Department until last September. “That’s disappeared. Profits and efficiency have trumped generosity.”

***Betsey costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, plus a astonishing pension to come, and she hasn’t the slightest idea about work and business. It was never the case that business owners thought in the terms she imagines. ***

Companies and other economists say that notion is naïve.

***But she will never lose her job.***

Though Americans are among the most educated workers in the world, the nation has stopped training enough people in the mid-level skills that factories need, executives say.

***Now we are getting to it, our management vs their management. Our management assumes entitlements that other management world wide understands they must earn. USA management costs too much to do too much.***

Apple was provided with extensive summaries of The New York Times’s reporting for this article, but the company, which has a reputation for secrecy, declined to comment.

***Apple makes products for consumers, not comments for newspapers. People buying apple products do not want to pay for executives who waste resources talking to newspapers.***

They say Apple’s success has benefited the economy by empowering entrepreneurs and creating jobs at companies like cellular providers and businesses shipping Apple products. And, ultimately, they say curing unemployment is not their job.

***Exactly. Unemployment is the result of failed government policies, which all fail, because they all miss the point. It is freedom, not regulation, that makes for such as Apple computer.***

In its early days, Apple usually didn’t look beyond its own backyard for manufacturing solutions. A few years after Apple began building the Macintosh in 1983, for instance, Mr. Jobs bragged that it was “a machine that is made in America.” In 1990, while Mr. Jobs was running NeXT, which was eventually bought by Apple, the executive told a reporter that “I’m as proud of the factory as I am of the computer.” As late as 2002, top Apple executives occasionally drove two hours northeast of their headquarters to visit the company’s iMac plant in Elk Grove, Calif.

***Yes, then came the taxes and regulations that Prop 13 and tax avoidance and money laundering that followed. Roll back taxes and regulations and government to 1980 and you’ll see manufacturing come back home, but to an unappreciative public, one in six of whom buys food with food stamps.***

In part, Asia was attractive because the semiskilled workers there were cheaper. But that wasn’t driving Apple.

***They writer still cannot state it correctly. Note the internal contradiction: went to Asia for cheap/did not go to Asia for cheap. This writer is not disciplined. Which is it? Did they go for cheap, or not? “But that wasn’t driving Apple.” Finally. Right. What I have been saying for 25 years.***

For technology companies, the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies.

***Now you are getting it, but not only technology companies, but toys, and clothes and everything else. ***

For Mr. Cook, the focus on Asia “came down to two things,” said one former high-ranking Apple executive. Factories in Asia “can scale up and down faster” and “Asian supply chains have surpassed what’s in the U.S.” The result is that “we can’t compete at this point,” the executive said.

***O yes, we can, but we will not. USA is now about war, torture, usury, detention and other awful things. We cannot compete because of election fraud, we can no longer vote the people in office who would get government to back off and allow the free market to restore USA.***

When an Apple team visited, the Chinese plant’s owners were already constructing a new wing. “This is in case you give us the contract,” the manager said, according to a former Apple executive. The Chinese government had agreed to underwrite costs for numerous industries, and those subsidies had trickled down to the glass-cutting factory.

***Yes, the US Govt does this for Boeing, Microsoft, GE, etc. If the US Govt did not crush entrepreneurs, then no doubt someone would have figured out how to cut glass and make money in USA.***

Apple’s executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufacturing iPhones. The company’s analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.

In China, it took 15 days.

***Bingo.***

It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in the United States.

***Only if you have no idea how to cost out products.***

However, various academics and manufacturing analysts estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $65 to each iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the company a healthy reward.

***Nonsense, the management costs would sink Apple. And we’d have nothing, as we have nothing in medicine, autos, clothes, so many other industries. the problem is not labor, it is the host of regulations, pure nonsensical in fact, that USA management must attend to.***

But such calculations are, in many respects, meaningless because building the iPhone in the United States would demand much more than hiring Americans — it would require transforming the national and global economies.

***No, it would require transforming the USA economic polity, something that will not happen, because of the election fraud in USA.***

Apple executives believe there simply aren’t enough American workers with the skills the company needs or factories with sufficient speed and flexibility. Other companies that work with Apple, like Corning, also say they must go abroad.

***Chinese managers are freer than USA managers.***

Manufacturing glass for the iPhone revived a Corning factory in Kentucky, and today, much of the glass in iPhones is still made there. After the iPhone became a success, Corning received a flood of orders from other companies hoping to imitate Apple’s designs. Its strengthened glass sales have grown to more than $700 million a year, and it has hired or continued employing about 1,000 Americans to support the emerging market.

***Freight is cheap, the problem is management.***

Corning was founded in America 161 years ago and its headquarters are still in upstate New York. Theoretically, the company could manufacture all its glass domestically. But it would “require a total overhaul in how the industry is structured,” Mr. Flaws said. “The consumer electronics business has become an Asian business. As an American, I worry about that, but there’s nothing I can do to stop it. Asia has become what the U.S. was for the last 40 years.”

***Right, but we cannot have change in economic polity in USA. USA business is war, and financing war. Nothing else.***

There were employment prospects in Silicon Valley, but none of them panned out. “What they really want are 30-year-olds without children,” said Mr. Saragoza, who today is 48, and whose family now includes five of his own.

After a few months of looking for work, he started feeling desperate. Even teaching jobs had dried up. So he took a position with an electronics temp agency that had been hired by Apple to check returned iPhones and iPads before they were sent back to customers. Every day, Mr. Saragoza would drive to the building where he had once worked as an engineer, and for $10 an hour with no benefits, wipe thousands of glass screens and test audio ports by plugging in headphones.

***Your government policies at work.***

Paydays for Apple

As Apple’s overseas operations and sales have expanded, its top employees have thrived. Last fiscal year, Apple’s revenue topped $108 billion, a sum larger than the combined state budgets of Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

***Apple provides far more value than all those states combined.***

The biggest rewards, however, have often gone to Apple’s top employees. Mr. Cook, Apple’s chief, last year received stock grants — which vest over a 10-year period — that, at today’s share price, would be worth $427 million, and his salary was raised to $1.4 million. In 2010, Mr. Cook’s compensation package was valued at $59 million, according to Apple’s security filings.

***B O R I N G ***

After two months of testing iPads, Mr. Saragoza quit. The pay was so low that he was better off, he figured, spending those hours applying for other jobs.

***It has never occurred to him to start a business, like Steve Jobs once did.***

On a recent October evening, while Mr. Saragoza sat at his MacBook and submitted another round of résumés online, halfway around the world a woman arrived at her office. The worker, Lina Lin, is a project manager in Shenzhen, China, at PCH International, which contracts with Apple and other electronics companies to coordinate production of accessories, like the cases that protect the iPad’s glass screens. She is not an Apple employee. But Mrs. Lin is integral to Apple’s ability to deliver its products.

Mrs. Lin earns a bit less than what Mr. Saragoza was paid by Apple.

***Doesn’t matter.. she produces more and lives better on that money. If your reason for being is making war, what does it matter which way you suffer for your criminality?***

What remains unknown, however, is whether the United States will be able to leverage tomorrow’s innovations into millions of jobs.

In the last decade, technological leaps in solar and wind energy, semiconductor fabrication and display technologies have created thousands of jobs.

***All nonsense industries, made up and subsidized by the people who brought us the Chevy Volt. We ain’t getting out of this, because we are not willing to end election fraud.***

Capitalism is Dead, So What is Next?

2012-01-23T08:56:00.000-08:00

At the world confab for capitalism, the World Economic Forum in Davos, which only represents the rich, the powers that be agree that the system is dead, it's over, so they need to think up what is next. This is a great opportunity for free lancers to come up with a new system. And the new system will win if it confirms and elite in power, and continues the fundamentals of exploitation.

As is usual in these cases, there will be war, suffering dislocation, etc, as a new order is hashed out. The more self-employed you are, trading in non-subsidized goods and services, the better off you will be.

Advertising, Aspirations and Design

2012-01-21T07:55:00.000-08:00

Advertising is about selling aspirations, and the product or serviced on offer is the fulfillment of the aspiration. Anything we buy is about our aspirations, more or less. Why Evian over tap water? Or Gerolsteiner? Kirkland brand is about getting the same thing at a better price, an aspiration.

The more the item is decorative, the more it is about aspiration, and the more you must test the item before rolling it out. The fashion garment business is all about testing out. That is the point of fashion shows.

Why do we talk up our designs... ? Because it is impossible for anyone to steal our ideas... even if our factories were to sell our designs, they would be selling our seconds to customers who are not ours. the whole thing about intellectual property rights is not about "protecting ideas" but crushing freedom. Free markets do not need intellectual property rights.

Oil, Brazil, Canada, China and USA

2012-01-21T07:51:00.000-08:00

The fix is in, Obama is out.

His payoff is Brazilian oil. He will pick up untold millions being an "adviser" to Brazilian oil.

Brazilian oil is more valuable if it has little competition.

Obama rejected Canadian oil to USA...

But the world is changing, Obama may be the first us president to not make anything from being in office...

China is buying the Brazil oil....

Since war costs the powers that be nothing, to them it is worth a shot....

Systeme D

2012-01-20T07:57:00.000-08:00

Jeremy scouted an article over at Wired Magazine on free markets, or order out of chaos. Claim is worldwide black and grey market (black denotes good in business) is 2nd only to USA economy. Wired has another take, my earlier post.

There is nothing in the article I have not said before, but you'll note in the comments the battle lines are drawn between those who have full faith in government and those who do not.

The capitalist countries want to put the rest of the world into lockdown so you get your FrankenFoods at Safeway, your clothes at Walmart, your furniture at Ikea, your medicine from HMO, housing at debt-trap homes, education from Conform U, and if you are community college educated or lower, you fight in wars to reduce the population and defend the corporations.

God bless the people who start their own businesses.

Mish Has Excellent Contributor

2012-01-20T07:56:00.000-08:00

Mish Shedlock offers an essay by a contributor...

Very well said. The article is full of goodies and well worth a click...

Santorum Endorses Murder

2012-01-19T21:47:00.000-08:00

The weasel word is "if" which one hardly notices. Dick Santorum pretends to be pro-life, when in fact he is as bloodthirsty as any candidate (except Ron Paul). He welcomes the murder of USA citizens and foreign nationals who work on nuclear programs "if..."

Then he goes on to say he believes they are. But it is a war crime to attack foreign nationals without warrant. And pre-emptive strike is a moral crime, not a matter of prudential judgment. Santorum condemns himself and all of his supporters.

Santorum will never be president of anything, he is just there to draw the appalled Catholic vote into the elections, and to smear the church with complicity in war crimes. He is a useful idiot.

Election Fraud

2012-01-19T09:50:00.000-08:00

In only eight Iowa precincts did the election fraud get caught... how come they count the 30 or 40 ballots in each precinct in secret? Why can't the few dozen who vote watch the votes be counted? Because Ron Paul might win.

Mandatory Drug Trials On You

2012-01-19T03:12:00.000-08:00

Comes a proposal from two very highly educated persons that forcing you to participate in their drug trials be mandatory. Their reasons are based on tendentious science, but who cares when you have the power to do something, who needs the right?

They mention "altruism" as not enough to advance vaccinations research. Altruism is an issue for darwinists, who cannot accept that humans act outside of self-preservation. In any event, we should be forced to participate in their medical experiments. And of course, once mandatory, permission is no longer necessary. And when permission is no longer necessary, secrecy becomes expedient.

The authors carefully lay out a way in which the more educated and white you are you can escape, but in essence this is another call for return to the Tuskegee Experiments, where blacks were untreated for syphilis to see what would happen. Horrible things happened, but the doctors knew that. It can be fun to play god as a doctor!

The whole vaccination thing is silly anyway, because disease arises where immune systems are compromised by war. There are billions of diseases ready to kill you. Who cares if you are vaccinated for HIV, if your immune system becomes compromised by war? Something else nasty will get you. Diet and exercise protect you.

But as long as we can give medical monsters the opportunity to play god by taxpayer funding, then we can expect this crazy tendencies and war. Making war on people is fun and profitable, even for medical researchers.

What happened to the good old days when researchers tested theories out on themselves?

Enough Money

2012-01-19T03:08:00.000-08:00

One matter the powers that be concern themselves with is the right amount of money. What concerns them is there be enough to serve the economy, or at least the economy as they see it. Essentially they believe they can help direct society by fine tuning the amount of money available to meet the needs of the economy.

Since the Fed has the dual mandate of full employment and stable prices, the amount of money theoretically serves the mandate. O! How quickly this becomes a mess. First, what they deem money is ersatz, but we can set that aside because full employment and stable prices are mutually exclusive events. If you cause prices to be stable, unemployment will rise. If you manipulate the money supply to effect fullest employment, then prices go unstable. In a robust economy, prices are constantly falling and there is much temporary unemployment as people change work as they ever improve their economic weal.

On the other hand, in a free market, there is always precisely the right amount of money available, if you properly define money as a medium of exchange. Let's use the classic medium, gold, as an example.

In a free market, as prices fall, it takes less gold to act as a medium of exchange, so coins get smaller and help match demand. But we also have velocity, as demand for media of exchange grows, the media is coaxed out and onto the market place. Where in a slower economy the pelt merchant might pay out a gold coin on Monday to the jute merchant who normally buys his raw materials on Friday, as an economy heats up the jute merchant may be buying the raw material Monday afternoon, holding the gold coin for hours instead of days.

Then there is that great regulator: decoration. When the underlying commodity that serves as a medium of exchange (money) is in less demand, it begins to be converted into plate, decoration and jewelry. As it becomes more in demand, it is melted down to become coins again.

Finally, to meet demand, there is invention, an additional medium of exchange is created. Say where gold is felt in short supply, silver will fill the need.

By coming up with a mendacious definition of money, and directing an agency to perform what cannot be accomplished, we experience the massive waste, fraud and abuse of the capitalist system. We can eliminate all of that and return to market regulation of the proper amount of money.

Update:

Another aspect of gold as money is it serves as a final settlement of any transaction wherein it is employed. This is universal, even during WWII Nazi and UK negotiators met regularly in Switzerland to settle up accounts in gold. Countries continue to do business with each other even during war.

Also, another safety valve is credit... wherein a seller wants to sell, the buyer wants to buy, but no coins are available... sometimes the seller is willing to take a promise for a coin later to get rid of his merchandise today. Nothing wrong with that, only if usury is introduced.

US Government Hijacks Government Pensions

2012-01-18T10:29:00.000-08:00

The US Supreme Court ruled that social security payments were a tax and the Social Security System a program, so no money need to be sent aside and no guarantees they payouts happen. What we get instead is a chimera of security.

Yet again the US Govt has tapped federal pensions. At some point they will not be able to refund those, so the fed employees will be out of their pension payments. O, they may still get a check, but a loaf of bread may cost $3000. Or a loaf of bread is $10, but you wait in line 4 hours to get it. Or it is 50 cents, but none available. In any event it will be ugly for those who believed in the capitalist system, just as it has been for those who believed in socialism.

And when the fed pensions are spent and gone, then the govt will go after private pensions, the IRA, Roth, Keough, etc. They will seize them to protect them. For your own good.

The trick is to offer the false dilemma of democrat vs republican, a two party system. Who will hurt us less? There is a third option, to withdraw one's consent to be governed. Secede in place. Nonviolent noncooperation. If we ignore them, they will go away.

Why We Do Not Have 100 MPG Cars

2012-01-18T10:18:00.000-08:00

Safety regulations add about 500 pounds to a car today, which kills gas mileage. So if we did not have such regulations, would cars be unsafe? If we are against government mandated safety-regulations, are we against auto safety?

Safety depends on the driver, not the car. Younger less experienced drivers also drive lighter cars. So guess where fatal crashes cluster in statistics.

The NHTSA only shows since 1994. But look at this graph outlining the progress in reduction of highway deaths. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811346.pdf Notice anything? Where are car safety features mentioned? Well, seat belts. Good call. Airbags, mixed review (airbags and automated braking systems give people false sense of security so they tend to take more risks, eliminating the benefit.) So what are we left with in the graph? Most safety advances come from rules and regulations. not technology.

If you oblige drivers to put infants in rear-facing child seats, enforce drunk driving laws and check speeding, there are less deaths. Indeed! If you constrain people enough with enough laws, and throw enough people in prison, things get safer. So government regulation does work, in its own way.

But which of the government regulations would we not have if the insurance companies were responsible for auto safety? What if we had no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?

Well then insurance companies would have to take on the expense of writing the rules of the road for their clients, not the government.

Now you may say, the NHTSA has only a $3/4 billion budget, only 750 employees averaging $140,000 per year (averaging, including secretaries)... that's cheap as government goes.

But it is only one of thousands of billion dollar agencies we do not need, and collectively, cannot afford.

Right now we borrow money from the Chinese to pay for this agency. Do you think insurance companies would pay employees as well? Tolerate waste fraud and abuse among the workers? Come up with nonsense regulations among the sensible ones?

The cost of this benefit would drop tremendously if we were to eliminate it and shift it onto insurance companies, where it belongs, where it once resided before being taken on by rent-seekers. And remember those pointless auto safety features? Insurance companies would demand them only if they proved effective.

So we'd likely have lighter car, safer drivers and much higher mileage. It is how free markets work.

The Captain Abandons A Floundering Ship

2012-01-17T09:18:00.000-08:00

Italy has always been a maritime nation, with Rome founded by mariners. With their economy on the rocks, they may have a cathartic moment, where they can focus their rage against a captain who abandoned ship before his passengers, leaving many to die. A captain is a top position in society. But the system will punish this captain, because he worked for a private company, and there are a few thousand complainers who made it off the ship. If a rogue government worker angers enough people, the system will throw that one to the wolves.

Over at lewrockwell.com an essayist observes that as the middle class disappears in USA (and likely worldwide) it is replaced by the praetorian class which protects the privileged from the masses to be abused. Just so. I was dealing with a building code enforcer once, whose job went to his head so he tried to make up his own rules. When I required he show me the regs, he could not, and then he went rogue.

A lawyer I retained to sort out the clerk wrote a letter and ended it. The lawyer explained to me that a lawyer's purpose is to keep government honest. OK..., when? When will that begin, lawyers keeping government honest? As far as I can tell, dishonest government is financially lucrative to lawyers. Lawyers are, as a matter of fact, officers of the court, so they are government workers themselves. It seems we have quite a conflict of interest.

We have lawyer-filled legislatures not raising a peep as the executive branch commits crime after crime.

This lack of concern for integrity shows up in who gets to be a ship's captain, who gets to be a general, who gets to be appointed to the commanding heights in society. As I've noted before, one can survey all of the positions of the commanding heights, there is not a one who would not abandon ship as soon as it gets dicey. In fact, they abandon ship every day, by failing to do what is right.

Go ahead, name an admirable leader in society. Ummm... umm... well.....

As the ship of state, which has suffered a gash due to sailing off course, flounders, we'll be on our own. We better know how to make things and buy and sell them. We better know how a free market works.

Martin Luther King On USA

2012-01-16T03:36:00.000-08:00

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said:

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be -- are -- are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

A commenter said:

He should be tried for war crimes. I served twice in Iraq and never did anybody commit acts like this. Even when we lost 2 soldiers, one a good friend, did we lose our cool and kill innocent civilians during our convoys. He violated his ROE and noncombatants were killed on purpose. He deserves prison.

gijanearmy 2 weeks ago

But she misses the point. If Iraqis resisted the criminal invasion of their country, and gijanearmy coould not deal with it, they would bring in harder people who could and would. Think Fallujah. And Jane, perhaps you were not asked to do this work. Thank God.

It does not matter if the vast majority of soldiers and cops are decent. The vast majority in Nazi Germany were decent. When they are backed by the indecent, then it does not matter.

Dr. King also said, in the speech above,

and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.

He was dead exactly one year later. Nothing has changed because the aftermath was violence, and the powers that be bought off the leaders. The war went another eight years. Many young people entered government to improve it. And it just got worse. You cannot fix a polity that defines itself as the entity with a monopoly on violence.

Dr. Jesus On Banking

2012-01-15T16:34:00.000-08:00

Spanish economist Jesus Huerta de Soto has an excellent summary of capitalist practices and policy failure (not market failure). Spain was particular hard hit, and where sin abounds grace abounds all the more. So here is a Spanish film on the topic, at least a trailer, and note the English button if you do not speak Spanish.

Prison Labor in USA

2012-01-15T15:27:00.000-08:00

The US state department keeps track of what countries use prison labor, and many activists do so as well. For my part I doubt few if any inmates need to be in prison, but that is for another day. The fact is prison labor has long been a part of the USA economy. I recall getting a letter in the 1990s from Nordstrom telling me to be careful to never use goods made by prison labor overseas. This struck me as odd, since Nordstrom was selling Prison Blues jeans, made by Oregon State prisoners.

It is bad when other countries do it, but good when we do it. Wars, torture, bailouts, assassinations, terrorism. I think it is bad no matter who does it.

The US Constitution was written in a way that assumed slavery would disappear in USA eventually. The war between the states was in some ways, about slavery. When the war was over, congress made slavery a permanent part of the US Constitution. Few people realize this. It is very short.

Text of the 13th Amendment

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now try to read that without comprehending that slavery was made a permanent part of the USA polity. The only change is whereas slavery before was in private hands, now it was in government hands. Just as in time schools, banks, housing, medicine, food etc was in private hands, it is not largely in government hands.

Now you may say "Well, no, the government never really turned anyone into slaves." Hmmm... what about prison labor to benefit the state? And what about Parchman Farms? Former slaves who ended up there called is "worse than slavery."

This system is falling apart worldwide, as well it should. The question is what will come next. The one thing one can do is to re-learn the basic human action of trade. We are going to need to rebuild the world.

Emanuel Has Questions on Trade Shows

2012-01-14T11:02:00.000-08:00

Emanuel checks in before attending a show....

Dear John,

I am planning to have a few products introduced into the market at the San Francisco International Gift Fair, in February 18 to 21.

***It is a fun creative show...***

Do you have your products displayed there? What other trade shows would you recommend besides this and the ones on urban-expo.com ?

***No, I am working on projects relating to free trade in education worldwide, but as to your other question, go to the shows the best reps attend... be repped at those shows, never have your own booth.***

How is the cohort you chose to help with developing products doing?

***they are on holiday hiatus... it is interesting to me, but I am working with social media and a game designer to work out a way to get people to keep going... we’ll see...***

I have a few other questions in regards to samples and independent sales representatives:

-What do you do when a portion of the territory of different sales representatives overlaps?

***He who writes the order gets the commission.***

Also, can you choose to be represented by let's say 10 sales reps in the same state?

***Well, I cannot imagine any rep who would agree, and this would be confusing to the retailers... ***

-Rather than ask retailers for who they think is the best independent sales representatives, isn't it better to go online and check the websites of the leaders in the gift industry, where they usually list their sales representatives? Same with retailers where they sell. They sometimes list these too.

*** I don’t think it is better to read websites since the “leaders” make the websites... much better to talk to actual buyers who they like best...***

-Do you think it would be a good idea for me to both have independent sales reps and also look for retailers myself?

***You won’t have time... you start by looking for retailers yourself... (to get idea feedback and references to reps) but ultimately all sales are by reps...)

-If you choose to sell online (I know you don't agree with this), do you have to share the profit with the sales rep from the state the purchase was made?

*** Sell to online stores, never sell through your own website. Mustn’t compete with 96% of the market, for a mere 4%... let the reps get you online stores, and then treat those online stores like any other customer.***

-Can you change your reps, or once you get big enough, can you have your own sales reps?

***Now, if you got big, why would you want to change reps? They helped you get big. You change reps only if your customers tell you to do so. Your own sales reps will never outperform independent sales reps. I unerstand the impulse, you can keep more money without reps, but the fact is reps manage your idea flow and get you orders. You make money developing product and coordinating many disparate entities... writing orders yourself does not pay.***

-What do you do when the supplier has a minimum order of 1000 items, and you have 10 variations of that item, that are a bit different from each other? Would that meet the minimum order, or you need each variation to be in a quantity of 1000?

***I think you mean would the minimum be 10 x 100 = 1000 piece minimum, or 10 x 1000 = 10,000 minimum? Ask... I bet it is the former...***

The Warfare/Welfare State

2012-01-14T01:50:00.000-08:00

A British MP notes the 100th anniversary of the British social security system, noting...
On December 16 1911, the National Insurance Act received royal assent. It was the well-intentioned Act that destroyed the friendly societies and entrenched state welfare.
Well, yes, there were plenty of social welfare systems before the government got invlved, and prior to this, when government got involved, revolution followed. The French Revolution came about in part because the French kings raided the tontines, the private old age pension plans that grew spontaneously among people.

He calls the act well-intentioned. I think you have to look at the ideas of the people behind the movements to decide if they are well intentioned. The acts may well suit those who intend the results, but the people behind the acts may have particularly odious ideas.

The obligations of the welfare state cannot be met, but they will pretend to do so until the no longer can. then there will be a new crisis to manage. What fun.

Greece, which may be the future of us all, is in dire economic straits. Greece is the number two customer for German arms, everything from fighter jets to submarines. And who is the number one customer for German arms? Why, that other basket-case, Portugal! No matter how bad the situation, pharmacies with no aspirin, they still buy their fighter jets!

If they ahve no money, how do they buy the jets. Well, all that talk of bailouts for Greece? USA taxpayer money will go to Greece so they can buy German jets. That is how the world works. You voted for it.

Greece has plenty to fear from Turkey, or not. In any event, with all of its problems, it still loads on up military gear. No doubt the people who spend the money get something in return, but that is just standard government.

The two parties in the USA agree on this system, and take turns at the wheel ruining the country. Election fraud is rampant in USA, and violence only leads to worse conditions. The solution is individuals seceding in place. Don't use the state, don't need the state, look to alternatives, get self-employed, ride this out, pass on independence to your kids.

USA Always Pays the Most

2012-01-13T07:06:00.000-08:00

An important reality you need to know if you will trade internationally is USA always pays more for what we buy. There are various reasons for this, sometimes due to priority, sometimes due to fraud, and sometimes due to quality.

I once mentioned to an international oil consultant this fact, noting that say if oil is $100 a barrel, that is the price USA pays, and no one else. Everyone else is a discount off that price. He doubted it. In time he came to learn it is in fact the case. I presented the same fact to a group of devotees of Austrian Economics, and they said it simply cannot be true, because that is not how world trade works. But it does.

I've also noted in this blog how USA is spending money "defending" oil supplies (why not just buy it?) and an US Admiral notes how our policy is to pay to defend oil for which we pay more. He finds it wacky!

The admiral would not take this where I would, and that is to withdraw our forces worldwide and let China become the worlds' cop, while we just buy what we want.

We have all the oil we need in USA, but public policy is to lock that USA oil down so we can get busy worldwide with overseas wars, laundering money through international trade, population control through wars, and the grand progressive project. Presently we export our Alaskan oil to Asia and import Middle East oil to meet our needs. We need to change this, and not just hopey changey.

Dining Tip In Berlin

2012-01-12T00:41:00.000-08:00

Employee canteens are common for businesses and government offices in Berlin, as in many cities, but something unique about Berlin is such business cafeterias welcome outsiders and tourists. The meals are cheap and good, with maybe a small premium to be paid by non-employees. Here one blogger dined at an embassy canteen. Here is a run down on several such cafeterias, and although the reviews are in German, you can figure out what he is saying:

Alles richtig- die Kantine ist wirklich ein einzigartiger Geheimtipp mit einer tollen Atmosphäre und guter Hausmannskost zu einem absolut fairen Preis.

Check out more here...

End Pollution Now!

2012-01-11T15:54:00.000-08:00

As we pretend we have a problem called global warming, or cooling, or whatever, we ignore the real problem of pollution, and its massive detriment to our environment. There are many pollutants, nasty ones, that nobody checks for, for the simple reason it would be gainst public policy to do so. So no one will.

Here in 2009, writes an MIT scientist:

Estrogens take a variety of forms, the most potent of which are “free” estrogens—so called because they freely pass into cells and bind with estrogen receptors, initiating a cascade of biological responses. One particularly potent synthetic free estrogen, 17α-ethynylestradiol, has been widely used in birth control pills since the 1960s. Hans Inhoffen and his colleagues at Schering A.G. in Berlin first synthesized 17α-ethynylestradiol in 1938 by adding two extra carbon atoms to a standard form of estrogen. This slight difference in chemical structure makes 17α-ethynylestradiol more potent than natural estrogens, and more likely to persist in the environment.

OK, so he is looking for the harm done by teaspoons of this stuff put in the ocean by the city of Boston everyday. Now think about something. This is coming into the ocean when women on the pill take a whiz in Boston. Swimming pool water is rarely if ever drained, it is recycled and cleaned. What happens when hundreds of women each week, on the pill, take a whiz when swimming in a pool. (It happens!) No one knows, because no one tests. No one tests because there is no requirement to do so. There is no requirements to do so because population control is public policy. Mustn't terrify people of a common pollutant.

Refrigeration systems have some very nasty by products. Government regulations require that these by-products be captured and controlled. The industry has done so. Good for government. But at the same time, since it is merely politics, the government does not require very many much nastier things collected, even though we know that it is possible to do so. How come we do not?

The regulators are always captured by the regulated. Sure, some things of minor importance are regulated to keep things neat, but major things go untouched. Take for instance auto pollution. the car is an invention. The invention can be improved to collect all of its exhaust. The regulatd will not allow the regulators to require this.

Now, before, when property rights were respected, peple could and would sue someone who befouled their property with exhaust pollution. If propoerty rights were respected, then the courts would side with the injured party, and the invention of the automobile would have included exhaust collection early on. The courts began favoring big business in the late 19th century, so property rights and a clean environment went out the window. Or pollution came in.

With property rights, polluters would have to bribe every single home owner to pollute. It would never happen.

With government regulation, a polluter need only bribe a half dozen congressmen. Happens all the time. The only way we will clean up the environment is to return to property rights.

Adverse Possession Through Regulation

2012-01-10T18:15:00.000-08:00

First year law school is almost always devoted to real estate law in general, with a particular emphasis on riparian law, since law evolved sorting out conflicts over land and in particular access to rivers.

One owns property that one (or a family) can manage oneself, real property being land and the waters adjacent. This is all well settled by centuries of legal precedent, although there are some curious subtleties, such as on the east coast of USA inheritance of land tends to follow the anglo-saxon primogeniture patterns and the west coast tend to follow the Hispanic matrilineal traditions. There are even rules as to how far across a river title extends (no not halfway, but along the line of the deepest part, so each side gets equal volume and aquaculture diversity.)

Property becomes yours if you buy it, or if it is unclaimed, it becomes yours when you mix your labor with raw material or real estate. Normally real estate is transferred by means of a purchase and sale agreement. Sometimes not.

Now what if the family circumstances change, and the family no longer needs (or no longer can work due to members of the family moving on...) some particular parcel? Naturally people do not want to give up what they once owned, even if they cannot use it, especially land. So what can happen is one can take adverse possession of a parcel, and if the takers uses it for a set time, after that time the taker owns it.

From state to state there are some slight differences, but in essence the possession must be open (everyone can see it), actual (you use the land), exclusive (you are the only one using it), hostile (against the wishes of the owner) and continuous. If you meet these criterion for say 10 years, the land is yours.

Well, why wouldn't someone evict you for trespass if the use was hostile. People may not realize it is their land, they may like what you are doing and hope to benefit by it somehow, but do not want to give up the land, or they may just not want to argue. In any event, adverse possession occurs and it is a peaceful way of neighbors ceding land to neighbors, a peaceful way of transferring property from nonproductive users to productive users.

I was listening to a government regulator the other day claim that something (I did not catch what, but the principle applies to everything) was so heavily regulated that the government had an interest in it that was tantamount to title. The property was actually useless to the owner since the government called any and all meaningful shots regarding the land.

Well, this would apply to anything regulated, and in all things regulated there comes a time when that which you own yet is regulated becomes effectively owned by the government. In essence, they accomplish the elements of adverse possession, that is open, actual, exclusive, hostile and continuous. Whereas in real estate one must go ten years, the government owns it from day one.

This is just one more example of how things have changed, and contribute to an unsustainable polity. When this system crashes, it will come down on us all.

The best defense is self-employment.

Ron Paul Racist Newsletters

2012-01-09T19:46:00.000-08:00

When people tell me about Ron Paul as racist, and his newsletters, I say "show me." I was reading those newsletters 20 years ago, and ones written by the same crew, and I do not remember any racist newsletters. But who knows, maybe I missed one.

And of course, Ron Paul did not write any newsletter, but of course if it went out over his name he is responsible for the content. He did not write them because all politicians send out newsletters, as do dentists and real estate agents, and none of them write the newsletters. There are companies that do that for a living. Ron Paul had some of the best such newsletter producers writing his. I know, because it is no secret who wrote them, and I spent a week with them in Alabama about a decade ago. They are huge talents behind the efforts.

Anti-Ron Paul people are trying to get Ron Paul to talk about them. The trick is to get Ron Paul to talk about the newsletters in order to get him to shut up about the bank bailout, the Fed, the wars, the civil rights violations, etc. So when Ron Paul says he did not write them and he disavows them, he has said what is necessary and sufficient. It is true that he did not write them, and since the content is irrelevent, he surely can disavow the content without any problem.

But if the content is not racist, why disavow it? Because the trick is to get him off message by bogging him down in a debate if the content was racist or not. It is a version of the question "do you still beat your wife?" He is too smart to fall into that trap.

As I said, I was reading the stuff written for him, and for others, written by the same crew, at the time. I do not remember any racist stuff, but I do recall being in awe of their talent.

When I tracked down one putatuve example of a Ron Paul racist newsletter (rather hard to find people actually quoting anything) I found something I vaguely recall. Jesse Jackson famously said he was fearful of groups of black youths in the inner city. When he saw them he crossed the street, something to that effect. All writers play off current events, and one newsletter picked up on this Jesse Jackson headline to make the point that minimum wage laws hurt inner city youth who thus unemployed get into mischief, so get rid of minimum wage laws. Racism is a nasty charge, and since a newsletter mentioned black youths, and employment, there are plenty of people who will claim it is racist. Ron Paul is not going to get trapped in that game.

Back to the writers. As I mentioned they are splendid talents, and I do recall occasionally cringing at things they would write, in this instance for someone else, not Ron Paul. In it a reference was made to Dr. ML King and how he was backed by New York homosexual Jewish Communists. Now, this is a simple fact, well known at the time and now, but it is the kind of thing that is red meat to rabid racists.

Dr Abernathy explains that after 7 or 8 years of getting no traction on the civil rights movement, a black New York homosexual associate of Dr. King had shared this concern with Jewish New York homosexual communists, Trotskyites to be precise, who said, "traction?' no problem, we can get you traction. The skill set for getting traction for the movement was within the group of New York homosexual Jewish communists, who were ready willing and bale to assist Dr. King.

The government had plenty of spies in Dr. King's org, so they quickly found out, and just imagine, circa 1962, when FBI agents learned that Jewish New York homosexual communists (it does not get any better than that) were assisting Dr. King. Now, as to the message, or the means, it matters little who is getting it out. Jewish New York homosexual communists had nothing to do with the content, just the methods.

So reference to this in an article was irrelevant (and again, this was not written in relation to Ron Paul) but extremely effective in getting attention in the audience they were addressing. And that is the game, get their attention, get their money, and advance your own cause.

But is it not awful to take money from sick minds? Who better to relieve of their disposable income. Shouldn't he give the money back? Give money back to racists? Why would anyone give money back to racists? And one cannot be sure that the racists did not reform when presented with a better way, a way out of the false dilemma of black vs white politics.

But why write such alarming things at all? It is a time honored rhetorical device. Say something the audience already knows and believes. And when they are nodding their head in agreement, introduce some good and true. The audience is still nodding. St. Paul starts out saying "wives obey your husbands..." and then nails the husbands with "love your wives..."

It is pretty clear there was election fraud in Iowa. I watched it four years ago in the Washington State caucauses. The powers that be have no intention of letting Ron Paul get any traction. Maybe Ron Paul ought to bring in some New York Communist Jewish Homosexuals to run his campaign. Then we might see a President Ron Paul.

Factoring and islamic Finance

2012-01-08T07:41:00.000-08:00

I'll be taking a seminar on Islamic finance, and I'll have a question regarding factoring. Factoring is buying receivable from vendors. it is fairly common in the furniture and garment industries, where retailers may take 90 days or more to pay the supplier (you!). So the suppliers, who may be owed $100,000, may sell those receivables to a factor for say $94,000, thus the factor earns maybe $6,000 for waiting a few months for $94,000.

Sometimes the factor requires the factor must pre-approve the customers, but in any event a deal is struck.

So if it is forbidden to take usury (money on money) is factoring the same thing but in reverse?

In Islamic finance anyone lending money is expected to share the risk, even if it is decided at what rate in advance (say 20% of the profits.) Under no circumstances may one agree to pay or receive a guaranteed rate of "interest." One earns this percentage for providing money that allows the deal to happen.

In factoring the money is provided after the profits are realized, not before as in finance. So in factoring, there is really not much risk. And in factoring, the vendor is not paying money on money, since there is no loan.

In Islamic finance money is for buying things and then selling and making a profit. A factor buys commercial paper for money, ($94k in the case above) and then sells it for more money ($100K in the case above).

So it seems to me, in Islamic finance, factoring would be legitimate. I'll find out if it is halal.

Who cares? With the West in economic decline, and only Islam maintaining the prohibition on usury, it is interesting to see how far we could go if we eliminated usury as a feature of our society (voluntarily of course.) Could we have all of the goods and services we have now and more? With out the force and fraud of modern usury, with its fractional reserve leverage element?

Assumable Loans, Mortgages and Transferability

2012-01-07T07:42:00.000-08:00

The world you live in has changed because some rules changed, some of the patterns in law and practices changed. Up until about 200 years ago, transferability was not allowed. What is that? Say I buy a house form you and we agree that I will pay you $500 a month for 30 years. I know you, we like each other. We agree. And I start paying you. At some point along the line, you decide to buy sell this contract to someone I do not know and when I meet I do not like. I do not want to be "in business" with the new person. Today, such an arrangement is possible, in fact, common. It is called the secondary market. A few hundred years ago, it was not allowed (unless all parties agreed.) Much of the high fiinance mischief today comes from that change in law.

About 30 years ago, mortgages were common. This is no longer the case. As is usual, the term mortgage is still used, but almost no one gets a mortgage. You have a deed of trust. The difference is a mortgage is grounded in complex law that protects the homeowner from the bank. A deed of trust gives a bank a fast track to throw you out of your home. You still pay for the advantages of a mortgage, but you get none of the benefits. This change contributed greatly to bank profits. At the same time, it allows for robo-signing and mass eviction of tenants in bad times.

At the same time, bankers ended the practice of "assumable loans." before about 30 years go, it was common to write into mortgage contracts that the loan was assumable, that is to say, anyone who met the credit criteria could take over the house and payment. As long as the new person was of the same credit standing as the original buyer, what did the bank care, the money kept coming in.

An assumable loan allowed elderly parents to pass a house on to the kids before the house was paid off, it allowed someone in a jam to get out from under a house he could not afford and other unusual circumstances.

Well, with assumable loans there is no sale and resale, no new mortgage fees, no excise taxes, all sorts of revenue opportunities do not emerge. So that option disappeared, like mortgages about 30 years ago.

Those options disappeared during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It was a crisis that did not go to waste. I recall watching those changes and thinking, this is not good. 20 years later, deeds of trust and non-assumability are playing a big role in the housing crisis.

It does take about 20 years for the bad effects of awful policy to take full bloom. In 2012 Obama signed The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012...

In about 20 years we'lls see the full horror of that law.

Ron Paul And Donations

2012-01-06T06:42:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul's average campaign contribution is something like $38, and Mitt Romney has over quarter million donation from Goldman Sachs so far. Who are Ron Paul's top three sources of donations? Active duty Air Force, Army and Navy, in that order. Watch what happens when a soldier expresses his views on government owned (CNN) TV...

2012-01-05T01:16:00.000-08:00

Earlier I noted the who and how of oppressive government, but not the how come. People need a narrative, and organizing principle, to rationalize they why of their actions.

National myths are popular, Virgil provided one for Rome and a particularly motley crew came up with the Teutonic master race idea of Nazi Germany. People need a why or a how come or a raison d’etre for their actions.

Domination of others is a pretty raw excuse, both sides need a cover story, something that allows them to feel good about what they are doing, the system in which they participate.

The modern state was ruthlessly efficient, and could expand and conquer far afield. These voyages and expeditions opened a strange, and to many, a terrifying world. Colonialism disrupted traditional free markets, and much suffering followed.

Malthus became convinced that modernization would lead to population outstripping food supply and wrote convincingly of his fears in the late 1700s. In time his theories would prove nonsense, but nonetheless a belief in overpopulation is a conditioned reflex worldwide today. There is no evidence of overpopulation, just a widespread premise that it exists.

Yes, there is famine and starvation, but never a shortage of food, merely a failure of government policy to properly distribute the food. In fact, any policy will inevitably have winners and losers, the obese poor in USA and the starving poor in Darfur. Either way, these are the losers in government policy. Free markets never treat people thus.

Given the modern state’s relationship to violence, government policies can become genocidal, as in Germany, Cambodia, Soviet Union, USA, etc. Starvation is policy failure, not market failure.

Given the putative problem of overpopulation outstripping supply, Darwin arrived at the theory of natural selection, and it fell to others to take it a step further to “survival of the fittest.“ One is not responsible for those who abuse their writings, but genocidal racists did depend on Darwin as their intellectual fountainhead. We are told overpopulation is kept in check by natural selection (survival of the fittest) but sometimes people like to hurry up the process. hence genocide. Here one of our best playwrights offers his ideas.

No where is it written as a premise in law that there is overpopulation, but everywhere people proceed as if this is a truth. Forbes Magazine relates that the primary concern of the Gates Foundation is overpopulation. Planned Parenthood gets a half billion a year in taxpayer support. You no doubt believe the world suffers from overpopulation. We are overwhelmed with conditioned reflex presuming overpopulation.

It is probably more widely held worldwide than any other belief system, when you calculate how many Christians believe it to be true. Both theories, overpopulation and natural selection, are core curriculum in any school at any level, and our society proceeds from these two premises in considering public policy. It is just the way things are.

I am doubtful of overpopulation hypothesis since I fly a lot and see most of the earth is uninhabited. It seems to me anyone experiencing “overpopulation” may remedy it rather easily for himself. Move. It is quality of life, and that is decided by the individual, in freedom, not be central planner. But the central planners use the threat of violence to keep people form exercising their human right to move.

But back to the problem, overpopulation, and the solution, natural selection. Much government policy worldwide is ordered to assisting natural selection.

Here is a series on Soviet experiments with population control, and indeed the advanced form in which man is transformed through the process.

Note how the National Socialists are widely reviled for targeting a racial group in entirety, whereas the Soviets get a pass since they did not. The Soviets picked on a class, not a race. We do this in the United States too. We have a system that defines the right people, and then advances them to the commanding heights. You find people of all races and creeds in top positions, but they all think alike. It is both self-selection and survivorship bias in action. Hold these views, move on up. One fundamental view is that the world suffers form overpopulation, and we can do something about it.

We have a wonderful construct in USA, wherein we have a truly classless society, acknowledged by one and all. Except the people in the commanding heights privately see themselves as a separate class. Politicians commonly exempt themselves from the laws they pass. Government workers are given exceptional benefits. There is a dividing line, and it is roughly along educational attainment. Community College and below are expendable and takes orders, BA is in doubt, but advanced degrees and above are the ruling class.

This all sounds so harsh, but look around you, the world is a very harsh place. How come? Because Arab terrorists hate our freedom? Because women do not have access to reproductive health care in some countries? Because of overpopulation?

No, it is harsh because of violence. The violence is fundamental to the modern state. The people who subscribe to the state employ violence to maintain their advantages. They rationalize their position by claiming there is a problem, and they claim they work within the scientific field of natural selection to solve the problem. You may never actually hear anyone speak in those terms, but it is what drives policy.

Think about the line of reasoning for our economic troubles: bank failures due to toxic assets from subprime (poor people) loans, and USA jobs going overseas to where overpopulation leads to cheap labor. Banks made bad loans because they knew they would be bailed out. USA sources overseas to escape govt regs on employees, to launder money and escape taxes. the masters made bad rules, and then they blame the poor for the bad results. Our economic problems are due to bad policy, not overpopulation.

Wealth is not money, but access to a range of goods and services. There are no government services people prefer to private services. Even the US Military top officers prefer to be protected by private contractors rather than their own soldiers. Anyone who can afford private goods and services prefers those. And the free market makes more, better, cheaper, faster more affordable to so many more.

Self employment is a process of personal transformation. Stepping aside form destructive nonsense is part of the process.

Chomsky On Capitalism

2012-01-04T23:58:00.000-08:00

Chomsky is a socialist, and he probably would not object to marxist, and as I have said many time, they get their facts straight Here is is saying something I've argued for a while, and he seems to be arguing for free markets.

Why Police Cannot Be Reformed

2012-01-02T12:37:00.000-08:00

The US Justice Department has completed a review of Seattle Police Department practices and concluded that there is systematic violation of civil rights in Seattle, especially targeting minorities, and that the violations are concentrated on relatively few officers.

I spent eight years assisting a retired Seattle Police detective in writing his memoirs and I came to the same conclusion.

A previous Seattle Chief of Police, Norm Stamper, claimed in his autobiography that all Police Departments need reform every twenty years or so. What other organization needs to be fixed so often? Municipal police departments have only been around about 150 years, before that there were many other mediating institutions to keep the peace.

Within weeks of this scathing report on Seattle Police, a citizen finds that while his life was in debate after being struck by a truck, “first responder” police officers were mocking him for stupidity and mimicking the foreign accent of the truck driver. Police officers have no concern regarding the Justice Department review.

One has to step way back to see why police departments cannot be reformed.

A society has an organizing principal, of some sort, which emerges out of an organic process of contending people and factions, strife and worry, and ultimately some kind of compromise. That is a précis of any history of any culture.

In the worldwide times of strife circa 500 BC there were many schools of thought as to how to order society. It is a recurring artifact of history that the philosophy that orders society in a manner consistent with oppression, complimenting both those infected with libido dominandi and those who clamor to be oppressed, a perfect match, is the philosophy that wins out. It is matter of time. It has always been thus.

History shows time and again how at critical junctures ideas of a good and just society are proffered by such philosophers as Mo Ti, but it is the ideas of rivals such as Confucius that win out. Inevitably, the philosophers who come down on the side of freedom are rejected, the ones who advise putting a halo on oppression are the ones who win out.

The lesser philosophies win out for the simple reason most people want to be oppressed, desire to trade a wee bit of freedom for a whole lot of avoidance of responsibility. This is well illustrated in 1 Samuel 8, where God Almighty Himself found his offer for peace, freedom and prosperity rejected by His people.

After a degenerative system gets established, there are times of respite, of sorts, for some, and a writer will observe the status quo, explain it, and be considered seminal, or at least celebrated. These writers are not authors, they are merely explicators, observers, messengers.

Max Weber was one such social observer. He noted the end of struggle regarding the divine rights of kings vs the divine right of the church, and the triumph of the divine right of the state. Where the church had its clerics, and the kings had their lawyers, the state has the bureaucrat. This was a burgeoning profession, one in which the new mega-state of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, and their imitators in the democracies, offered plenty of opportunity. (China is fairly unusual inasmuch as a latecomer to modernization, it still has vestiges of the mediating institutions that allow it to be ruled by relatively few people. Mao tried to end that with his policies, but he did not have time for total destruction of Chinese society.)

And there are more than enough people who will take on the task of being Pharaoh, in ways small and large. Aquinas called this condition libido dominandi, or lust for power. We all went to school with people whose thrived on dominating others, both bullies and charismatics. And their followers.

In his advice to young people who seek power, called Politics as Profession, Weber defined the state as a territory with a monopoly on violence. Whatever the game of the state happens to be, it is to be protected by its monopoly on violence.

It is this very definition that attracts certain people to this kind of power, the violence, or as Mao put it, “"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Aquinas also noted the condition of superbia vitae, pride of life, that conceit that “my life is more important than yours.” Hillary Clinton touched on this ambition in her graduation address to students at Wellesley in which she noted: “We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.”

At 22 yeas old Hillary was signaling not so much that she wanted change, and her personal history since then bears this out, but merely that she wanted to be in charge. She and others went on to pursue careers in politics, and assemble like-minded followers behind themselves. You’ll find these people in any society, their motivation is clear enough.

But it is not enough to be motivated, one must have the means to concentrate and exercise power. In the capitalist countries, the game is capitalism. It is played by fractional reserve banking, and concentrates power in the hands of a few, while at the same time constricting the freedom of people who borrow money at interest.

The idea was so odious to the freedom loving founders of this country that the man who championed this method of oppression, Alexander Hamilton, was shot and killed by the Vice President of the US at the time, Aaron Burr. People took their freedom seriously back then. Hamilton is loved by the Capitalists, who pay for the History books, so American hero Aaron Burr gets a frown if he is mentioned at all.

Thomas Jefferson noted in the declaration of independence

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Jefferson’s adversary, indeed, the enemy of all freedom loving people, Alexander Hamilton noted:

“Safety from external danger, is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free.” The Federalist No. 8, p. 33.

This was not warning from Hamilton, but a game plan. He was offering an explanation of why his policies would win out in time, and they did. His most ardent proponents today are the followers of Lyndon Larouche, the fringe group eager to take over the system we have in place. The warfare/welfare state. Oppression through usury.

But is is an unholy construct, that works for some by necessarily harming others. In time, people begin to resist, and their political betters must push back. For a polity with a monopoly on violence, resistance is to be met with violence, especially resistance to political initiatives. As Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The first line of defense of this system is the police officers. Under no circumstances is a police officer to be discredited, not even for murder. The police officers know this, and all of the reform in the world will not address the underlying problem, and that is a system that is grounded in violence, and the people who are attracted to that kind of work.

Now people will complain that most police officers are law-abiding, decent individuals. This may be the case. But as I learned from assisting a retired police detective in writing his memoirs, there is an active program to recruit and corrupt officers who will do the dirty work necessary to keep the powers that be free of resistance. A small group of officers who are ready willing and able to lie, cheat, steal and even murder to protect the powers that be. All other police officers, decent or not, do the indecent thing and support these officers when they do evil. The fact is, a police officer’s life depends on it, because when there is a situation an officer cannot handle, he can count on back-up to come in and make it a win for the police, whatever it takes. if you do not utterly submit to the friendly smiling cop, there is a cruel and stupid cop to whom you will submit. They are on every shift.

A favorite line is “you may beat the rap, but not the ride.” This means although you may be found innocent in a trial, between the arrest and trial is a dreadful process you cannot escape.

Let me give one example, and not even the worst. There was a fellow the police did not care for, and the police get a warrant to search his home for drugs. Judges hand out warrants like confetti, so no problem there. A search is conducted, and no drugs are found. And then again. Finally, a sergeant will pass on the word this fellow must be busted. Among the officers hearing this is one of those who “gets things done.” As the officers make their dynamic entry serving the warrant, an older officer tosses a kilo of cocaine into a closet as he passes the closet on his way to another part of the house. Eventually a young officer, on his first dynamic entry search, very exciting times, finds a kilo of coke in the closet. Attaboy! The young officer is very pleased with himself, he is good at this police work. He found dope where previous, more experienced officers found none.

Now, the subject of the warrant will truthfully tell his lawyer the cocaine was not his, it was planted. The defense lawyer will demand and have his own polygraph test performed on the young police officer who found the cocaine. That young police officer will answer truthfully he did not plant the cocaine. The defendant is convicted. Another innocent person is off to jail in the war on drugs.

In a system that is inherently unfair, where winner and losers are arbitrarily picked by the powers that be, most people keep their head down. Over time things get worse. More and more people are disaffected, and what goes around comes around. Violence erupts and there is an overthrow of the system. But the new people in charge are worse than the old. The American Revolution saw the victory of Alexander Hamilton’s vision over Franklin and Jefferson. Jefferson went on to be president, as as such was as arbitrary as any despot. He reformed himself after serving as president, again demonstrating power corrupts, even if only temporarily.

There is an alternative to all of this, and it is freedom. USA was designed to be a collection of small and independent states, but has become a monstrous, terrible place. The solution is to get back to where we went wrong. Small independent states, where people are jealous of their rights, and refuse to turn them over to others. Like Hong Kong, where 500,000 people hit the streets in 2003 when their government debated some constrictions on the Hong Kong people. For a comporable protest in USA, there would have to be 33 million people hitting the streets. Saturday night the president signed into a law a program where the military can arrest and indefinitely detain USA citizens, without due process. Exactly no one took to the streets to protest this heinous act.

Why would police bother to reform for people like this? I wouldn't. But I am in a constant state of reform for my customers. The trick is to have free markets, like in Hong Kong.

Costco And Order Out of Chaos

2012-01-02T11:48:00.000-08:00

The fellow who created and built Home Depot is notorious for claiming today it would be impossible to do what he did in 1979, for new constraints on free business practices. Today, in USA, 40,000 new laws went into effect that further constrain freedom.

In the current issue of the Costco magazine, retiring CEO James Sinegal traces the growth of Costco. He and other top Costco people started at a company called Fed-Mart as boxboys, cashiers and stockers, etc. That company famously went bust and out of the ashes one worker and his son started Price Club in San Diego in 1976, a members only warehouse concept. In 1983 ex-Fed-Mart boxboy Sinegal and others started a version called Costco in Seattle, and all of these players, in a scene reminiscent of The Return of The Magnificent Seven, merged Price Club and Costco into one business named Costco in 1993. The rest as they say is history. The new CEO of Costco is also a veteran Fed-Mart boxboy who wandered aimlessly for a decade after the Fed-Mart immolation. The moral of the story is this crew learned good habits and sound business principals while working at those other gigs. They are now centimillionaires.

I recall the demise of Fed-Mart, and those times when it seemed the world was coming to an end. The endless, pointless war in Vietnam, Boeing apparently going out of business, housing prices plummeting, rare opportunities, terrorism, and a paranoid, criminal government under Richard Nixon.

Yet these people saw clear opportunity, carefully tested and grew businesses, that in time became staples of the economic landscape. Apple computer comes out of these times. While many others failed, a new, different, better IBM emerged, after a wrenching process. Protected industries, such as auto and defense became truly awful.

An aspiring politician once said "We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.” Can you think of anyone who has better lived such a life than the founders of Costco and Apple? Or the countless unheralded businesses who have done likewise? Such a life is not possible in politics, so I am afraid that acolyte will find disappointment at the apogee.

Yes, starting a business has been made much harder by pointless regulation, but even worse is a lack of people who see business as a route to a better life. When I mentioned to a 20-something 1 in 6 Americans needs food stamps, she noted many of her college friends use them. CNN reports only 55.3 percent of people ages 16 to 29 have jobs, although I'd like to see the source of that. Perhaps they need the food stamps. But the problem is the lack of opportunity, not food stamps.

Gone are the days, due to pointless regulation, where in my youth I could have a job within a few days of starting to look for one. When "help wanted" signs were posted outside of small businesses, and one could work one's way up, where a job at Fed-Mart or countless other businesses were plentiful. Education was better, a high school diploma was comparable to a bachelors degree today, so an employer knew if you graduated from high school you could read, write and think.

Now, although the regulations are pointless, the regulations serve a purpose. By driving small business into the ground, and preventing new businesses from forming, the collectivization of where you get health from the government, home furnishings from IKEA, food from Safeway, clothes from Macy's, your home from Pulte, your job from homeland security, your loan from BofA, schooling from the government, etc. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with big business and low prices, in practice big business promotes and then co-opts big government.

For my part, I will continue to encourage people to start businesses, emphasizing lifelong process for younger people (innovation) and teaching and writing for older people (conservation). In extreme times people call for extreme solutions, but it is simply good habits and sound business principals, which one learns by doing, that leads to more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living. Encourage people around you to make the revolutionary act of starting a business.

A Christmas Message

2011-12-25T08:46:00.000-08:00

Turn off your computer, get together with people, pull out a board game or cards and forget about everything else.

Merry Christmas!

What Italians See and Hear

2011-12-24T14:21:00.000-08:00

You'll find Americans mimicking foreign languages and manners when they have no idea of either, and speak jibberish and exaggerate movements, etc. Here is an Italian who does the same thing... mimicking what he hears in USA music and what he sees in dancing ... what Italians feel when they see USA mannerisms... Listen to the lyrics... a lesson in cross cultural learnings...

Was this the inspiration?

USA Conceived in Freedom

2011-12-23T08:08:00.000-08:00

The people elect the legislators and thus control what becomes law. If the law if applied to an individual, there is a trial. If the people, represented by the jury, don't like the law, the jury can and does find the defendant not guilty, even if he is clearly guilty of the crime. In this way the people are a final check on the government.

A judge could not find a jury that would convict a marijuana smoker. Just so. But the judge and newspaper do not seem to understand how USA works, or is designed anyway. We can and should withdraw our consent to be governed.

Man Made In His Image

2011-12-22T10:07:00.000-08:00

If man is made in the image of God, then does God have two arms, two legs and a torso and head? With a long flowing white beard? Does He look like a baby in a manger?

What if what we perceive is merely the medium of perception, and what aspect that resembles God is our spirit? And as we all, at least poetically, subscribed to a spiritual dimension when we say "free spirits" or when nobel economists say "animal spirits." What confounds us about life is our free will, to the point many people deny such a thing. Calvin and his crew preached predestination, which neatly sidesteps responsibility.

Free will would be rather constrained by a physical being. But my spirit has no limits.

And if God is Love, and the Creator, and not a being with a head and legs, etc... some eternal ultimate power (the description bogs down because the more one describes, necessarily the more one veers off), we might ask where this God is.

Wouldn't the "where" necessarily be "freedom?" If a king resides in a kingdom, does free will reside in freedom? So is there an aspect to the universe called "freedom" which is in all places and all times and the "where" at which God resides?

So is our spirit with its free will, living in freedom, that which images the God who created us in His image? And this body a mere medium of perception? Augustine (or was it Aquinas?) taught our bodies fell farther than our intellects, and I would guess our spirits fell not at all, since they are eternal, one way or another.

The Bible in the old testament is God's conversation with the Jews on how to live. The New Testament is the conversation continued with everyone with Jesus doing the teaching. A few lessons: one is God wants us to be free, "free from" and "free to." In the old testament the Jews will be free if they fallow Gods rules. Free from interference, free to do good while doing well. That went off the rails when the Jews demanded of God to be put under a king. (1 Sam 8).

So Christian theology is God became Man to be that King and save the Jews. That went poorly, but God is Love and he extended salvation to all mankind.

Ever since Jesus, mankind still struggles with the primal force of freedom, free will, free to and free from. Jesus proclaimed the truth will make you free and Himself the Truth. Whole lotta emphasis on free.

Over the centuries there has been a pas-de-deux in which the powers that be try to check the religious powers, at various points in history religion has the upper hand, and then the kings, some combination thereof, with the divine right of the king vying with the divine right of the pope. A very bad argument, because in time, given peoples propensity to be oppressed, we arrived at the divine right of the state.

Max Weber in his work Politics as a Vocation claimed the state is defined as the entity with a monopoly on violence within a given territory. (Talk about divine right!) Now who cares what some cracker from Erfurt thinks? But the problem is such ideas, that flatter that powers that be, get integrated as core curriculum, and the organizing principle. No one who pursues politics, or high government position is unaware of this definition. It is not in any rulebook, but he who makes the rules follows the principle. Thus, Fargo ND is given millions in "anti-terror" (anti-protestor) fighting gear.

Fraud and violence are the bane of freedom. Our economic system can be represented by the dollar bill. it epitomizes both fraud and violence. The fraud is in USA there are 12 private bank organizations, owned by the private banks in their districts (their websites end in .org) and print the currency. These 12 organizations have their headquarters in New York (not Washington) and work with the secretary of the treasury on getting the currency printed right. (Under the US constitution, money is metal and minted by the US Mint. Currency, which was once warehouse certificates for the gold in the bank, is printed by treasury. We are far from there.) The New York headquarters of this private org has a website too, but is ends in .gov.

The fraud is this dollar bill, this currency, is backed by assets. Not so, it is back by counter-party risk, which is not quite the same thing. We are to understand we can withdraw our money at any time, which is patently not true. The violence is if we attempt to pay bills without this currency, or come up with some alternative, we will be imprisoned or worse. We are obliged to accept it for all debts, public AND private. Read it. It is on the upper left of every note.

We were made to be free. We got very close to getting it right in the late 1700s when in both USA and Hong Kong, as well as Switzerland, and San Marino, Andorra, Monte Carlo and various other places began to form free societies. USA has gone off the rails.

God freely chose to become man and show us how to live in freedom. If we are to develop our talents, in no way limited by physical constraints, or at least free to push to the limits of what is possible within this extremely interesting creation, then first our free wills must be in a free economy, with the only constraints being natural law. That's what I think about on Christmas.

Failure and Response

2011-12-21T07:01:00.000-08:00

People all over the world are unhappy with their governments, except apparently, in North Korea. In Egypt, women are marching to protest the excesses of the USA-supplied military. In anticipation of coming protests in USA, instead of reform, the United States Government is offering local government weapons and Egypt-grade tools of oppression.

When that Egyptian soldier jumped both feet on the stripped women protester, it was an classic act of "we hate those we harm." Having disrespected the woman, they needed to kill her (although apparently she lives.)

Arming against the people is necessarily harmful, so the process has begun. Us vs them. The hate, and the need to harm those we hate. Protesters have no idea who they are up against.

Confusion Over Interest (Usury) and Profit

2011-12-20T10:05:00.000-08:00

So, A. I can make money selling grain, and turn a profit. Buy grain cheap in Iowa and sell it for a profit in New York. This is legitimate.

B. I can lend money to someone to do the above, if I share in the profit or loss, with no guarantees.

C. But I cannot lend money to someone to do the above where I am guaranteed my money back and a percentage above what I lent, for some set time. This is usury, and is forbidden by all major religions (probably all religions) in all instances in all forms, for any time period.

Then why is the practice so widespread? Within all religions there are those who get around the prohibition with semantics.

But let's go back to profit vs. usury. Clearly A is an example of a profit being made, and A is how most business transactions occur (although the money behind the transaction may have a usurious aspect, such as payment by credit card.)

B is very often how deals are constructed, and there is no problem there. The profit is the same as in A, the distribution is decided ahead of time.

So how is C different from A and B? First let's get to definitions. A profit is a gain on a trade. Usury is a gain on the lending of a medium of exchange (money). Since the money lent out is the same as the money that comes back, nothing was traded. There is a word for making money on money, or any other commodity on commodity, where the deal is between someone who will have what was lent out returned (no trade) plus more of the same, the word is usury. Profit applies to trade. If there is no trade, the word for making money on money (or same on same) is called usury. Usury makes clear the deal is not making money on trade, but making money on money.

Shouldn't risk be rewarded? Bankers introduced this idea. Businesspeople never take risks, at least not in the sense commonly held, and certainly not in the sense used in any economics textbooks, not even the Austrian Economics textbooks. Bankers run a very risky business, usury based on fractional reserves, an extremely risky proposition, for their customers. When a bank folds, it is not the banker who loses, it is the bankers' customers. The "con" in con artist is sort for confidence, their game is to get you to have confidence in yourself. The banker pays for textbooks that read "entrepreneurs take risks."

Specifically, bankers can create "money" and lend it out and make money and gain wealth and power, but they cannot create "money" and spend it themselves, or at least it is foolish for them to do so. The "money" bankers create is funny money, which gets out there, earns interest, is returned and destroyed by zeroing out the asset/liability balance sheet. The bankers can then safely spend the interest they "earned." If a banker were to create money and spend it on say an apartment building, he would have to make the interest payments (or no, to himself) but the foolish thing is he would have an asset that very well may have its value go below the loan value, for a loss? Why risk loss when there is so much to be made risk-free lending money at usury? Plus, every banker knows the boom and bust cycle, so they know that at any given time, the economy will bust and they want to have cash, not houses. That is where we are today.

When a business person calculates subjective value, it is based on his knowledge and expectations. He trades based on that knowledge. The trade itself represents no risk.

For whatever the entrepreneur has traded, he already has customers, whether is is a regular flow of buyers for his thermocouplers, or his medical practice. Events such a unexpected snowstorms or being killed by a truck are always a risk in life, but they are universal risks, not specific to trade (although, no doubt, the impact is felt.)

A modern banker makes money on money. He provides no value in the distribution process, but he offers what appears to be a shortcut to prosperity. "If I can only get the finance..." No, son, if you can only get the customers... bankers get us to ask the wrong question.

If I sell something for more than it cost me to make or buy, my customer has benefitted, and I will never see what I sold again. I've earned a profit providing a useful good or service to another who voluntarily bought. That is business, making money on a trade.

A banker creates "money" and expects to have it returned, plus more of the same, from some other supply (one aspect of money is fungibility.) By these means the bankers aggregate power and influence policy makers to pattern the law in a manner that protects the bankers first and foremost.

One of the patterns of law the banker has used his power to effect is, if he makes a bad loan, the taxpayers will have to make up the loss.

So here is the key difference:

In trade, we expect to earn a profit selling what we expect to never see again. Whether our participation is money or time, we in some measure participate in any profit or loss. If money "gets the ball rolling" the money is from savings of a participant, not debt. If someone loaned money into the deal, it was to participate in the profit or loss.

In usury, we expect to gain an increase lending what we expect to see again soon enough. Our participation is strictly money, and we will not participate in any profit or loss. "Money" is what gets the ball rolling, and necessarily it comes come debt, never savings. When the banks lend money into a deal, it is expressly stated they will not participate in the profit or loss.

The key in capitalism is capital-formation, either through savings which is benign, or debt which is malignant. What makes capitalism evil is when bankers introduce usury, and then the evil is exponential when the bankers create "money" through fractional reserve processes, made legal.

Now, he world can function quite well without usury, just as many people learn to love quite well without credit. You just pay for things when you can. It is a different world, but a quite pleasant one.

It Wasn't USA!

2011-12-19T11:45:00.000-08:00

If your dog bites me, after you say "sick 'em",

If you are a conservative, you'll say it is my fault, I needed biting.

If you are a liberal, you'll say I've got to want to change if I want to stop being bit.

If you are a moderate, you'll tell me, well, dogs bite.

As the one who has been bit, I think you should not have a dog. You'll all say that I am a radical.

How USA Works In Egypt

2011-12-18T13:04:00.000-08:00

Egypt, which once fed the Roman empire, is one of USA's chief buyers of USA grain. USA taxpayers subsidize exports to Egypt to the point that Egyptian farmers cannot compete, therefore they go broke. Now they can grow wonderful cotton, and make garments and export that back to USA, but that is not permitted by the USA Government. So there is a downward spiral of the Egyptian economy, and now it is said "Egypt cannot feed itself." One in Six Americans are on food stamps, so clearly Americans can no longer feed themselves.

The Egyptians know this, and want to be free of it. But the Egyptian military dogs know their master's voice. If you say "sic 'em" and your poodle bites someone, isn't it your fault? The United States taxpayers, in order that the thugs who get elected to office in USA can have some little excesses, fund the thugs in Egypt who strip and stomp women protesters. You paid for this, and demanded it when you voted for Bush, Obama, McCain, it does not matter who, this women was destined to be stomped by USA-backed Egyptian security when you voted for any of the above. One cannot extricate one's culpability from their vote. Have you demanded impeachment of your murderer-in-chief?

The tear gas used on peaceful demonstrators is supplied by USA taxpayer's money to the uniformed thugs in the street. The gas is called CS gas. Our govt spokesman says the gas is safe, and there is no evidence of misuse of the gas.

Mark Toner: "Well, it’s – again, as I said, these are — this tear gas is approved for export to many countries around the world. It’s used by police forces in many countries around the world including our own..."

Now that is interesting. You mean USA police use CS gas on civilians? Why yes, it is true. It was used on USA civilians at Waco. Oh, and in Vietnam too.

If you look at this story, and see the photo of the woman stripped and beaten by USA supplied soldiers, and you do not like it, then certainly do not look at the video at the end. A USA-backed poodle jumps up in the air and stomps the woman on her chest with both his feet. We pay for this. But you knew this when you voted for McCain or Obama. As long as you can have your welfare check, OWS, or your wars, Tea Party, then all you have to do is hope "the right people get elected." It is a false, self-serving dilemma.

But if you do like seeing women beaten, here is a Seattle Police Officer socking a woman on the jaw. She jaywalked. Of course, he was found justified in doing so. By the police and mayor.

There is no longer any class, any decency, at any level of government in USA. And our poodles learn from the master.

Raymond Inquires as to China Tariff on US Autos

2011-12-17T10:31:00.000-08:00

I read this today and was just curious of what your thoughts are..

I personally don’t know what to think but 21% is a bit excessive..

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-gets-revenge-obama-tariff-u-autos-213747820.html

Raymond

When I was buying from China in the late 1970s, duties on Chinese goods started at 50% and commonly ran to 100%, and sometimes 150%. China trade grew anyway. The USA government offered to the Chinese to reduce the duties if they would “liberalize” their economy.

This is a skirmish. Mexican avocados are not permitted in USA to protect California avocado growers from competition. So Mexico looked down the list of USA ag exports to Mexico, and found USA apples were the same size market in Mexico as Mexican avocados are in the USA. So Mexico retaliated by banning apple imports (USA exports) into Mexico. It is how the game is played.

In China it is import cars vs export tires. China is more free market than capitalist. The trick of capitalism is to condemn people to slavery by making their debts so onerous they are stuck working for you for life. Haiti is poor because its debts cannot ever be repaid. The Haiti elite are Harvard educated individuals who work with their cohort they met at Harvard. This cohot controls the commanding heights in Haiti. These people keep the outflow constant, and their people oppressed, and in turn they are protected by, ultimately, the US Military.

The heart of the game is debt, and debt service (usury, or what we commonly call interest). We promise a country that we will build them a dam and modernize their country through electrification, on credit. We overbuild, and the electrification does not modernize the country. The debts are rolled over, and the usury (interest we call it) is payable in perpetuity. Haiti cannot ever get out from under what they “owe” the French. The elite in these countries are all trained at the best western universities, and they are linked to the leaders in the dominant countries.

The plan was to enslave China for USA capitalists. Communists know that game. There is a counter to the game, and China is running it (free markets). Further, China is too big to swallow. These little trade disputes grow into wars.

The capitalists overplayed their hand, and their system is failing. USA citizens will suffer, but it does not matter to the powers that be, because they would rather rule over hell than be a grocery clerk in heaven. They will keep us in hell where they can rule.

This is not only done to foreigners, but to USA citizens: the mortgage debts are meant to enslave, and student loans cannot be bankrupted, a guaranteed slavery of our best and brightest. But there is a way out of both problems: join the US Military. Banks cannot foreclose on active duty military, students loans are paid by the military if you join. Coincidence?

If we want to be free, consider interest agreements like gambling debts: they have no standing in law. No court will listen to a claim for a gambling debt. When no court will listen to a claim for interest payments (usury), then the abusive system comes tumbling down. There is nothing that cannot be financed without usury, so we can easily afford to get rid of it. But usury promises gratification now for payment later. it is an easy sell.

Jeremy Checks In With Money Visualized

2011-12-16T07:09:00.000-08:00

This might help you wrap your brain around what and where is money, or what is called money...

http://xkcd.com/980/

Banking & Why Neither Left Nor Right Has a Solution

2011-12-15T10:41:00.000-08:00

Why neither the left nor right will ever address our problems:

View this excellent 20 minute video on banking, and see how it works. Then ponder this: you can see the evil of Wall Street in practice, but the practice funds both the left and the right. Neither is going to vote or regulate themselves out of existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyyaE3DIxhc&feature=player_embedded

Watch the follow up video, the plot thickens and it gets even better. His conclusion is we can have all we have without the mischief of fractional reserve banking. Perzactly!

Capitalism, or communism for that matter, or any ism, is simply a set of practices that gets codified in law. Those laws we call “positive” or statutory, as opposed to common law or convention out of practice. People clamor to systems that offer security in trade for freedom. None of us has the right to make such a trade, but most people do. No one has the right, but everyone has the power to do so.

Natural law points to a set of practices that leads to peace and prosperity, but the paradox is that it has no structure, no command post, no commanding heights. This offends those infected with libido dominandi, and their minions who fear having to defend themselves. Between these two stand the vast swathe of humanity, those who demand to be oppressed and those who with sheer contempt oblige.

it’s a false dilemma to think in terms of choosing either left or right. That is no choice at all. The choice is slavery or freedom. One aspect of slavery is violent domination. One reason USA lasted so long is it always had an escape option, a safety valve for those who prefer freedom. We can decline to serve in the military, we can be not subject to federal taxes, we can act pro se in court, we can own guns, so many options.

But the powers that be made their big play under covr of Obama. The president can have a list of people he wants killed, a secret list, formed in secret, by secret people. That will not be undone, the next president will have it too, and she’ll use it. And the military can arrest anyone they want and disappear them, like in some South Americn country.

What goes around comes around, and those horrors over the last several decades were all bought and paid for by USA taxpayers. Now those horrors will come home to USA. But the difference is the safety valves are no longer necessary. The president can murder anyone he wants and he has. Now there is no reason to tolerate, or offer a safety valve, to any citizen. As Stalin said, “no man, no problem.”

Labor and Outsourcing

2011-12-15T07:31:00.000-08:00

Here again Dr.North explains a bit of history:

The main strategy was this: companies build new plants in southern states, which had "right to work" laws. (These should be called "right to bid" laws.) They also moved plants off-shore to nations in which trade unions are weak or non-existent. Then they exported these goods back into the United States at low prices, forcing out of business companies that were saddled with trade union contracts and the NLRB.

Now all this is very true, but I doubt it is significant. The component cost of labor of virtually anything imported is less than 5%. Labor costs simply to not rise to the level of being a factor in international trade.

There are two other commonly cited aspects to outsourcing, yet people miss, and they are tax avoidance and money laundering. Tax avoidance is the motivation, money laundering is the means.

Take a USA auto maker who is earning 100 million profit in USA, taxable at 35%. Now say Big Car, which also imports cars, does not care to pay this tax, (and why should they?) Anyway, what they do is jack up the price from the maker overseas on the next 500,000 cars by $200 each, and then that $100 million cost in USA eliminates the profits in USA, and at the same time the $100 million ends up as “profits” to the maker overseas. Voila! No profit in USA, no taxes.

Now the government i well aware of this scam, so it is illegal. When the cars come into the USA, importers must declare if the supplier is related in any way to the importer, ‘related transaction.” So, legal fictions are employed to make these companies not related. No, but the directors of this corporation are directors of that corporation too. And money is fungible, and what would have been mulcted to the use of uncle Sam is now directed to where the capitalists would most like it to go.

Now, when they get this wrong, and do turn a loss, not to worry, the taxpayers will bail them out. Or experience inflation, which is another means of corporate bailout.

How to solve the problem? Get rid of IPR and subsidies which both protect the abusive big business. eliminate the incentive to avoid taxes and launder money by getting rid of the taxes. Then we will see a renaissance in small business introduction and innovation, and we can move up and beyond.

As it stands now, there is nothing being done that can help the economy recover.

Apple Price Comparison APP Salvation for Small Business

2011-12-14T14:55:00.000-08:00

As you know small business competes on design, not price. We work the specialty part of the market, introducing innovations. Our designs command premium prices because there is no alternative, and we vend to early adopters.

Now comes Apple with an APP that allows people to scan the barcode to find the same item at a lower price elsewhere or on Amazon.com. Well that APP will demonstrate the best price is on the item the customer is looking at, at that moment, in fact it is the only price.

We already know if you compete on price against Walmart you die, and your business should die if you do so. Small business is specialty competition, not price competition.

If I was a specialty retailer, I'd put a sign in the store that said some thing like "if you can find a better price on Amazon.com, we'll meet it here and now, and you save the shipping costs, here and now!"

In this way you turn Amazon.com's advantage into YOUR advantage. Business is fun and easy when you know how it works. Technology has changed nothing except lowered the cost and widened the access to information.

OWS Shuts Down the Ports!

2011-12-14T14:10:00.000-08:00

Occupy Wall Street is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geo Soros, which explains going after trade in goods. The problem is not that business trades in goods, but that Wall Street trades in funny money. The problem is not people buy radios, but that they buy it on credit which Wall Street can abuse with credit creation. Barking up the wrong tree... Ultimately, OWS sees no alternative to government, so ultimately they will submit to whatever they are told to do. March there! Kill these people. Now live on nothing!

Usury and Environmental Degradation

2011-12-14T09:42:00.000-08:00

I've made the argument that property rights protect the environment, but here is an Islamic financier suggesting usury destroys the environment too...

Hence Michael Lipton's example of a hypothetical plantation farmer who faces a choice of land use. He can farm his trees on a sustainable basis and produce 1000 units in profit annually for ever. Or he can move to intensive farming and produce 1250 units of profit annually for twenty years, after which his land turns to desert. With interest rates of more than 9% per annum, a standard discounted cash flow analysis recommends that the farmer chooses the intensive option. Unfortunately, this 'killing of the golden goose' is not confined to theory. The world's top deforesting nations are among its most indebted partly because saving trees is less of a priority than servicing international debt.

...

Unfortunately, a powerful commercial logic called financial leverage is preventing change in these matters. The business model of most modern corporations is to borrow money at a rate of interest that is below the rate of return earned when investing that money. For example, by borrowing £100 at 5% and investing it in a one year project that yields 20%, the executive manager can earn £15 for his firm. And the banker will earn £5 of interest on his newly created money. It is a rather cosy symbiosis, but its logical consequence is that firms will grow increasingly large over time. Instead of borrowing £100 in order to make £15 of profit, why not borrow £100 million and make £15 million of profit instead?

Now that is interesting, and seems plausible. And when you leverage it with concentrated borrowing power, then you gt abusive big business (big is not necessarily bad...)

Drones

2011-12-13T09:05:00.000-08:00

USA has been threatening Iran. China is backing Iran, with Russia. A USA drone lands in Iran and is captured. USA has a base near the Seychelles. China wants refueling and resupplying in the Indian Ocean for its Navy. A USA drone lands at the airport in Seychelles.

China has no bases overseas. China buys what they want. For the USA base in Diego Garcia, some 2000 inhabitants were forcibly removed in 1971 (not 1871). Those drones appear to be hacked and taken over. This would demonstrate a balance of power that factors China, if USA does not have a technology advantage.

Any innovation, once introduced, becomes standard. China is behaving as USA once behaved, when we were peaceful and prosperous. We need to bring our troops home and re-new freedom here.

Visiting Hong Kong & Freedom

2011-12-12T07:09:00.000-08:00

To get to Hong Kong it is likely you will buy a ticket from an airline and fly into Kai Tak Airport, which is publicly traded corporation. All transportation in Hong Kong is either private or corporate for-profit private business. Your invitation to the airport, where luggage carts are free, is your airline ticket. Passing immigration and customs is astonishingly easy, and the welcome very generous. From there you can take the Metro or Busses or taxis or limousines to the cities, where of course you pay for your ride. What is your destination? A hotel? A friends house? In any event, you will pay some property owner, or be the guest of a property owner.

After that you will eat at restaurants, visit museums, do business at offices, all be means of and with private property owners. There really is not contact with government to speak of.

But then the people of Hong Kong have little contact with government. The currency, what we call money, is put out by three private companies. The payment card, the Octopus which accounts for about US$12 million in small purchases everyday is a private payment means. As long as you do not push force or fraud, you are likely never to encounter the government, except a the post office, but even then, most mail is now in private hands.

Charities are wildly oversubscribed, and the people of Hong Kong are overwhelmingly generous when disaster strikes elsewhere.

Less than half of Hong Kong citizens pay any tax whatsoever, and the rest pay someone between zero and the 16% maximum rate, which extremely few pay. Yet Hong Kong is remarkably safe, and food and health care and housing and schooling are cheap and plentiful. The government runs such a surplus, it invests the money in publicly traded companies, for a rainy day. There is none of the deficit spending, since there is no sense that government should solve all problems. Business solves problems. Hong Kong people can leave anytime. The government does maintain some sports facilities, gardens and even some public housing which it is selling off, but otherwise it is a laissez faire dreamland.

Hong Kong was formed at the same time as the United States by the same enlightenment Scotsmen who formed the United States. The USA changed, Hong Kong remained remarkably constant. Will Rogers said invest in land, it is the only thing they are not making more of. Except in Hong Kong, where they make more land constantly. And build straight up at a rate rarely matched elsewhere. With property rights, and a weak government with little ability to do public domain, Hong Kong remains remarkably unchanged, except what goes on underground, straight up and on new land. Since 1977, Hong Kong is the least changed place I've ever visited.

At the same time, the per capita income matches USA and exceeds their previous masters, the UK. And As USA declines, HK continues to improve. It has everything the world has to offer, at a wide array of prices. You can get anything you need, and likely you can afford it. It is a most polyglot country, with extremely diverse people working side by side. It is more panarchy than anarchy, you'll find free marketers, communists, capitalists, Buddhists, Moslems, Christians all working side by side in peaceful cooperation.

People say less government leads to Somalia. No, less government leads to Hong Kong. Notice how the visitor depends on the goodwill of property owners ever step of the way in Hong Kong. Should you decline to pay, your option is to leave. There is no US-style welfare in Hong Kong, although plenty of charity. But for people who do not care to produce, the charitable thing is to send them back home. Note: if you manage to make it to Hong Kong, you must produce or go home. If you manage to make it to USA, you are guaranteed welfare. Relatively speaking, Hong Kong has open borders and no welfare. USA has open borders and welfare. USA is closing its borders. It need only eliminate welfare, and respect property rights, especially those in other countries. Perhaps then there would not be so much immigration. This is more just.

Another feature of free markets is that the mega-welfare queens have no opportunity to indirectly mulct from the society in which they reside. Hong Kong is the only place where WalMart has failed. On the other hand, Apple is booming in Hong Kong. WalMart depends on WelFare. Apple depends on customers.

It has some oddities: the only gambling permitted is horse racing, and the profits go to charity. Chinese people are strictly limited access to Hong Kong. How strange! It is under the aegis of the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China. Wow! If a "public servant" cannot explain how he came by his assets, he can be prosecuted, at any time, whether while working or after retirement. It's the law. www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/.../code_of_conduct_eng.pdf

Someone asked me how come I don't move to Hong Kong? Why should I? This is my country, not the criminals who make war and bail out banks and torture and murder citizens and spy on me and search me in airports. The judges, the politicians, the cops, the welfare queen big business captains. They are the ones who have to leave, not me. Why would I leave. They can go. Then USA will improve.

I Cook

2011-12-11T18:16:00.003-08:00

6 oz. Couscous (North African Pasta)

2 oz. oil

T minced garlic

1/2 diced onion

6 oz can of coconut milk

1 T curry powder

1 lb. shelled, deveined shrimp (any kind).

Bring 12 oz of water to a boil in lidded pan and add the couscous. Let return to boil and take off the heat and set aside. Do not stir.

In medium skillet at medium high heat sauté onions and garlic in any oil or fat until brown. Stir in coconut milk. As the coconut milk begins to bubble stir in curry powder. Let that start to boil and stir in shrimp. Stir shrimp until it turns pink, which is likely less than 90 seconds, or if the shrimp is precooked maybe 30 seconds to heat through. Turn off the heat.

Curry spiciness increases with time and heat, so don’t be fooled by an early taste of the curry. Give the curry time to ripen in the pan, taste toward the end of the process. if it is not spicy enough, then add more to taste, again, giving time before you check.

This is such a simple dish, you can throw in other spices and ingredients, like caraway seeds and sliced olives. Look through your fridge and spice rack to see what will give contrast to the bright yellow of the curry, like dill or black pepper, or both. Parsley garnish is nice. This is a great basic dish upon which you can be creative. The three basic ingredients are couscous, coconut milk and curry; you can swap any meat or fish for the shrimp, or even make it vegetarian.

The couscous is ready when it looks like a porridge and the water has been absorbed, usually no more than five minutes.

A glass custard cup is about 6 oz, so if you use that to measure the dry couscous, it makes a nice form for the cooked couscous. In any event mound the couscous between four bowls or plates and divide up the shrimp curry over the couscous.

October Trade Report

2011-12-10T09:30:00.000-08:00

Dipping slightly....More data than you can stand is here at USCensus....

Islamic Finance And Banking History

2011-12-09T10:00:00.000-08:00

I came across a site with a course on Islamic Finance hosted by a fund manager, Tarek El Diwany, who advocates orthodox Shari'ah compliant finance. Here he notes a subtle point I had not considered:

But, if it were indeed the case that the banker had the power to manufacture money, why did he not simply print receipts and spend them on his own consumption? Simply because, in spending his receipts, the banker would no longer own them. It would then be certain that in due course all of the receipts would return to his institution for redemption in gold - gold which never existed in the first instance. By lending the receipts instead, the banker could charge interest on the amount lent. Upon repayment, the receipts could be destroyed as easily as they had been manufactured, but the interest charge would remain as revenue.

As I understand it this fellow laments that most Islam is making similar mistakes they most Christianity made 300 years ago when it considered the issue of "usury" as an absolute prohibition. For the record, the Catholic church still maintains and absolute prohibition on usury, what we might call interest, in any amount for any time period.

Virginia Tech Gun Attack Again

2011-12-08T20:17:00.000-08:00

People who randomly kill others are cowards. They pick places where they are not likely to meet resistance to do their killing. Virginia Tech has a gun ban on Campus. The College I went to in the 1970s has a rifle and pistol club. It was unremarkable to see a rifle case carried by a student on campus, any more than seeing someone with a tennis racket. It just means there is a meet today. Pistoleros had there guns in a bag.

The first such campus shoot-em up occurred at UT Texas, when an ex-marine began sniping and killing students from a Tower. People driving cars and gun clubbers returned fire, laying down suppression on the Marine sharpshooter.

When the first cop arrived at the scene he asked a man with a rifle who were all these people with guns firing back?

"Texans." Came the reply. Eventually a citizen and a officer worked their way up the tower and executed the Marine. No swat. No "perimeter." Just old fashioned "git 'er done..."

There has not been a repeat performance at UT Austin, possibly because UT Austin still has an active Rifle and Pistol Club. Fool around with a gun on UT Austin Campus, and Suzy Sophomore might surprise you by busting cap in your head. She's #2 in the state rankings.

Today two more were killed by a gunman on Virginia Tech campus. Firearms are forbidden on the Virginia Tech campus. One killed was a cop. Of course, kill the cop, and then for sure you are free to kill at leisure. Whose left to defend the students? When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

If you believe in the right to self-defense, then it is hypocritical to leave it to others. One should be reasonably sure they can kill an attacker. Get the right equalizer, and make training part of your life. It would be a good business too. The state is burning the cops, like teachers. You'll surely need to defend yourself.

Interest and Usury

2011-12-08T07:56:00.000-08:00

As I proceed through the book on Islamic financing, in which usury (commonly mistaken as interest) is forbidden, I wonder what a market in which no usury occurs would look like.

I wonder if it can be quantified? Can we quantify how much business is done under usury? And if so, can we figure out the success/failure rate of such deals? And then can we qualify what business activity is generally supported by usury? I suppose, and this would be a moral judgment, that if usury was used to keep orphanages well provided that is one thing, but if usury kept crack dealers well funded that would be another.

If we are careful to notice the market (trade in goods and services) is a subset of the economy (the sum total of all human action), we already know that relatively little of the economy is supported by interest bearing agreements. If you add up a ride to work, a neighbor giving you a pie, volunteer firemen and so on, surely the majority of the economy is not related to interest bearing agreements.

Next, the entire stock market, equities, has no interest aspect. It is shared risk. Bonds, that is debt, surely carry usury components, and in Islamic finance there are bonds, but they are not-interest bearing, the bondholder shares the profit and loss without taking equity or putting in money. (Say a company wants to buy a new machine, and the vendor will not sell on credit. A third party may guarantee the payment, with a view to enjoying some of the profit from the expanded business provided for by the new machine. In this way it is like a bond, but no interest and a different kind of risk.)

Then there is of course usury (interest) in banking on everything from credit cards to auto loans to home loans. Here is where the mischief lies. Mismatched maturities (borrow low usury rates short term and lend high usury rates long term) and fractional reserve (multiplier effect on loans made and deposits of proceeds booked). This is where both the magic of compound interest aggregates power in the hands of the few and in the same measure destroys the weal of the masses.

Even if usury is immoral, it is not illegal. Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that untold wealth can be amassed through usury, people still resort to simple theft.

MFGlobal had little to do with usury, its stock in trade was hedging risk of farmers and commodities. In this instance, the people running the company simply stole the investors money and directed it into their own accounts, for their own benefit.

Now listen to the former head of Goldman Sachs, former US senator, former New Jersey governor, the person head of MFGlobal and the next US Sec of Treasury, Jon Corzine had to say about himself and the stealing over a billion dollars:
“I sincerely apologize, both personally and on behalf of the company, to our customers, our employees and our investors, who are bearing the brunt of the impact of the firm’s bankruptcy,” Corzine says.
Bankruptcy is the problem? No, taking peoples' money and using it as your own is the problem. Bankruptcy is the result.

When people cannot see what they are doing is wrong even when it is clearly wrong, then how to expect them to perceive something more subtle, like usury, as wrong?

Field Trip: Occupy Seattle Teach-In

2011-12-07T08:18:00.000-08:00

Last night I attended an Occupy Seattle Teach-In on the University Of Washington Campus, where the economic crisis and the dissolution of our Republic was addressed. Including me, there was never more than eight people in the room, including also the 2 teachers.

The Bolshevik Revolution started with a marginal and unlikely group, and was well financed by powerful interests as well.

The topic was essentially "how to use this moment to advance socialism" and the false dilemma of socialism vs capitalism was presented.

I inquired as to the internal contradiction of having the regulators, who are always captured by the regulated, curb the capitalists, when they have not done so before.

Well, we have to believe there is a structure, a polity in which people behave themselves, where the profit motive is not foremost.

Ah, you mean like Hong Kong. No, Hong Kong has a CEO in charge, it is totalitarian. Sigh.

The next step is to shut down the ports. http://westcoastportshutdown.org/ This will show the capitalists that their system can be shut down. Good luck.

It is clear capitalism is over, it was slightly better than communism, if you measure it by how long it lasted, but now USA political system is up for grabs. Those who failed are stealing whatever is not nailed down on their way out. The activists are working under a false dilemma: capitalism vs socialism.

The desire of activists is to be in charge. Free markets does not have anyone in charge (except, vaguely, the customer.). Free markets may solve the problems we face, but free markets do not have anyone in charge. The search is on for a new system that has people in charge, and the activists are hashing out what this might be, and how they might be in charge.

At best, nothing will change. At worst, it will get chaotic. Get ready to escape to anarchy. Get ready to live in a Free Market.

I was a Ron Paul delegat to the Washington State convention. It became real clear real fast that the Tea Party people (to Ron Pauls' credit he never embraced the Tea Party, and good thing he didn't.)

Social Media Thoughts

2011-12-06T07:46:00.000-08:00

As google gets into the social media game with its service google+, I again review the possibilities. Might it serve one's business? Keep in mind I still do not believe in web-based marketing... it is great for retaining customers, but lousy for gaining customers...

What if one solicited customers to report their experiences with your product or service on your "facebook page." Public declarations tend to help people commit; public declarations drive competition, as people see others progressing they get encouraged (or envy?) spurs them to act; to some degree there is reality theatre in play as well. So my question is, would it result in more customers and better results? Who knows...

Now, how would this apply to you? let me take a field I have never worked in, as a thought experiment... and then you can think it through for your project...

Looking at indochino.com and http://www.blanklabel.com/ and others, they are missing the opportunity. Both are managing the tailors, which is unnecessary and terribly expensive.

Think of crowdsourcing http://99designs.com/ brought to tailoring...

A website that matches people needing clothes made and the tailors worldwide, taking payment in escrow, to assure customer satisfaction.

Retail is theatre, and this website is unique in that every customer's progress is social-media'ed, that is their selection of tailor, selection of garments, and then taking measurements, cutting, sewing, first fitting, and adjusting is all photo-journalized and blogged with the customers feedback as the final act. Reality TV, everyone is a star, commerce... so many threads...

Before Congress destroyed garment imports (recently restored) there was a tailor downtown who took measurements, telexed them to hong kong for the suit to be made, and then shipped it to usa, where the tailor would do final fitting. this fellow had a crew in chinatown that did the finish work.

Indochina offers up to $75 credit to get it right with a local tailor. I think make that mandatory, that is, a local tailors review of the work.

That is just a rough sketch, as an idea, that might help in relating to your own thing...

Retailers, Reps & Product Lines

2011-12-05T08:22:00.000-08:00

CJ checks in on visiting retailers...

I visited my favorite store in DC to talk to two different toy inventors/company owners who came-in to the store to demo their products.

***Ack... since employers are finding it more difficult to have employees, they foist more of their work on their suppliers... alarming trend...***

Both inventors and the store owner said that the hardest part of the business is getting the sales reps to properly represent a small start-up or even an ongoing small toy company with a proven track record.

***Yes, 80/20 ... the stores need the new to interest customers (20) but the customers largely buy the standard (80).. But the first question the buyers ask of the sales reps is “what is new?” since that is what brings in the customers, even if the customers do not buy “what is new” at a very high rate.., importers are rarely pleased with the efforts of the reps, but rarely can out-do the reps...***

In fact, they said that by comparison getting a product to show was easy ("….anybody can go to China and have something made…")

***Very true, even if competing on design...but most people buy from china “off-the-shelf”... did they draw a distinction that design has advantage? Where the importers' items of their own design, or “off the shelf”? their comments are true either way, but the situation impossible if the importers are not competing on design.***

They argued that since the sales reps have limited time with the owners, they usually maximize their expected sales by showing the complete lines, including numerous new products, from large established companies (e.g. LEGO).

*** Again, very true... LEGO of which stores MUST buy, but the first question is “what is new?” ...so they MUST buy “new” too... just in no where near the qty of the LEGO basics...***

They also felt that the large companies have so many new toys coming out that there was little niche left for small businesses in the sales reps' priorities.

***This is nothing new either. When “lego” comes out with somethign new, it is actually somethign they “stole” from a small business... we see this more starkly in garment trade, but it happens there too... in every field... these complaints are not new, they’ve always been the “skin-of-the-teeth” nature of the business... (if insurmountable, how come they continue?)

Thats why we shop for our “ideas” as customers first, so we can see if retailers think it is a “good idea and does not exist”***

I asked if this was an artifact of the toy industry/toy stores and if I'd be better off marketing my products as gifts. They didn't think so.

***I agree...***

They pointed out the considerable overlap between the toy and gift industries. Evidently their sales reps show their products "everywhere from museum shops to gas stations" so they believe the same holds in the gift stores.

***I agree, but only to note that the reps sell everywhere where they do not cross the line in the law of diminishing returns.***

I'd like to get your reaction to their assertions that it's difficult to get sales reps to represent your products well. I can guess some things you might say but if you don't mind commenting, I'd like to hear what you think.

*** It is absolutely true, and I think (I hope) I say so in the book... on the one hand the store owner wants to see new, on the other, the store owner does not want much new, because it is untested... so that ends up being a small part of the rep’s overall sale, but a critical part...the reps motivation is not big, more strategic... the rep is going to outsell you in any case, but specifically you do not have time to sell, and markups reflect this with the room for a sales’ reps commission in the markups... Further, getting back to your conversants critique, not only is it hard to push new items as a small business, it is counterproductive for you to do so. Design is so critical that it is the only work for which the you actually gain compensation. Everything else can be farmed out. And even here the small biz importer owner is more of an impresario, since he brings people together, even designers to execute the solution. ***

...on a promising note, the store owner volunteered to e-mail her favorite sales rep to tell her I'd be getting in-touch with her.

***And that is exactly why we go to the retailers ourselves, is to get the references of the reps they like best. Expect to be discouraged, to have expectations talked down, it’s part of the reps services (almost all people think they will get rich with one item, not realizing the work is a lifelong integrated process)..

She said she's a "real New Yorker" and will tell me very clearly what she thinks. Since I'm from a long line of New Yorkers, she sounds like a perfect match.

***Indeed...I’ll get popcorn and watch the show!***

History of Communism

2011-12-04T14:49:00.000-08:00

Not unlike so many other -isms... think of the American Indians and USA capitalism as you watch this very disturbing series...

Financial Regulation

2011-12-03T06:58:00.000-08:00

"Deregulation" is blamed for the current economic mess, which is rather absurd, since our economy is heavily regulated. For example, we have

Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) [127]
Federal Reserve System ("Fed")
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) [128]
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)
In addition, each state has its own banking authority ^[1

Regulation is driven by the regulated. When we change regulations, the changes merely serve to create a new set of winners and losers, not assure fair or orderly markets. Note that in spite of all that above, regulators managed to jail Martha Stewart but not stop Jon Corzine or Bernie Madoff. We need not a single one of those agencies nor any of their employees. We can save hundreds of millions eliminating all of them today, and it would make no difference in the markets, but help reduce our budget deficit.

In a free market there is no need for any government financial regulation of any sort. The market itself produces counter-parties to mischief makers. Any financial instrument goes up or down in value, depending on countless variables and human perception. Investors can go long or short. In going long, they buy and hold. In going short, they borrow and sell. Short-sellers believe a stock will drop in price, so they borrow it and immediately sell it at $10, expect it to drop to $2, at which point they will buy it and return it from whom they borrowed it. Thus the short-seller has earned $8.00.

It was short-sellers, not regulators, who spotted Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, InfoSpace and countless other dubious propositions. What happens is as short-interest grows, people look closer and it becomes apparent to more and more people what the problem is with a particular company. If short-sellers are right, they do very well. If they are wrong, they get burned exponentially (and their target is rewarded by the short-sellers error).

It is the short-sellers who risk their own money when they perceive fraud or foolishness. In either case, short-sellers believe the price of an asset will drop, and they act on that belief. Short-sellers perfectly match the activities of the foolish and fraudulent expanding and contracting with the waxing and waning of the players. You cannot design better regulation of markets than the natural provision of regulation inherent in short-selling.

The fact that we have overwhelming regulations and regulators gives investors a false confidence that their investments are safe. Our personal faculties of reason and skepticism atrophy, making we investors all the more susceptible to loss.

Regulators are so captured and their views so distorted that during the boom years, when the damage occurred, Beal Bank and Presto were both prosecuted for not participating in the criminal activities. If either were engaged in mischief, short-sellers would have sniffed them out. They were, it turns out, being very smart.

Short-selling is necessary and sufficient regulation in market. What we get instead are such "leaders" as the peripatetic Christopher Cox whose tenure as SEC Chairman is greatly admired by those who greatly benefitted from the changes he introduced. No word from the vast masses of people who were on the losing side of his regulatory changes.

In 2008, for example, those who had shorted financial stocks in response to extremely foolish and criminal acts of the big banks, found that Christopher Cox, in his role as head of the SEC, banned short-selling in order that the banks would be immune to the market that made them rich. Cox later claimed to regret his actions, but this is silly since at the time he knew what he was doing and no doubt has been rewarded astronomically since then. If he cared he would disgorge his profits from his "service."

If someone with integrity strives in public service, she (in this rare case) will be frozen out, and find no efforts rewarded. There is simply no efficacious alternative to free market regulation.

American Jews & Foreign Aid

2011-12-02T11:50:00.000-08:00

One thing I did learn at a University of Washington colloquy last night on American Jews and foreign aid was the USA has agreed to get nonmilitary foreign aid up to .07 % of our budget, and ten years after this treaty we are at less than .02% The speaker gave examples of what we already know, that is foreign aid is usually harmful, if not counterproductive. Nonetheless, we were criticized for not being at the full funding. Ahem, if we do poorly at less than .02%, we are going to do better with 3.5 times the money?

To be fair, the speakers advised a better way of getting the money where it can do good. They compared 50 years ago with today, and found things worse. Yes, we know that. Every decade or so we are treated to an admission of failure, and then an explanation of how it can be done right. In a decade we'll be hearing criticism of the present efforts, which will fail too. Sometimes results reveal intentions.

Not that they do not have their facts straight. The people of these benighted lands are not stupid. The problem is they are so beset with debt, compliments of leaders who agree to whimsical projects which cannot pay off and cannot be paid off, that the governments are essentially kleptocracies, tributary satrapies. And should you make any money in a kleptocracy, the government is designed to steal it. Why make anything nice if it will only be stolen. Vast swathes of USA citizens will spend the next 30 year at least, possibly 200, pondering precisely this question. (Regarding your money in MFGlobal, we'll get back to you in six months. It's complicated.)

The speakers noted we flood a country with "free food" which ruins the local farmers. The farmers are reduced to native handicrafts and textiles to live. We forbid the importation of their native handicrafts and textiles to the USA. We are not nice.

One speaker noted just how tricky it is to get charity right, a theme I have been arguing for a while. Where matters are balanced, and benefit to one necessarily disadvantages the other, relatively speaking. Only free trade offers equal opportunity, and growth without distortion and imbalance.

You can easily observe what USA does overseas by watching what our government does here. Look at all the people trapped for life in student loans or home loans. Look at small farmers run out of business as big farmers get subsidies. Look at "free" medicines loaded with lifetime disabilities.

One conversant shared that her people in Haiti reported that Haitians don't want shelter or food or public transport, they want jobs. Sigh, any third rate merchant can tell you that. Why are there not jobs? Because there is no freedom. If you make anything nice in Haiti, it will be stolen by the kleptocrats. If you try to make change, you will be crushed by the USA-backed powers that be. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Signs of hope are reported: USAID is now funneling more money through organizations, such as the speakers on the stage. Here again, the NGOs admit the failure, and say, more government, and just better oversight and just get the right people.... Nonsense. No matter what configuration we see, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The new arrangements will fail as badly as the old.

In communism you are so directed that you'll never produce anything good. In capitalism you are free to initiate but you are so regulated that whatever you make is forfeit to the state. (Regarding your money in MFGlobal, we'll get back to you in six months. It's complicated.) Those who benefit from this system emphasize the 'free" in that last sentence, and ignore the rest. Those who benefit from the system think you should be killed if you disagree. The president has a list of people he can kill without any warning or warrant.

Now that seems rash to say, but pause and reflect on the harshness of a regime that has a list of citizens, for whatever reason, it can kill without warning or warrant, extrajudicially. Note the killings have started, and our system has not, perhaps it cannot, protect USA citizens before the murders start. If congress and the courts cannot or will not respond to the executive murdering citizens at will, then the system has irretrievably failed. That Obama has not been impeached for this crime, and then tried for murder is a victory for those who manage the comic-book narrative USA citizens consume. Seven of eight Republican candidates want more of the same, and more. If the democrats claim they will end it, remember Obama's promises to do so, which got him elected. Waiting...!

Like the Reformation, the bloody conflicts around the world are over turf, and revenue, not religion. Semites, Jew and Arab alike, have long contended over their lands. USA exploits that. We foment and exploit the map we were handed in victory after WWII. Now vast swathes of humanity want a better way. The British beat the French, Spanish and Germans (who wants what Russia has....?) in the empire game because they, relatively speaking, shared power and wealth with those they colonized. With USA as the exception, usually this meant negotiated independence eventually.

China has on offer to the world a better deal than the USA. The Chinese seem to have learned from their erstwhile overlords it's better to share than to take it all. Growing economies are more stable than deteriorating economies. Where China shows up there is a new railroad and jobs, with China sharing the risk on investments and the locals sharing the wealth. Whereas the USA's top three puppets in the last decade have been hanged, gunned down and raped and beaten to death in that order. Lemme see, railroad or atrocity, railroad or atrocity.... hmmm... inquiring minds world wide ponder the options.

The Arabs may have more than one wife, and they have married both USA and China. Israel is married to the USA, something at which the world wonders. People believe it is a matter of Jewish influence on USA politics. Step back, way back. Look... on balance does it not seem far more likely it is USA politics directing Israel?

Over a thousand years ago the Jews thrived under Moslems while China was resplendent in its Golden Age of the Tang Dynasty. Then the barbarians showed up, looking for real estate and loot in the name of Christianity.

The innovation of the United States was an attempt to get it right. We were doing quite well, but sadly we got off track. It is no longer working. Perhaps we can arrive at a restoration of USA freedom. Our first task is to withdraw our forces, both arms and aid, from the world. People worry what evils will fill the vacuum of American withdrawal. Well, it truly cannot get worse. In any event, it is the problem of people newly free to sort out their freedom. We did it. And they are all as smart as we are.

After we return home, what experience the people of the world have with USA be in the form of small businesses who come to trade, on mutually beneficial terms, not looking down the barrel of a gun. Not isolationism, but free trade. And there is no bar to individuals still offering aid, not that people who trade freely need aid. Free markets never need bailing out.

I was likely the only Christian in a room of some 200 Jews. The event was uninteresting. No new ideas. No challenging thoughts or propositions. That was a first for me, as I have always had at least three opinions on a topic even if there are only two Jewish discussants. Last night was total agreement on status quo. Judaism cannot survive sterility. It seems to me it is time for Israel to divorce the USA and marry China. Its security depends on it, better to be allied with a power that constrains Iran in friendship than one which provokes Iran in enmity.

In the USA, Israel's best friends are politicians and Christians whose support is directly linked to a belief in a heresy that claims death is avoided and heaven awaits for those who endure an event in which 2/3rds of the Jews are destroyed. Nice friends, they. These are not the brightest segments of our society, and they get mean if disappointed. Anti-Jewish sentiment is hard to gauge, which makes it all the more dangerous.

China has no such emotional engagement with Israel or Jews, for the Chinese can match the Jews in length and breadth and depth of experience and culture, and for that matter cosmology. Israel does not capture the Chinese imagination as it does the Christian's, which is a much safer relationship. And the Chinese aid on offer comports more closely with the Bible than USA aid on offer. The Chinese sense of social justice is something the Jews would exercise far more amenably under Chinese hegemony than USA hegemony.

This is not to say the Chinese cannot be every bit as wicked as the USA, it is just to say look at the results. USA need not be wicked at all, and we are better suited to lead by example rather than leash and whip. Our democracy permits too few people to arrogate power unto themselves. (Regarding your money in MFGlobal, we'll get back to you in six months. It's complicated.)

The USA needs to work out some internal contradictions. The world can go on nicely without our tutelage. Time for USA to come home.

Jury Nullification

2011-12-01T09:59:00.000-08:00

The American colonists were trying to escape the constant "religious" wars (actually turf wars) when they escaped to the anarchy of the Americas. Knowing spontaneous order comes out of chaos when people arrive, and there is no king (an+archy) the colonists set up shop. A few critical points: freedom of religion, selective legal recourse, attorneys general, no double jeopardy, bounty hunting, conscientious objection, homesteading, riparian law and property rights, self-representation, no standing military, trial by jury and jury nullification.

In USA, the jury can listen to the government's case, and even though the jury believes the defendant is guilty of the crime on the books, the jury can decide they do not like the law and to declare the defendant not guilty, and let the defendant go free. AS important as the legislature and the judiciary, a jury is the final word on the law in a given case. The juries job is to represent the community and decide in this one instance of applying the law, is the to be applied? Jury nullification does not change the law, for other juries in other cases may apply it, it is just this case. It is another example of how the people are supreme in USA, and government workers, no matter their political rank, are to obey the citizens.

A free society has at least that.

Tunisian Resistance

2011-12-01T04:08:00.000-08:00

With Libya the object lesson, people are forgetting Tunisia. Like Iran 30 years ago, and Egypt shortly thereafter, the evil regimes propped up by foreign imperialists are in fact overthrown by completely domestic efforts. We need never engage in regime change since the people who would benefit, the oppressed citizens clearly from history can effect it themselves. Cut out military spending 99.76% and we can be perfectly safe.

Our country was organized on the idea we would not have a standing army. A well armed citizenry, yes, that does not pass its responsibility for self defense onto a "king." This is the controversy over the 2nd amendment: if you expect to be free, you better be armed. Such sentiment is unthinkable to the modern mind, so the plain meaning is a real head-scratcher to those socially conditioned to believe they should dial 9-11 whenever they fear something, instead of putting a couple of rounds in a scattergun. Problem is, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Our military interventionism is imposing an isolationism on USA. As we kill more and more people we make more antipathy towards the USA and the American people. Also, since we do not follow natural law, we are missing out on activities of people trading worldwide that are just avoiding any USA participation. This is how our military might isolates us. To survive as a nation we must cut our military at least 98% and get back to peace and prosperity and world trade. When we had practically no military, the first country to recognize us, literally, as good was the Moslem country of Morocco. To this day these Moslems get an automatic 10 year visa if they want to come to USA.

We got off track letting big govt and big business become one. To survive, the left has to give up the welfare state and the right has to give up the warfare state. What are the chances of that?

In the meantime, having lost Libya oil, the Chinese are hardening their agreements with Iran and Pakistan. According to this report, China will defend iran even if it means WWIII.

FBI Pensions

2011-12-01T03:29:00.000-08:00

There is an article covering FBI agent outrage over J Edgar Hoover being portrayed as gay in a movie, and this paragraph quoting an agent struck me as odd:

A closed email list for retired agents has been swamped with complaints about the movie, but agents younger than 70 or so don't seem to understand the reverence for Hoover, the president of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI tells theWashington Post. “Devotion is probably a good word for my generation and up,” he says. “The more recent people can’t understand why all the energy is being devoted to this when our benefits are at stake."

As I have been saying here, law enforcement is going to get nailed on their benefits. How come this agent brought it up in that context, who knows. But there you have it. At the Meiji Restoration, one day the samurai were all-powerful, the next day they were made impotent. What will happen at the American Restoration?

Now Newt Uses It

2011-11-30T14:09:00.000-08:00

Here is that remarkable rhetorical device, "my weaknesses are my strengths" that I blogged on earlier, this time Newt is using it, regarding cheating on his wives:

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate," Mr. Gingrich said.

Hmmm... can he admit he hurt his wife and kids? Doesn't matter, according to the article, this is all that is needed to appease the evangelical set, wherein if you really really care about America, then, well, there is no sin in sin. Evangelical women everywhere should reflect on how their husbands really really care about America, and the pass that Richard Land and Rick Warren will give their husbands.

How about "If his wife can't trust him, why should we?" Pass.

Do they evangelicals know that in addition to cheating on his wives Newt also converted to Catholicism?

Credible Anarchy

2011-11-30T07:41:00.000-08:00

Over at the Cobden Centre a correspondent notes world banking can be compared to one quart of sewage mixed with 3 quarts of milk to yield 4 quarts of sewage. Apt, that. To which I reply:

Four Quarts of Sewage

Well, who put in the sewage?

When a bank robber has done his job, the banker and many depositors are chagrined. Who is happy? Why, the bank robber! But he must be very, very quiet, or he will be beset with outraged depositors and apoplectic bankers.

To mix the metaphors, the problem with the quart of sewage in the gallon milk pail is there is a paper trail as to who deposited the sewage into the pail. Anglophone bankers in general and American in particular are the culprits. Sure German and Greek bankers alike fed at the trough, but they were educated in “banking” by the anglophone bankers, mostly at Goldman Sachs, if not the LSE. Bank robbers are a charismatic lot, and if they dominate banking, serious men find other work and the field is left to adoring clerks.

The transaction tax, a threat to ruin the London exchange, is blackmail, which is usually the first threat a bank robber encounters as people figure out whodunnit. At some point the world will get around to Wall Street. Bank robbing bankers and their ganymede politicians (Barney Frank is slipping out of town) are subject to blackmail. Right now they can get us to pay.

Along with the yeoman work of defining terms should come the herculean task of specific recommendations on how to manage the unwinding of the crisis. Since the economy involves everyone, recommendations for reform are desultory without a plan to sort out the present mess.

The masses look to politics for relief, and we vote in “change” but only of dramatis personae, not policy. Presently the policy is “taxpayers will pay.” The false dilemma is taxpayers pay or the economic system crashes. The true alternatives are claw back and disgorgement instead of taxes and inflation. Yes, with claw back and disgorgement AN economic system will fail, the obnoxious present system, but not THE economic system, the 3 quarts of milk.

Banker George Soros is profiting wildly at present on home loan financial shenanigans as he finances the homeless Occupy Wall Street crowd. He is betting that people believe they have no alternative, so on he goes. But there is an alternative. We can withdraw our consent to be governed. Mention that, and Cameron, Obama & Co warn that way lies Somalia! No, that way lies Hong Kong, where a trio of private companies issue the currency, as once was in these climes.

Part of the project of reform must be a credible option to dismantle government. Once banking is defined and clarified, then also demonstrate how government need not be involved. If not, then nothing will change. If so, the political class will through a George Soros under the bus and ply free marketers with what we may want.

- سورة البقرة Commentary on Sura 2:275

2011-11-29T09:16:00.000-08:00

It is written:

Sahih International

Those who consume interest cannot stand [on the Day of Resurrection] except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into insanity. That is because they say, "Trade is [just] like interest." But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest. So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists may have what is past, and his affair rests with Allah . But whoever returns to [dealing in interest or usury] - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.

The Prophet (PBUH) tells us Allah forbids usury (commonly referred to as "interest") and clearly distinguishes profit and usury as distinct events. This tracks old testament prophets and the Christian church as well.

Usury is not a sin because Allah says so, but because usury does damage. What makes a sin is harm or damage. Usury, commonly referred to as interest causes harm and damage, but the problem is it is not clear as to how this is so. It is so obscure, that our Creator required prophets to clearly condemn it, and the People of the Book and Mohammed to remind us again and again, usury is forbidden because it does harm.

Just what harm does it cause, and how? This is what goes unexplained. Modern economics explains present value theory, opportunity cost and other rational bases for permitting interest. Against this the best argument contra-usury is Aquinas:

Of the Sin of Usury, Which is Committed in Loans:

To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice....

Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethics v, Polit. i) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation

whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as man is bound to restore ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury....

A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money but to avoid a loss. It may also happen that the borrower avoids a greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore the borrower may repay the lender with what he has gained. But the lender cannot enter an agreement for compensation, through the fact that he makes no profit out of his money: because he must not sell that which he has not yet and may be prevented in many ways from having....

It is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need.

This is the same philosopher who teaches you cannot do evil to achieve good. Perhaps he is considering th Salvation army taking out bonds to finance a reconstruction after a natural disaster. But when such efforts are fully funded with charity, why bother and pay interest? In any event such arguments are hypothetical.

Here is the problem: by the miracle of compound interest, power is aggregated in relatively few hands. This power is then used to distort markets by advancing or withdrawing economic support, through acts of malinvestment.

At the same time usurers are gaining purchasing power and market distortion potential, the borrowers on the reverse side of the magic of earning compound interest, those deluded souls who are borrowers experience the horror of owing debts that keep growing, and often find themselves trying to pay back debt with deflating currency or underwater on an asset for which they borrowed the principal. It is a highly leveraged trap that superficially appears beneficial but in practice is a dark art that drives souls ahead of it to misery and destruction. Farmers lose their land, small businesses lose their working capital, the elderly cannot afford their homes.

All evil is constrained by finance, it must be supported in time and place by capital. A truly free market doe not support the acquisition of exceptional wealth, and although it would permit usury, as a practical matter it would not obtain, because of two features of a free market - regulation and sanction.

In a free market there are no real regulations, simply counter-party actions. If people lent money at usury it is only a matter of time they begin fractional reserve lending. People observing these acts would short the bank stock, and do well when the inevitable bank-run occurred. Usury would be nipped in the bud. There are no central banks in a free market to protect usurers and fractional reservists.

A more direct sanction is the borrower simply does not pay the usury on the loan. A usurer may lend a million dollars, but in a year when the borrower returns it, he refuses to pay the usury fee. Yes the borrower has broken his word. This is where the sanction comes in. In a free market sanctions are limited by freedom to associate, and freedom of press. So when the borrower declines to pay the interest, the lender may raise a stink about the borrower. In the degree anyone cares, the borrower will be sanctioned. The borrower very well may find the sandwich shop owner will not serve him a sandwich. Or more likely, far more likely, is nobody cares and the usurer finds his work unrewarding.

Should the usurer resort to force, then he may find in fact no one will serve him a ham sandwich, to continue the meme. In the business world today, "law" enforcement is almost entirely reputation-related. It is necessary and sufficient to have such free market law enforcement, and as we see demonstrated daily in the headlines, the entire regime of "regulatory enforcement" is pointless featherbedding.

Wherein a Mother Teresa can do great good with no resources, a Hitler or a Capone cannot work without financing. The money necesary to do evil is gathered by usury. This link is so obscure that it is not clear that usury does damage. For this reason usury is forbidden by the prophets in an act of love by our Creator.

When an unwarranted cruise missile drops on a wedding in Afghanistan killing all except a few maimed little girls, it is essentially usury that makes that possible, with additional support from other financial crimes like fractional reserve, etc, which merely leverage usury with money substitutes.

Islamic scholars are struggling with the issue of usury right now on a global level. The Church did so 400 years ago and got the answer right, but begged off any opinion on modern finance on the excuse of not understanding how it all works. As with so much of Western Culture, within Islam resides much that can illuminate current discussions. Now to tap into that discussion, and urge freedom.

Yao Ming Wine

2011-11-28T19:03:00.000-08:00

One of the few class acts in the NBA, Yao Ming, is starting up his own winery, with a view to exporting to China.

USA exporters of wine ruined the market in China for American wine by selling off excess production for dirt cheap. Why the excess production? Huge tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthy is behind the boutique winery fad, not market demand. Excess wine cannot even be dumped in the sewer or poured on the fields, since it is considered hazardous material. I am not making this up. So whether you have good wine but too much for your market (and do not want to cut your price in the domestic market) or bad wine you do not want to pay to be rendered un-hazardous so you can dump it, the best bet is to unload it cheap in China. Then you can at least get something for it. Result is the AVERAGE price for red wine exported from the USA to China is $3 a litre, or about $2 a bottle. You think $2 Chuck is cheap? About 1/2 the Red going to china is cheaper.

Problem is such cheap wine is distributed far and wide in China dirt cheap too, and not provided proper care. Result? In the last decade when Chinese open an an American bottle of wine... bleeecccchhhh!

The problem is the subsidies and tax breaks for the rich. The tea party loves them and the occupy wall street don't understand them. So it ain't going to change. But what feels good is to blame the Chinese guy for it all. Google John Spiers for my email and I'll send you a raw trade data spreadsheet on USA exports of red wine for five years running. Nothing will change if people have no idea what they are talking about.

Feds Pursue Victimless Crimes

2011-11-28T06:54:00.000-08:00

The FEDS have seized and shut down 130 websites on the pretext they were committing crimes with intellectual property violations, selling counterfeit goods.

“Intellectual property crimes are not victimless,” said Attorney General Eric Holder at the time.

“The theft of ideas and the sale of counterfeit goods threaten economic opportunities and financial stability, suppress innovation and destroy jobs. The Justice Department, with the help of our law enforcement partners, is changing the perception that these crimes are risk-free with enforcement actions like the one announced today,” Holder added.

None of the above is true. People selling things Louis Vuitton never made to people who would never be Louis Vuitton customers is hardly "wrong." How can one steal an idea? How do counterfeit goods threaten economic opportunities and financial stability, suppress innovation and destroy jobs? This is oft-repeated but never demonstrated. People who actually study it become anti-IPR like so many patent attorneys and economists are today. See the book below.

People such as myself who actually produce things for a living certainly do not believe Holder's assertions. Although personally I think counterfeit goods is a was of time and talent for a merchant, I certainly see no harm in it. I am not opposed to it, but I would never bother myself and certainly always urge people to do better with their time and creativity than work in counterfeits.

What happened at MFGlobal is only the tip of the iceberg. While bankers and brokers steal countless futures, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are cracking down on on poor people flogging fake crap to other poor people. Both parties are willing participant, no one is getting hurt.

And as an aside, on this false pretext defending economic opportunities and financial stability, innovation and jobs, 130 websites were seized by the government. See how easy if is for them to shut down a site, even when, as the article points out, they do not have the right to do so?

But see how it works... billionaires who have taxpayer-subsidized stadiums have a monopoly on selling Jerseys and then you and I also have to pay to have expensive law enforcement shut down these sites, on some very tendentious pretext. In the meantime holder does not have time to notice if his boys are gun-running into Mexico. Jersey counterfeit interdiction for billionaires - on it! Gunrunning? What's that?

Which Country Has The Most Splendid Soldiers?

2011-11-27T07:47:00.000-08:00

Well, let's see. The Vietnamese have defeated every invader since Genghis Khan (Vietnam was his only defeat) up to recently both the anger and rage of the United State AND the Peoples Liberation Army of China. (The Vietnamese allowed the French a stay as Vietnam modernized with a French flair. The influence has made Vietnamese food the best in Asia.)

The Afghanis go a step farther. Not only do they defeat every invader, most recently the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but currently the USA military, which from Lebanon, to Somalia, to the Balkans to Iraq to Afghanistan cannot catch a break. Our last clear, clean victory was when we pre-emptively attacked Granada, and Island of about 100,000 natives. With no military.

What do these countries share? No standing military. People who when offended or abused get their guns and defend their countries. Sure they all get help from outside, but the outside help does no good unless there is a farmer willing to take the battle to the invaders.

When the colonists in US defeated the worlds major superpower, we too were farmers willing to stand up and deal with problems ourselves. We should learn from the most splendid soldiers on the planet.

The Perennial Error

2011-11-27T07:36:00.000-08:00

When a people finds itself with bad polity within or threats without, or both, they make the eternal error of asking for someone else to handle the problem. This is the genesis of the state (I won't say government, for even anarchy is government: true self-government.)

Essentially, people will accept being oppressed if they do not have to deal with the fear of bullies. So they ask for others to arrogate power unto themselves, as much as they like, as long as the people do not have to face problems themselves.

So we accept child sacrifice, recruiting 19 year olds to go and fight monsters real and imagined. And then we than them for their service. To us. So we do not have to bother standing up to bullies ourselves.
“We want a king over us. ²⁰ Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

Here is the first recorded instance, but one with to many replays to count.
1 Samuel 8

Israel Asks for a King

¹ When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.^[a] ² The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. ³ But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

⁴ So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. ⁵ They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead^[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”

⁶ But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. ⁷ And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. ⁸ As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. ⁹ Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

¹⁰ Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. ¹¹ He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. ¹² Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. ¹³ He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. ¹⁴ He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. ¹⁵ He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. ¹⁶Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle^[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. ¹⁷ He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. ¹⁸ When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

¹⁹ But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. ²⁰ Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

²¹ When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. ²² The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Welfare vs Warfare

2011-11-26T07:13:00.000-08:00

We have a false dilemma, a bit of theatre that reminds me of a Japanese Samurai movie theme: of the two rival factions, the same man is in charge of both. People need something to believe in.

People tend to pick sides as though there are only two options, and with no where to go, people feel stuck.

With the welfare state, there is a safety net. But you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. Assuming there is a respect for property rights, then the best safety net is open borders. We become a country of producers in that case, no need for a safety net.

You cannot have freedom and a standing military. The founders understood this and abjured a standing military, and you can thank a soldier for our lack of freedom. A standing military looks for purpose, and is an incredible cost for little return. The system makes for massive distortion in the marketplace, unrest, and therefore inevitable fascism.

The original sin of these United States is slavery and war. The Continental Army was constantly at a disadvantage because the British offered American slaves freedom, and the American slaves worked for freedom against the colonies. Had we forsworn slavery the British would not have attempted war. Most colonials were against the American war, including many of the founders, but in a democracy it takes very few people to get a war going. No Revolutionary War was necessary, for example Canada gained its independence without war. And the unfreedom for Afro-americans has never been resolved. Indeed, after the war between the states, the winners made slavery permitted in the constitution, in the 13th amendment.

If we respected property rights in law and culture, the best defense we would have is the armed citizenry. But both the welfare and the warfare peoples minds race to Somalia at the sound of that.

It should race to Switzerland instead. And Hong Kong.

Government by Campaign

2011-11-25T09:10:00.000-08:00

In Communist China, Mao ruled by Campaign.

The Counterrevolutionaries Campaign (1950)

The Three Antis and Five Antis campaign (1951-1952)

Campaign against hidden revolutionaries (1955)

The Anti-rightist campaign

The Great Leap Forward (1958).

Mao came up with "more, better cheaper faster" as a part of one of these campaigns. I had arrived at it independently observing how free markets work, and was astonished to see Mao had asked for it in Communism. Just think, if the free marketers had gotten to Mao before the communists, how the history of China may have been different!

The greatest of the campaigns, or worst was the GPCR.

The USA has become a government by campaign. It started with the depression, and government "doing something." They did it. Then there was WWII, then the campaign against communism, then the war on poverty, then the war on drugs and so on.

We have small campaigns too, which are the object of great abuse, such as Sanofor's war on cholestorol.

Crowds and campaign sweep people up to do things they normally would not do. Herd mentality takes over. Great good can be achieved without these campaigns, but we need to understand that good comes slowly but surely.

As the song says "Battle lines are being drawn..." Don't join. Seldom affirm. Never deny. Always differentiate. Think it through. Campaigns are fun, but the damage is done dring the fun part. The housing bust is the unfun part of the fun campaign for "home ownership for everyone."

Dennis Checks in With Budget Decorating Tips

2011-11-24T11:11:00.000-08:00

I think Dennis has a future as the Redneck Martha Stewart Franchise, with his home decorating for the holidays tip:

Happy Alternative Thanksgiving

2011-11-24T08:43:00.000-08:00

One part of the genius of the USA system is the pressure valves, the alternatives, the ways out. In so many areas where the state conflicts with individual conscience, the state yields, such as in war and politics and religion. As long as we have alternatives, we are free. Watch that, then. Happy Thanksgiving.

Insurance and Freedom

2011-11-23T08:47:00.000-08:00

People once had a feeling of participation and respect for government. Sadly with democracy, there is no break on selfishness and greed. Only a free market can offer enough good to keep a check on the progress of evil.

Today unregulated street vendors have respect and patronage, in violation of the law. At the same time, restaurants in fixed locations may bribe an inspector to look the other way, and do.

In any event, there is no way inspectors can meaningfully monitor health safety in all restaurants. They come in after the disaster.

Insurance companies can and would protect us if allowed to, if we had a free market in insurance.

If there was a free market in insurance, it would look as radically different as telecommunications looks today from pre-deregulation telecommunications in 1980.

Street vendors would buy a badge from insurance companies who covered their risk to the street vendors customers. You’d prefer to buy from Jose, and pay 2 cents more per tamale, because he is insured by State Farm. State Farm sets standards as condition of insurance for Jose to follow. The standards State Farm develps lowers risk faster than premiums go down, thus State Farm makes money by making the world ever safer. You eat assured your food is healthy or State Farm pays. We need no government inspectors, Jose can self-police knowing his good work will gain him reputation and longevity.

It is good government is accelerating in its self-destruction, what with wars, covering Wall Street lawlessness, TSA and EBT cards. We need not resist government, it is bringing itself down.

We just need to make sure that we are prepared for the United States government to fall, and the state and local governemnts as well, so we can pick up and bring spontaneous order of anarchy out of the chaos. I hope we can have a bloodless revolution, like they do in comminist countries, such a China and Russia. We’ll see.

Ron Paul Vs Newt

2011-11-23T06:36:00.000-08:00

Ed Meese threw a softball to Newt in the "debates" in which Newt declared the patriot act a good thing in need of no changes. Newt said we need a clear line between criminal acts and terrorist acts. For criminal acts the government needs to be on the defensive, but for terror acts they need tools to prevent a nuclear attack.

Ron Paul responded by saying we can defend the country without totalitarian means.

A real debate would yield better results. Paul and Newt are on opposite sides of this, and time and opportunity to argue would tach us more, the point of a debate.

Newt appealed to false authority to make his point, and then set up a straw man. "Experts say Patriot Act is good... we don't want nuclear attack."

The problem is we have as many responsible law enforcement people who say the patriot act is pointless as those who adore it. So its efficacy is doubtful.

So what the argument really gets down to is differences in vision as to what is America. Newt sees us in perpetual war. Paul sees us engaged with the world in peaceful trade. We provoke hatred by invading other lands. Bring the troops home, nd fix USA, get rid of vestiges of the police state.

Let China sweat the middle east. We've got better things to do.

Quantum Levitation and Distribution

2011-11-22T10:36:00.000-08:00

Because we do NOT have a free market in the USA, we will not be the first, if ever, to have magnetic levitation transportation. Instead of freedom, in the form of deregulating roads in USA, we get lockdown on money transfers and "anti-terror" searches of Greyhound bus riders.

Even our SuperCongress fails, not that anyone should hope.

The set-up is our people have been conditioned: "only the government can provide roads. If you are against government control of roads, then you are against roads."

Never mind that some 60% of roads in USA are privately provided.

But just like no one could see the internet coming when phones were deregulated, we have no idea what we would see, if roads were deregulated. Although the video above suggests clean, cheap universal transportation. But we cannot have it because most Americans believe we cannot have peace unless we attack other countries, we cannot have prosperity unless we have welfare payments.

Get self-employed so you have options.

Blame China, Then Get Facts

2011-11-22T09:57:00.000-08:00

Now if it turns out that it is not the Doggie Treats killing the doggies, then it will be too late, because I will hear in seminars and everywhere else how Chinese products kill and destroy what is good in America. Now the wicked Chinese are coming after out pets!

What if it is not true? Well, damage done. Why does the government-owned media wait until they get the facts?

And even if it were true, it is not the fault of the Chinese, it is the fault of the USA importers who design or otherwise specify faulty products. As an importer, let me tell you...blame the importer. They did not do their work if Fido is killed by the importers product.

One more thing, and this is.. ahem... delicate. A large percent of USA pet food is eaten by our elderly. I am not talking about the frazzled oldster accidently sharing some of the pets treats, I am talking about elders buying pet food because it is meat and it is cheap. So, if so many dogs were getting sick, so would humans, and the emphasis would be more pronounced. Sounds like coincidence, not another Communist Plot.

SEO Is a Sham, Test Online Advertising First

2011-11-21T12:19:00.000-08:00

SEO is a fraud or a sham, and sometimes both, and you are the target. SEO and online advertising does not work, it cannot work. There are several academics by the name of John Spiers around the world, but I come up #1 on google search. It cost me nothing, but it does not get me any more business either. If you believe SEO matters, or online advertising is effective, then you are working from false premises. Happily you can test your hypothesis, quickly and inexpensively.

The game is to equate SEO with advertising impact. Long before there was an internet, David Ogilvy wrote a book with a simple point: people looking at an ad does not mean they will buy the product or service. But you can know if your ad works. He explains in his book, and it applies to the internet today. Some things are true no matter what changes.

Here is the problem: the cost of getting customers from the internet is far more than the possibility of profit. So if you sell a $100 thing that costs you $50. The problem is it costs you far more than the $50 profit to get a customer. So you sell a $100 thing that costs you $50 to buy and $100 to get a customer with online advertising.. So you lose on every sale. If it is a $5000 item, it costs more than your profit to get a customer. The lower the cost of the item, the less chance of making a profit. And that assumes you are getting full retail for your item online. Because the internet makes it so easy to compare prices, no one gets full retail online, so your chances are worse than even I say.

Those who offer SEO and online advertising generally are just resellers of googleAds. They will take your money and charge you a premium for what you can do yourself. If the people you hire are not using googleAds, you will just waste more money faster.

They will claim they have expertise that makes all the difference, and you will make beginner’s mistakes. Really? Then they will have plenty of references that tell you what wonderful work they do. They don’t.

But do not take my word for it, you can find out for yourself, quickly and inexpensively. GoogleAds will give you a free service coupon for $75-$100 to try them out. So come up with a test budget, of say $150. $150 + $100 coupon is $250.00. Use a googleads account, with their literally billions of dollars with of advertising technology and expertise, and see how far $250.00 gets you. And if you like, hire the experts at the same time. They too can get you a $100 coupon. So, double up... now you get your $250 campaign, and their $250 campign, a total of $500 in advertising online for $300.00. And I tell you, there is so much amazing power and know how inside of google ads that the $300 is well spent if you look at it as just an online seminar. You’ll need to look at it this way, because you will get nothing for your $300. You’d get nothing for $3000. You need to spend much more than that to get anything going, but in any event, you’ll see that you cannot make money advertising online, that SEO means noting to your bottom line. But that is just fair warning. And it is a great seminar. Then you will know.

So test out for $150 or $300 and see what happens. Advertise what you think you would sell online and make money. Don’t worry about having to deliver if you get orders, you will not get any orders. But if you are so worried, then find a local source downtown for your product. Say it is a fancy chocolate bar you are selling for $10.00, and you can buy it retail for $10.00 downtown. Then adverise it, and if you get any order, take the $10 payment and buy the chocolate and ship it to the customer. Then you have no risk of stocking something that will not sell. And of course like very many online retail models, you may make no money on the item you sell, but you can try to make money on shipping and handling.

I have tried all of the above, and I know you cannot beat the old fashioned kinds of advertising. For the last decade I have offered one and all a bounty of $47.50 for anyone who can sell a class of mine for $95.00. No one can do it, in ten years of trying. GoogleAds could not do it. But at the same time the cost of getting a student to pay $95.00 for an online class costs $7.00 when advertised in that paper catalog of courses schools mailed out to homes in their area. We know online advertising cannot get a student for $47.50. What would it cost online, $100? $500? Who knows?

I do know there are 1300 schools, all with wonderrful talent, trying to figure out if students can be recruited cheaper online than through a catalog. If an when it is possible, they will find out and we will all know. So far, we are not even close.

But Google is making billions off online advertising, and a heavy advertiser is schools! Yes, of the 300 million people who have ried to sell things online, maybe a couple of dozen make money. For example, University of Phoenix sells a bachelors degree, which may cost them $1000 to recruit a student, but the school then sells the student a $100,000 loan the student will never pay back, the taxpayer bails out the loss. (the co-president of the school was paid $12 million last year). Ally bank is a huge advertiser, and Ally is the new name for the busted GMAC finance, which was bailed out. The auto companies are big advertisers, which you pay for with bailout funds. The military advertises big time. Shell Oil advertises that they are a ‘green” company online. See a pattern? People who do not have to make a profit “succeed” advertising online. And not to put too fine a point on it, Google pays practically no taxes, which is a great way to have a profitable business, it makes for a competitive edge against smaller biz that pay taxes. But that is another point.

The internet is a terrible place to build a business. It is an inexpensive place to communicate with customers you gained elsewhere. Put your advertising dollars where they will work, and you can know they are working.

The Best 20 Minutes of Radio In the Last 50 Years

2011-11-20T12:32:00.000-08:00

I've never heard of this American before, but the BBC has, and interviewed him. Brilliant fellow, and well worth the time to listen. GEt pen and paper, because you'll want to make notes.

Kyle Bass - Founder, Hayman Capital Hedge Fund

MORE:: programme information

(25 minutes)

Available since Friday with 5 days left.

Is the behaviour of speculators partly to blame for the mess the markets are in?

Religious Tolerance and Freedom

2011-11-20T09:27:00.000-08:00

We have a social contract, in which we all pull together, under the leadership of people we elect, for the common good.

Without this, we’d be in chaos, in another Somalia.

What if I do not believe that?

What If I did not personally agree to this, and I want no part of it? What if I don’t want to pay taxes, fight in wars, pay into social security? What if I want no part of the courts, and don’t want my kids in your schools?

You’d say I am generally nuts, that I can just leave, and the cops and the soldiers who protect our freedom, the hard men on watch in the cold of the night, are there for good reason and what about the roads and food safety and the social safety net and all the other things good government provides?

I would point out that to this day in USA no one has to be drafted (even when there is a draft), pay social security taxes, federal taxes or join any particular religion. The religion thing we’ll get to in a minute, but my point is when this country was founded, there ws no expectation that anyone would be obliged on any other points that today most people take as mandatory. Roads were in privates hand originally, and to this day 70% of firefighters in USA are volunteer.

And our government still allows me, an individual, to hunt down criminals on my own,

to make arrests, become an attorney general on my own initiative and mount a law case, defend myself in court.

Of course I can home school, that was never in debate until the last few decades.

What happened was a counter-revolution, one that constrained freedom, in the name of that most basic human urge, and that is to get someone else to do one’s fighting.

We will agree to the most aggressive compassing if we can avoid having to face aggressors. In 1 Samuel 8 we see the first recorded story of this, and the specific goal of the urge is to get others to fight for us. To find someone else to be the hard men on watch in the cold of the night.

There are places where the the hard men on watch in the cold of the night is the farmer with the gun, what American once was. USA changed, and became a super power. Then it went after a country where, like USA once was, where the the hard men on watch in the cold of the night were mere farmers. That country was Vietnam, and it defeated us, the world’s superpower. The farmer in Afghanistan are doing it as well. I was that someday USA is as strong as Vietnam or Afghanistan.

The religion thing is not significant today, but was the most important issue of loyalty in the history of mankind. Once religion demanded loyalty, and we see that is not necessary. Nonetheless, in USA the demands of intolerance of other religions is very strong. Our law enforcement acts on it, with the FBI actively fomenting entrapment among the Muslim population, building false cases against people who defend Muslims.

It is not I who is against the system, it is those who have changed it who are against it. There are so many vestiges of the once great, peaceful, prosperous republic we once were. Now we are a democracy, so that we can have the hard men on watch in the cold of the night. Instead of ourselves. But those who changed it find their changes are not working out. So they are busy stealing anything not nailed down. The best self-defense is self-employment.

Census Registers American's Decline

2011-11-19T09:46:00.000-08:00

This article gives the numbers and adds a human face to our economic disaster. Speaking of a couple who is barely making it, the writer notes

“I’m turning over every rock looking for scholarships,” she said. “The money’s out there, you just have to find it.”

Well, here we go again... after noting the couple gets government help for "healthscare" this couple is looking for money to cover education. What a system we have!

If we had a free market in health care and education, and everything else, we would be growing to where there would be enough to go around, at affordable prices.

Unemployment Insurance, Goldman Sachs & Fraud

2011-11-19T09:28:00.000-08:00

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER AP Economics Writer November 5, 2011 10:32AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America’s unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits.

***People do not need unemployment benefits, they need work. Not only is there no generator of new jobs, starting up your own business is near impossible. I do see thriving businesses. I was at one recently that was selling a safe product but in violation of a federal law. Perfectly safe, customers happily buying it, no fraud, but against the law. How many businesses are “making it” because they are willing to go face criminal sanctions?***

Early last year, 75 percent were receiving checks. The figure is now 48 percent — a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term unemployment. Nearly one-third of America’s 14 million unemployed have had no job for a year or more.

*** The crisis is not in unemployment, the crisis is in oppression by government at city, country state and federal level.***

Congress is expected to decide by year’s end whether to continue providing emergency unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks in the hardest-hit states. If the emergency benefits expire, the proportion of the unemployed receiving aid would fall further.

***It does not occur to anyone to give people regulatory relief and create wealth, only to borrow more and spend further in the whole.***

The ranks of the poor would also rise. The Census Bureau says unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people from slipping into poverty last year. It defines poverty as annual income below $22,314 for a family of four.

***They are not poor because they do not have unemployment checks, they are poor because they have no opportunity.***

Yet for a growing share of the unemployed, a vote in Congress to extend the benefits to 99 weeks is irrelevant. They’ve had no job for more than 99 weeks. They’re no longer eligible for benefits.

Their options include food stamps or other social programs. Nearly 46 million people received food stamps in August, a record total. That figure could grow as more people lose unemployment benefits.

*** How is a food stamp benefit different in any way from unemployment insurance? I guess the thinking is since we can go on like this forever, we might as well. Well, we can’t.***

So could the government’s disability rolls. Applications for the disability insurance program have jumped about 50 percent since 2007.

***So just as business people are cheating to stay afloat, obviously people are cheating welfare to stay afloat.***

The number of unemployed has been roughly stable this year. Yet the number receiving benefits has plunged 30 percent.

***Caution: Know your customer! Has your customer base been people on welfare or unemployment? Get set to watch them dwindle... 99 weeks ago was when the layoffs from the downturn got heavy.***

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that each $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. The CBO has found that the program is the most effective government policy for increasing growth among 11 options it’s analyzed.

***This is a big reason why our economy is going bad, because people believe such nonsense. if anything, each dollar spent means 90 cents in econ activity, not $1.90, becuase the buck is still owed somewhere, by someone. Only people who never plan to pay anything back can think the way the CBO thinks. UI is a downward spiral.

The American system, as understood by the people in the commanding heights, is over. If you believe in what they conditioned you to believe, then the future is very bleak indeed for you and yours.

Presently those in the commanding heights know their system is bankrupt, literally, and are busying stealing anything not nailed down on their way out the door.

The Koch Bros, who own the Tea Party movement, got their oil trading money out of Goldman Sachs alum Jon Corzine run MF Global while 50,000 others are not so lucky. Goldman Sachs alums run the Fed, US Treasury, and now Italy. As I mentioned last week, a federal judge was miffed, but did nothing about Citigroup mulcting 700 million but only suffering 15 million fine. Nice work for a Bank if you can get it. (Taxpayers will make up the rest, eventually.) Someone is risking a federal offense selling below grade fruit (perfectly safe) and yet dirt cheap, while people who steal hundreds of millions face no jeopardy.

Mish Shedlock was asked if we should be executing the president of Bank of America, Citibank and the top officers, MF Global and others, as they do in China. (And they do, in China.) Mish reasonably replied, no, we have a legal system that can deal with fraud and theft.

But it does not. Judges tsk tsk, the SEC winks winks, and the powers that be steal steal.

Occupy Walls Street is owned by Soros, and the Tea Party is owned by the Koch Bros, and the protestors in both camps are socially conditioned to believe “if we can just get the right person in government, then it will all be OK.”

There is no one at any level of government advocating freeing Americans to work. Ron Paul does talk about eliminating the Fed, and about free markets, but there are not enough people who know how to work in a free market to support the rest. And even if elected, the masses of protesters would shut down any effort that did not expand government, whether for war or welfare.

One could say the USA ended when Bush bailed out the financial industry, but you can go back to the bailout of Chrysler, or PennCentral, or Nixon going off the gold standard, but in any event, we are too far gone. We mind have wound back to 1990, or 1980 or 1970, but not now. On the other hand, we can go back to 1790, and make rules knowing what we know. The leaders are stealing anything not nailed down, war and welfare hustlers are making their bids for public office. We see this every so often in history, every 75 years or so, somewhere. Now it is USAs turn. We're about to find out we are not exceptional. This is good to know, because chaos is tradable, and out of chaos comes the spontaneous order in freedom. We could choose to be another Hong Kong, but we are past the point of no return of becoming another Somalia.

We need two systems, one country.

A Pointed Question From Alexa

2011-11-18T06:34:00.000-08:00

We know that you have imported rugs from China.

My question is Why?

Rugs are available everywhere and there are so many dealers selling rugs and plenty of import stores selling quality imported hand-woven rug. What makes yours unique

Alexa

My rugs have no dye, wool comes in every shade from white to grey to black and all sorts of tans.... these can be blended to get up to 216 distinct colors, with no dye. Next, I take North Coast Indian designs and have them laid out for carpets. Great for that rustic room, cabin or ski lodge.

No one else is doing it.

Serendipity

2011-11-18T06:33:00.000-08:00

On my way to a Power Breakfast Meet I was enchanted by natural artwork on the blacktop.