Crony Capitalism

Possibly, the biggest oversight of our founding fathers was, to not include an article in the constitution regarding the separation of economy and state.  I'm still digging to see if perhaps they didn't actually make a conscious decision to leave the possibility of government interference in the free market.

When I was studying Economics in college, I took a course on government regulation.  My conclusion was that, as a company you wanted regulation - yeah I know, that sounds really wrong.  Keep in mind, that regulators, until fairly recently, didn't bother with little industries, there wasn't really enough voter noise for congress to create new regulatory agencies, and regulations.  Mostly it affects large industries. Here's how it works.

In the early stages of regulation you have a government sanctioned monopoly of some domain.  You are essentially guaranteed a return on investment, more than likely there is  government funds to help you build the business.   The second stage comes from the hiring of the individuals who used to regulate your business or, at minimum putting them on the board of directors.  You now have your Washington insider, who has a serious financial incentive to get additional concessions from the 'new' regulator.  Eventually congress get's involved, usually because of a change in technology, or  a perceived change in the competitive nature of the regulated industry.   Now the regulated corporation sends in the lobbyist, who write bills to favor the company, or industry.  They raise funds for re-election, and in return the bills are passed.  New regulators are appointed, old regulators are given very high paying jobs and put on the board of more companies.   Eventually a previous regulator will split off, and via the campaign finance donations bribery paid, they will be appointed to regulation again, where they with their new insight in to what the company needs, adjust the regulations, selectively enforce, or ignore regulations depending on financial gain to their now future employer.

Sometimes, the push to regulation comes from unions, early on, those regulations were primarily to prevent unscrupulous business operators from forcing workers into unsafe work environments.  That for the most part (not entirely) ended back in the seventies.

In the end, the government who was trying to control the business is in fact, owned by the business. As long as they avoid any monstrously huge public impropriety the politicians will work with them and help them fleece the consumer voter.

AT&T benefited hugely from it's government sanctioned monopoly - the euphemistic deregulation phase, on the surface seemed like a good thing, what it in fact did was create new regulatory conditions on multiple smaller organizations.   Additional opportunities for jobs for regulators, lobbyists, and additional complex regulation that would allow the companies to avoid competition, due partly to the onerous barriers to entry crated by the wall of bureaucratic red tape.

Regulation is used as a giant club which is used to beat potential entrants into the marketplace,  thus stifling competition. The large corporation, a million, or even 100 million dollar legal budget is an asset.  It erects barriers that smaller more efficient, more competitive companies can not scale.

Thus crony capitalism is born.

The last thing a crony capitalist really wants is an elimination of government interference.  There are few if any crony capitalists amongst small business.  That generally only happens if a congress critter leaves office and returns home to start said business, or go to work with a friend and long time supporter.

If you want to see this in operation, take a look at the number of ex regulators working at Monsanto, or Verizon, or AT&T, or .....

I like it.

Unsurprisingly, the minimum wage hikes going around, have the obvious effect of raising prices. So there's a Cafe in Minnesota that's printing receipts with the price increase spelled out.

The reaction amongst LibProgs is pretty much what you'd expect.   Now obviously, everyone else is doing essentiality same thing - they're just hiding in that line that says BLACK&BLUE BURGER  - instead of 9.00 it would be 9.35  and no one is complaining about those.  What LibProgs HATE is having the consequences of their actions rubbed in their faces.   So obviously it's the Cafe Owners fault, he's an asshat for not just eating the cost increase and joining the ranks of the poor.  Can you imagine owning a Cafe and needing and EBT card because your employees make more than you do?

LibProg Logic dictates fairness - Since the Owner gets all the Risk, it's only fair that the employees should get all the benefits,  gotta share right?

HatTip Maggies Farm and PowerLine

So, what I'd like to see would be a break down of all the cost components.   Can you imagine receipts that showed Labor Cost, Product Cost, Overhead, Government Regulatory Costs, Fixed Costs, and Profit.  

Although if I owned a Cafe I'd probably refuse to do it as it's just a pain in the ass, and you'd need to add a line just to cover the cost of the receipt.

Open Borders

From a libertarian viewpoint I'd like to have open borders - the problem is, I don't live in a libertarian nation.  For open borders to work, we'd need a few things we currently lack, and we'd have to get rid of a few things we have.

First we'd have to do away with all the welfare and other entitlement programs. As people entered the country  they'd need to sign a contract, they'd have five years to learn basic english, file their taxes (of which there would be fewer - for everyone), and not get into trouble.   Not getting into trouble would be easer because we'd get rid of a significant number of laws and regulations.   So, no driving under the influence, no contract violations, no criminal convictions.  End of the five years - you get to take the test for citizenship.  If you pass then you get a green card, and you can now vote.  I don't much care where you came from, although I'd be fairly watchful of folks from countries that are known to support terrorists.

We'd need to have open borders and open trade in a lot of other countries too - if we're the only one, then we're going to have a problem.  We're going to have a huge crime problem as long as there's a minimum wage because there will be a huge unemployment problem, and starving people tend to resort to crime when no other option exists.   If everyone had open borders then people would be able to move freely (although perhaps not cheaply) to where ever the jobs were.   - Yeah we'll we know that's not going to happen.   Did you know that even cheerful little New Zealand has MUCH stricter immigration rules than we do?   Yep.  I can't immigrate to New Zealand if I wanted to, even with two degrees, and no criminal record.   Tool old, yeah age discrimination (and for a very logical reason).  Now if I win the lottery, I might pull it off - and I might add to my education to fit one of their strongly desired skills, but even then I might be too old.  Why?  National healthcare, the last thing they need is a bunch of retired folks coming down and plugging up their healthcare system, having never paid into it.

If you have children - they do not become citizens until you do, or until they can pass the test by themselves.   Then again I wouldn't let children of existing citizens vote until they could pass the test either.   If you can't read english (or brail), then you're not going to qualify for citizen - sorry.  Yeah, I know that seem harsh and possibly somthing-ist.   Here's the thing, we got into the trouble we have because we let a lot of stupid people vote.

You'll notice that I don't mention education in there?  That's because if you want that you'll need to pay for it.   (I'm already getting a headache from the whiners...) The idea a "free education" is a myth.  We're simply spreading the cost of it across a lot of people.   You're kids, will be eligible for vouchers once you pass the exam and get your citizenship.  How's that for incentive?    I'm not convinced we should even have "free" education - although there is a significant argument for the pro side.   Even though I don't have kids, I can see how I benefit from their education (well not the ones they're getting now, but the kind they used to get) that I don't find the tax burden unreasonable, although I'm fairly certain that anyone over the age of 65 has paid enough and should be exempt (no I'm not 65 yet , or even 60).

The point here is that my desire to see the borders locked up has more to do with economics than race, more to do with politics than race.

Stuff that Doesn't Surprise Me

Apparently Harvard has a cheating epidemic

Given the high percentage of cheaters at Harvard, would you hire a Harvard Grad?

Here's a non-surprise - Socialists Cheat twice as much as Capitalists.     Yeah - see above.

Have you ever heard the phrase Culture comes form the top down - This might explain the math scores   Apparently giving your self raises when you have a budge shortfall is Smart™  They pass it to the teachers, the teachers pass it to the kids and Poof  - you get this:

• Average credit card debt: $15,191
• Average mortgage debt: $154,365
• Average student loan debt: $33,607

This is sure no surprise  - California environmental regulations might have issues.... sort of

What Rich People Don't Understand

I'm going to assume it's a lack of understanding, because I find it difficult to fathom what other possible reason the rich could have to recommend taxing the rich.

This TED talk is a good example.   Everything he says sounds really good.  In some respects, he is correct - the rich don't create jobs, that's done mostly by small business and the middle class.  Where they always go WRONG and I mean Horribly WRONG is in two areas.

First - It's not the Rich spending - it's their access to CAPITAL that makes job creation possible. It's making capital available to entrepreneurs that makes jobs.

The second is that Transferring that capital to the government in ANY form will change anything.  It won't. Government creates jobs, but those jobs are fed by taxes of the middle class,  all that happens when government creates jobs is and increased tax burden.    What about all those government employee's paying taxes?   - They're paying it with YOUR tax money.   They PRODUCE nothing.  Can they increase private sector spending in the short run - Yes, but with out adding anything to the GDP there is NO growth.  Ultimately you simply increase the tax burden and put it on even fewer people.    That's what's been happing for the last 20 years - see the big improvement?  No?  Surprise!

If the rich really want to give away their money out of guilt and have it do some good - create interest free small business loans  - not big business, SMALL business.  Big business has access to capital they always have and until things collapse they always will.   It's small business that's being strangled by taxation and regulation - as is the middle class.   Stop taxing the crap out of us to buy votes.

Trying to save the 2014 elections

So Obama has decided to hold off on the employer portion of the mandate for ObamaCare.    No doubt because now everyone is starting to see the effects - Most companies are cutting hours to get as much staff below the 30 hour cutoff.   Color me unsurprised.  A significant percentage of the U.S. doesn't even realize they're going to get clobbered on their taxes because they didn't understand they needed to get insurance - on their own.   Because the individual mandate is still scheduled for 2014.  

Obsensibly this is done because they (the Administration) realized there is NO WAY they can roll this train wreck out this fast.   And they're hoping that this will delay the staggering effect that the employer mandate is already having on full time employment.  The real reason is to get folks to not spend time thinking about how badly they're being screwed until AFTER the elections.  Now the question is - will the Democrats believe their own bullshit and go into the 2014 elections with the ObamaCare Sword swinging for their necks or will they realize that voting for something no one ever read is perhaps a bad idea. Will they understand that, all the people who've already had their 40 hour jobs turned into 30 hour jobs, are going to understand (because their employers told them) that it's ObamaCare's fault.  And ObamaCare was the Democrats baby.     

So - on the one hand you can expect companies to stop cutting hours -- or not.  I'm betting NOT.   On the other hand, you can expect a lot of folks to see their cost of individual insurance climb, kind of significantly. My insurance company tells me I should know sometime in September.  I'll be a bit surprised if the increase is less than 30% and not at all surprised if it's over 50%.   Why?  because I have what is essentially classified as catastrophic coverage.   Really high deductible, no prescription coverage.

I'm wondering who in fact who; besides perhaps young single moms who don't want to work more than 20 hours a week because it screws with their benefits, will actually see any of this as a good thing come April.

I guess we'll see if anyone is paying attention - the Democrats have more than a few things to answer for, and one would hope that the Independents at least will remind folks of just what the Democrats did - with the help in a lot of cases of the Republicans.  My guess is that lots of liberals will blaming the downsides of ObamaCare, the IRS, Benghazi, Fast&Furious, NSA problems on Bush.   Because... BUSH. 

What are the Odds

A little more info for the previous post.

From the CDC: 2010 data

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 597,689
• Cancer: 574,743
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
• Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
• Diabetes: 69,071
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

From the Global Terrorism Database  total domestic deaths from terrorism were 3,030 from 2000-2010. The data only goes to 2011 so far,   So the annual average is 275.  If you take the 10 years from 2001-2011 the numbers don't change significantly.   Between 9/12/2001 and 12/31/2011 the total is 32 - or approximately 3 people annually.

Given that the NSA knew when the terrorist arrived in the U.S. and essentially did nothing with that data, and given the argument is; we need to let the NSA collect all this data because it will stop attacks.  It's only useful if it's acted upon, so 9/11 doesn't meet the goal.   From a Data analysis point of view the 9/11 attack is an outlier - completely uncharacteristic of other world wide attacks. The Post 9/11 number is about 3.

So, you're 140 times more likely to commit suicide than be killed by a terrorist. Without 9/11 you're 12,788 times more likely. Are you scared yet?

From Medical News Today - there are 195,000 in hospital deaths by error each year.    Which means you are  709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a terrorist - that includes 9/11 - with out 9/11 the number is 65,000 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.

If TSA costs each person at the airport 15 minutes (yeah right) and the average wage is $20/hour (and I suspect the number is much higher) then we're taking 3.5 billion out of the economy each year. (source WSJ).  And that's JUST the TSA - now add in the cost of all the illegal NSA programs, the DHS TANKS, the wars.  It's not pretty.

So, from an economic point of view, the terrorists have won.  Because rather than being rational about it - we let our selves be terrified and irrational and we made really stupid choices - like the TSA, or letting the NSA and DHS destroy the Constitution - which was exactly what Osama bin Ladin was after.   It could only be accomplished with the help and cooperation of our Government.  The scope of terrorism in the U.S. would have to vastly exceed the total world levels to even come close to matching what we're costing ourselves - even without the loss of Liberty.

Let's recap, compared to terrorism, you are:
140 times more likely to commit suicide.
709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.
120 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident.

YES we absolutely need to take precautions - we need to investigate, we need to be aware, but we've gone WAY too far with this.  There is no evidence that TSA has done anything other than harass and steal from passengers, except cost us money.   Even with all the extra man power, the militarization of the police, the extension of armed forces into domestic policy - Boston still happened, and it was a civilian who found the terrorist.  A little self reliance and paying attention did more than the DHS, National Guard, SWAT and Satellites, in capturing the perp.  
   
So - Get a grip people - you want to be scared of something - be scared of your doctor.

The Stupidity Market

I'm not sure who decided having a citizenry of idiots was a good idea, perhaps it was the lawyers, maybe it was the politicians.  When you want to know why the market for something grows,  you need to look for the incentives or disincentives.  In the case of stupidity, it's growing steadily - but why?

Lawyers make it profitable by suing companies because they failed to tell you not to do something incredibly stupid with their product, for example - using your rotary mower as a hedge trimmer.

Health care has lowered the risk of doing something stupid by getting to the point where they can fix things that stupid people do to them selves.

Politicians incentivise stupidity by offering free money to lazy people.

So what's the down side to stupidity?   At the moment, it would seem there is almost none.  It's profitable, it's easy, and the risks are very low.    Don't expect a market like that to do anything except grow.

More on Prohibition

It appears that Marko the Munchkin Wrangler also sees prohibition as an economic negative.  I'd like to thank Marko for bringing to light the direct link between prohibition and gun control.   It's pretty obvious once someone smacks you in the head with it  [WHACK!] thanks Marko I needed that.

A little experiment

I honestly don't think it would be possible, but it would be interesting.

I was talking to a few young men about politics, political systems, and why our system is broken only slightly less than the other systems.  What I'd like to see is a little experiment.  Let's split up the US and give each major faction an area of control.  Each area needs to have sea ports or access - canals under joint treaty, rivers, some way to allow sea based transport.

Let's give Southern California to the Progressives (state socialists/communists) mostly because they already have it.

Then we'll take WA, OR, Northern CA (above 40ºN), ID, MT, WY and create a new country with a much tighter Libertarian version of the Constitution and Bill of rights.  It needs to spell out that the Government can ONLY do what is allowed by the Constitution, if it's not spelled out in black and white - they don't get to even think about it.

Give Utah to the Mormons - since they already own most of it, plus a right of way down to the Gulf

Give Arizona and  New Mexico, and probably Nevada plus a corridor between Mexico and the Peoples Republic of California out to San Diego to the Re-conquistadors.
Give the Fly-over States to the Religious Right.
Give the North East to the Democrats. 
Give Michigan, Iowa, and Illinois to the Unions.
Leave the South as it is. 

Not sure what to do with Alaska or Hawaii, let them pick one?  Might have to give the Union State a bit more territory. 

Now, sit back and watch for about 50 years and see what happens.

I predict:

Southern CA will be absorbed into the Re-Conquistador State, after they go completely bankrupt - 10 years tops,  all the beach front and high end property will be reserved for the Party Elite. 

The Re-Conquistador State will be Socialist/Communist, have a very low GDP, high crime and corruption, and be essentially broke.   This will end up being a good example of a corrupt Democratic Socialist country.

The Union States (Michigan et al) will be the new standard for corrupt government.  They will essentially become a National Socialist state were all production is owned by the state.

The North East will be Socialist and essentially under the control of the U.N.

Texas will be Texas

The South will be the South, quite a bit like it is today.

Utah will be, well... Utah

The Fly-over states will be a Theocracy with the largest exports of grains in the world.   They will have a Heavily monitored and censored populace.   

The New North West will be the new center for space exploration, technology, and health care, munitions, and banking.  Have the lowest crime rate of any place on the planet out side of Singapore. The highest GDP in the world.   Mostly self sufficient, a foreign policy of - Leave us Alone and we won't smack you. 

- Just a guess.

Get ready to pay for law suits

It makes perfect sense really.   Sequestration results in layoffs, layoffs bump unemployment, unemployment perceived as a bad thing.  Solution: tell companies to break the law, not issue mandatory layoff notices,  and that tax payers will pick up the bill for the law suits.  DC-Think at it's finest.

Want to know more

You didn't build that

Obama Speech Transcribed by ABC?   I've listened to the speech, I think the following is reasonably accurate:

We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

Well the obvious moral to this little speech is - Individual Bad, Group Good.
Bullshit - Most companies are started by an Individual - then they hire help.   Anyone think Steve Jobs could have invented the original Apple? Or Wozniak do the marketing?   No, but does that mean everyone who ever worked at Intel, Motorola, Amp, Visicalc, or Apple get's to take credit?   I don't think so.   If Woz hadn't invented the device and Steve seen the marketing potential - Poof - no Apple.   Individuals Matter!  Individuals have Vision - Groups have committee meetings, and design shit that doesn't work.  


And Yet - we're 1.3 trillion over budget? 
Adding a extra trillion in crap and then cutting it, is not the same thing as cutting a trillion dollars.

Wow - Rhetoric 101.   Bad Grammar 201.
Yes, he said: If you've got a business, you didn't build that.     I suspect what he meant to say was - Your business didn't build the roads and bridges.
 
With the notable exception of the companies that actually did build those roads and bridges, Obama was right - your pharmacy or sandwich shop or... what ever, didn't build those roads and bridges - On the other hand, your taxes either helped build them, or help keep them running - just like every other Tax Payer.  So What?  So when a business goes bad; say Lehman Brothers, unless you have a union shop, say GM, apparently "We Built it" but "You Ruined it".

A little history revision 
The internet wasn't created by Government research - They helped, they did the funding for the foundation (TCP/IP)  in conjunction with Stanford University (Vinton Cerf in particular).  One of the original nets was DarpaNet, but they were not alone.   There was some reluctance to allowing any commercialization of the internet in the early days.   Like much of what came out of the Space program, it was private industry that turned the internet into a commercial success, not the government.   - At least he didn't say Al Gore invented it. 
  
BULLSHIT ALERT
Who's this we shit he's talking about - I don't play golf for 30 days out of every year - on the tax payers dime. I don't drag 1000+ flunkies around and  rent 570 room hotel - even on business - There is no "WE" asshat.  We're barely on the same planet.

I sure as hell wish we weren't in the same country.

Happy Birthday F.A.

Thanks to Drang for reminding me.

One of my heros  F.A. Hayek - one of the first Economists to see the truth.

The Road to Surfdom (first written in the early 1940's - updated a few times for the U.S. audience)   Timeless.

If you have an interest in economics - his other books are excellent too (not easy, light reading to be sure).

Occupy Confusion

This feels a little bit like putting my foot in my mouth - since I'm going to say some things that I might regret later. Oh well.

I keep thinking about the Occupy movement, trying to understand the message, the goal, the idea. I'm not a lot closer to getting it than I was when it started. - Actually, I understood the concept behind Occupy Wall Street just fine - it was the execution that was completely wrong. Since then it's gotten more confused and even less effective in delivering a message - well except perhaps - Lynch the 1%!

So far the Message seems to be:
Corporations are not People
Something about immigration
National Heath Care is broken
Rich people should pay more taxes
Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
I just want to destroy stuff because.

Any sales trainer or marketing person will tell you, keep your message clear and simple. Apparently there are no marketing or sales people involved in the occupy movement. If there are other messages they're so lost in the noise I'm not seeing them.

So let's take a look at these messages one at a time.

Corporations are not People - True, they are a legal fiction that management hide behind so they can blame their actions on the Share Holders. I have more than a few problems with the legal fiction of the corporation. I understand the need to sell shares to capitalize, and the benefit to investing, that's the good side of a corporation. The bad side is the way they get used. The company builds a product they know is faulty, but they do it anyway because the potential profits outweigh the potential costs of lawsuits, and there is no personal liability - so why not. Small corporations operate in a fraudulent manner, file bankruptcy, fold up, and start over with a new name and the same criminal practices.

I much prefer the Limited Liability Partnership. At least in this case the major players are actually subject to the consequences of their actions.

If you look at companies like Exon, or JPMorgan, or BofA you can see the dark side of the corporation and they are far from the only examples. In the case of BofA it's so extreme I'm sort of surprised the asshats are still alive.

Something about immigration This has gotten way too emotional - if they are illegal - send them home. If they're not - then treat them as if they were citizens of the U.S.A. It's not that hard. Sure there are lots of ramifications. If you send the illegals home, it will have an impact of prices. If you don't send them home, you basically saying - It's OK to exploit them as cheap labor. If your saying make them all citizens, I'd ask who the hell is going to pay for it? And if you say - the government I'm going to smack you upside the head with a 2x4. California tried that - they're bankrupt.

National Heath Care is broken
Yep. Broken pretty much everywhere it's been tried, with the possible exception of Denmark, maybe Sweden - but I say that out of a profound ignorance, it might be just as bad there as say in England where it's going broke, and it takes months to have critical issues treated.

I have no idea how to fix this. Perhaps if our expectations weren't quite so high... A good portion of the problem lies with our legal system - which is broken beyond repair. Part of it is the sense of entitlement. I've yet to hear any solution that I think has a chance in hell of working.

- Well actually I have some vague notions that I need to think on - they probably won't work, but...

Rich people should pay more taxes
I think I'd like to revise this. How about a corporate business tax on salaries and bonuses (including stock or stock options) in excess of say, $500,000 a year. - Say a 1000% tax, be kind of hard to sell that $10,000,000 bonus to the shareholders wouldn't it :). If you own the company, or it's a limited partnership, no extra tax - because it's YOUR company, not the shareholders. (yeah that's my anti corporate economy thing showing itself - but I really do think the thing that ruins the free market is government intervention and creating a legal fiction like the corporation is definitely interference.)

Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
Blah Blah Blah - you want it - go work for it. Greed is a basic part of human nature - yeah it can be controlled, and if you believe in enlightened self interest, you probably do control it to a major extent. But that does not entitle anyone to the fruits of your labor. We had a word for people who's labor was exploited for the benefit of others - I think it was Slave.

I just want to destroy stuff because.
Classify them as looters and shoot them on sight. (Too harsh?)

Yes, I think the economy sucks, yes I think members of the 1% profited from creating the situation that made it possible. Yes I think the 1% profited again from their influence in government. No I don't think the changes made have been very effective, why would you expect them to be? It's not in the governments best interest to piss off their biggest donors - getting reelected (the only real concern of elected officials), is mostly a money thing, voters opinions are much to fickle and easy to change with sufficient funds.

So, one of the reasons I don't like the Occupy movement is the lack of a clear message, it seems to be a case of mass whining with no articulation. The other reason I don't like it is how they behave when they get together - it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see from a similarly sized group of baboons.

I think a more effective approach would be to focus on one company at a time, and have everyone purchase as many shares as possible - then go VOTE at the shareholders meetings. Vote for ethical behavior, reasonable salaries, Elect a board of directors with a conscience - then move on to the next company - sooner or later they'd get the idea. (Yeah I know, takes too long, too much dedication to principle, a clear goal.....)

- Posted from the pad

I'm confused

The "demonstration" in Seattle is reported to have a group of black clad anarchist  - which seems to be a fairly standard tactic for these demonstrations - same thing happened back in 99 WTO conference.

So here's where I'm confused,   The Occupy movement seems to want bigger government - you know to put the screws to that greedy 1%  And yet they have Anarchists?   WTF?   These people aren't looking to have a form of government that has no monopoly on the use of force, or ability to apply force - they're looking for the Government to coerce the wealthy in to giving up their wealth (at least that's my take on it).

Is it the media that's getting this wrong?   Apparently it's happened in Cleveland -  a plot to blow up a bridge, again Anarchists and Anti-business - which I guess in this case means National Socialist rather than anarchits?  I think they use the term unadvisedly - perhaps they should stick with criminal.   It's sort of like Terrorist - at this point Terrorist really doesn't mean anything because it means pretty much anyone for any reason that someone else doesn't approve of.

My definition of Terrorist?  A person or group with a shared ideology, involved in or plotting violence against civilian targets for the purpose of causing harm and fear, with the idea that this will somehow prove beneficial to the terrorist in the long run.    So maybe these kids in Cleveland could be classified as terrorists but it would require that they have some goal other than just blowing shit up.  I doubt any of them are bright enough to have a long range goal.

Part of the problem is the Left seems to like to appropriate words and change the meanings - For example if this were the late 1800's and into the mid 1900's I'd be a Liberal - and a liberal would be a progressive (see they grabbed progressive because it sounds good, and used it for their own agenda).   Go read The Road to Surfdom by F.A. Hayek   He was there and explains it better than I do.

Student Loans

So there's Obama, talking up discount student loans to collage kids as if ANYONE was going to tank them in an election year - yeah sure.    Never mentioned just how beek the job market is for them - so how exactly are they going to pay those loans that are going to cost us something like 6 billion a year.

Obama's take?

"Anybody here can afford to pay an extra thousand dollars right now?" Obama asked to jeers from the crowd. "I don't think so."


OK, so don't spend the money?  NO - print some more money and we'll all pay extra for it later - much better. 

All Warm and Fuzzy

This article just leaves me feeling all warm and fuzzy.   What the heck, it's always better to ignore the big issues right?

We ignore the possible destruction of our civilization on a daily basis.  Mostly this is because we're evolved to look for the immediate threat and you have think and plan ahead for the big issues - we're not good at that.

• We've done next to nothing about possible asteroid / comet collisions after being told it's 100% going to happen sometime (probably not soon).
• We've done zip to protect against EMP from Solar prominence which has happened and will happen again.  We also haven't prepared for a Terrorist / China/Russia/? nuke airburst.   How hard do you think it would be to get 3+ small nuke tipped rockets on a container ship into the Gulf of Mexico, where they'd have plenty of range to blanket the entire US.   I'm guessing not that hard.  Although I do give credit to our black ops guys efforts to recapture nuclear materials stolen from Russia, Pakistan, well where ever.  But there is still some out there.  Not good.
• We happily ignore the three Super Volcano's we have in the US   - Yellowstone is the one everyone knows about and ignores, then there's Valles Caldera in New Mexico, and Long Valley in California -  they are inactive but to trust mother nature to treat us gently is perhaps a bit optimistic.  And those are just ours.   Talk about Climate Change. 
• We don't ignore the possibility of pandemic but we've done very little to prepare for it - how many people have a clue as to how to behave, or have done anything to prepare for the 100% chance that it will happen (probably in my lifetime) - 1%, 2% - probably less.
• We've sort of given up worrying about an Nuclear War - which I'd put as a pretty low probability - but still,  I'd be surprised if a fallout shelter has been built or restocked in 40 years.
• Can't do much about Earthquakes except build well - which we're doing, and prepare for long periods of almost no food, water, health services, transportation,  etc - which we have mostly ignored.
• Since Economic performance is partially based on consumer confidence and, based on various polls over 50% of U.S. residents polled think that the economy is gong to collapse, I think that's grounds for concern.   The economy and the stock markets are essentially self fulfilling prophecy - if everyone thinks it's going to collapse - it will - and we're better than 50% of the way there - Oh joy.
• Peak Oil leading to unaffordable gas, and a crippled transportation and power generation system - Maybe where close, maybe we're there.  Here at least our technological prowess might save our collective asses for a while.
• Climate change - ok maybe you don't believe in global warming but there is WAY too much evidence for it to make me comfortable.   It's one of those problems with a negative feedback loop - the worse it gets the faster it gets worse.    Maybe we can do something about it - maybe not but it seems short sighted to not try.   Is it possible that it's a hoax - No, just look at photographs of glaciers in Alaska and Greenland and you can see it's happening.  Is it as bad as the media wants us to think - I have NO idea.   Is it our fault? I suspect it's partially our fault and partially a natural swing - the timing was just bad. 
• Link to the Climate change thing is Deforestation - between desertification in Africa and the burning of the rain forests in South America, we definitely have a problem.   Both of which I think are still fixable if we just cared enough to actually do it. 

Are you feeling all warm and fuzzy now?

Splain it to me Lucy

How the hell did gas prices become a Presidential race issue?

Unless we're going to nationalize the oil companies, and give up foreign oil all together, how does anyone begin to think the President is going to lower gas prices?     There is NO historical precedent for the idea - it's a WORLD oil economy, we don't get to make anywhere near enough of the decision to radically lower prices.   Even if opening new drilling would lower the price (which it won't), it sure won't happen just because we said - yeah go ahead and drill - it takes time to bring that production on-line and have any effect on the U.S. production levels.

Frankly I'm in favor of opening ANWR and I'm more or less a environmental supporter - I like wilderness, I like parks, I like clean water, and clean air and I'm willing to pay for them.    The negative ANWR arguments are bogus from one end to the other - the wildlife take advantage of pipelines as access to feed during the winters, as a means of making travel easer - they don't care about the pipes.    Why the hell would anyone talk about running a pipeline from ANWR across Alaska to the south - when you can run a MUCH shorter one to Prudhoe Bay?  you wouldn't.  

We keep talking about dependance on foreign oil - but not doing anything about it.   Like most issues that are serious - we make noise and do nothing.

The Corporate Market

We often talk of the free market - and people are either pro capitalism or against it.   The trouble is - we've never had a free market.

What I want is the "Perfect Market" as defined by economists - this is a market where the consumer has available all the information needed to make an informed decision, combined with the "Free Market".

What we seem to have now is the Corporate Market.   In the corporate market, corporations determine what information the consumer should have.   Take for example the Dolphin Safe Tuna labels.   We spent years and years trying to get this into place, when it finally happened, people voted with their wallets, eventually you didn't see any tuna with out that little certification.

Conservationists worked to create the Forest Stewardship Council, which certifies organizations which in turn certify wood products as coming from sustainable practices.     In some cases this wood is more expensive, but when it is - it's usually not by much.   When I'm buying wood, I try to get FSC wood, I don't always succeed but I try, because it's worth the extra cost and effort TO ME, to buy wood that is harvested in a sustainable manner.  

Choice - Give me the Information and let me CHOOSE.

Which leads us to this little gem.    Apparently some of our - what regulators? have decided that the WTO trumps the U.S. Congress .. you know the Idiots that Appointed the Regulators (which is a whole other topic).   Last time I check'd we got to decide our own laws, and could specify what was legally required on labels.   Tell the WTO to go pound sand.   To misquote and slightly paraphrase John BigBoote "It's not your goddamned country. Understand monkey boy!"*

I have issues with Giant corporations and the effect they have on what is already a screwed up and decidedly not "free" market.     The Perfect Market could probably handle giant corporations, because you'd know where it came from, which devision of what subsidiary of what corporation of what conglomerate the product came from and if you didn't like which politicians they were buying - you could vote with your wallet.   But they don't want you to know that kind of stuff.   So misinformation or no information is what they're after.   Besides what could you possibly want to know that you can't get from a 30 second commercial, written by and ad agency, who works for a marketing department that avoids talking to their engineering department as much as possible.

Don't get me wrong- I'm all in favor of business, I have no problem with someone making a LOT of money (I often wish that someone where me).   Where I have a problem is with the lies of commission and omission.  I have no problem with the rich - when was the last time a poor person gave you a job?   But I DO have a problem with them getting their money by misrepresenting the products they offer.

*From The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzi.  - The actual quote I believe was "It's not my god damned planet.  Understand monkey boy."  - but in this case it is my god damn planet, and my god damn country so...

Gas again

Prices at my local station when from 3.49 to 3.99 in the last two weeks.  (For regular)   This is just going to suck.