[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Tuesday, May 21st, 2013|
|Economics in one.. Graphic
Who has the only gun, has the only bag.
This graphic was inspired by randomdiversion. It also explains why socialism is an ephemeral state. When those without capital do get the gun, which is rare, the result is always the gun holder is the new bag holder. Socialism in history is merely an intermediate stage between another progressive/fascist state under new ownership.
|Friday, April 26th, 2013|
Perhaps not a lie qua lie, but to hear NPR lavish praise on Dubya is sickening and indicative of their agenda.
Subtext: Now that a Democrat is in office we look back at Bush and realize what a favor he did for us in setting the stage for our new fully fascist state.
I didn't listen to Democracy Now today but I hope they had enough integrity as socialists not to go on a Bush love-fest.
|Friday, April 19th, 2013|
|Tuesday, April 16th, 2013|
NPR is trying to scare people into selling off gold. Beware! Remember when they pumped facebook? Hope you didn't fall for that.
You can make a lot of money just doing the opposite of what NPR says.
This is a manipulated gold selloff so the bad guys can buy up gold on the cheap, it's going to go back up and a lot. Don't fall for it.
I could spend all day debunking NPR lies, like Robert Reich : 'The Social Security trust fund is solvent' (the trust fund was raided years ago, it's gone
), or 'Where did this Austerity strategy come from?' (it's not a strategy, Greece, Italy, and Cyprus aren't choosing
to be broke, they are
|Coming soon to a sporting event near you, TSA gropepoints
You can be sure that there is legislation ready to expand the TSA.
Whether this event was deliberate or not is still an open question. You will be able to tell from the narrative. If they don't have a tidy story with all
perpetrators dead or in no-press-access custody in a few days it was probably a 'real' 'terrorist' act.
Regardless they will try to rush through some expansion of the police state, and a complicit media will whip up the populace into a cringing fearful froth to 'demand' something must be done
If it is
a real event no one will connect the 'moral' outrage with the events like when 'we' blew 120 Afghans attending a wedding to bloody pieces.
Oops. Our bad. But why the hate? You guys should be used to it by now.
So while it might be thought by some that there would be some actual motivation for a bombing in Boston, we must always remember it has nothing to do with their dead at our hands, the real reason is of course they hate us for our freedom
(EDIT: I should add another likely scapegoat is teabaggers or other 'people who take the Constitution literally' types as per the SPLC)
|Wednesday, March 6th, 2013|
|Monday, March 4th, 2013|
|Washington Tax & Spend Republican wants to tax bicycles
They cause global warming"A cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride"
- Ed Orcutt (R)
Lest anyone be confused that the answer to democratic idiocy is republicans.
|Friday, March 1st, 2013|
|Everyone knows it's all a lie I assume
There are no spending cuts with sequestration.
Spending goes up. Debt goes up. Government's planned raise they give to themselves every year wasn't as big as they wanted. That is all. Nothing is solved. Actual cuts would be needed to prevent economic calamity. Large ones. There are no cuts. To make sure programs like medicare and SS do
get their increases some other individual programs will get budget cuts. Overall, spending goes up.
|Wednesday, February 27th, 2013|
|Wednesday, February 20th, 2013|
|IP & Monsanto
IP law is socializing the cost of safeguarding your market exclusivity onto taxpayers, many or most of whom not only do not use your product but may very well actively not want to use or be contaminated with your product.
If I keep my diamond tennis bracelet in a safe in my house, I have a reasonable expectation I might retain possession of it.
If I leave it unattended on the sidewalk, I don't. If I call the cops and ask them to find the 'criminal' who picked it up, they will laugh at me. Rightly so.
Yet companies like Monsanto essentially do just this, and the police do not laugh. They hop to.
This is wrong. SCOTUS will decide the legality of the such case soon.
Regardless what they decide IP law is wrong
From an economic and utilitarian perspective if Monsanto, et al, must devise superior seed every year the consumer will be better off, and I might add so will Monsanto be better off for spending their time pleasing the customer rather than policing 5th generation 'stolen' seed.
|Wednesday, February 13th, 2013|
|If you haven't heard this on whatever 'news' you consume, then your news lies
"Get the Gas, Burn it down."
Of course they were gonna kill him. The only question was how, and would the cover up work. Well the state propaganda outlets are dutifully removing initial reports of cops saying "Get the gas, burn it down" from their stories.
I'm not condoning Dorner's actions. In fact from reading his manifesto
I disagree with about every one of his political positions, and in fact think they are dangerous. From all of his knowledge about people I assume are celebrities, he seemed to be pretty caught up in the mediasphere.
Even his taste in women is questionable.. Margaret Cho on the list of "THE MOST beautiful women on this planet, period"? Maybe three or four on that list qualify from my perspective, but I digress.
Anyway, the point is they murdered him. This is a bigger problem than Dorner's shooting spree in the first place. The cops violate the law with impunity, murder a man, the media dutifully covers it up.That is the story here.
In fact it's the only
thing about this story that is worthy of news. Thus it is the one thing you will never hear on the 'news'.
This is why ever fewer people believe the news anymore. This is why people get their information in places that haven't been compromised. This in turn is why they will keep trying to pass laws to censor the internet so that once again all of your information will come from government approved sources. They cannot allow you to think for yourself. The one thing you must certainly never
think is "Why does the media hide so much, if they are supposed to be a check on government power?" Thus you must not see that they do hide.
|Friday, February 8th, 2013|
|Thursday, January 31st, 2013|
|The Ring of Democracy
(This was a speech I gave at an OWS vs Tea Party debate/discussion last year. I decided to attack the root conceptual basis for the problems we face. Oddly it was well received, although some few were absolutely livid, realizing what I was saying was a direct attack on their lust for power. It was written on short notice so I don't think it's my best work. Still I thought some might enjoy)
poverty rate: in steady decline until the war on poverty
terrorism: rare until the war on terror
drug related violence: nonexistent until the war on drugs
income diversity: steadily increasing since the war on poverty
illiteracy rate: increasing since the war on illiteracy
single parent rate: declining until the great society, now increasingWAR
: literal and figurative, on people, or on ideas: endless
This is not accidental. The reason for this is the government class needs these problems to be perpetual.( Read more...Collapse )
|Tuesday, January 8th, 2013|
|Taxes for all
Here's a quick point you have not heard from either left or right state controlled media.
The 1% do not earn enough to dig us out of the hole, even if you took it all, it's a tiny sliver. The real money is in the middle class.
The point of getting reality TV consuming democrats to go along with taxes on the rich is so that the rich, who actually have money to do so, would not lobby when they came for the middle class.
This is called divide and conquer.In fact the middle class is already being hit, as they are finding out right now.
When they came for the rich we said nothing. Be assured when they come for the real money, our money, the rich will not be saying anything.
We are cattle who are told our fellow kine are the enemy, fighting over a little meal. It's not our kine we should regard as the enemy, it's the rancher, and yes, the kine who abet them.
|Thursday, December 20th, 2012|
|Wednesday, December 5th, 2012|
(The latest in what could be a dozen posts a day)
Today on "Tell Me More" Michel Martin we had two lying economists, 'balanced' we assume because one was right progressive (Heritage) and left progressive (NELP).
The host trotted out a Rutgers study
purported by Michel to prove that extending unemployment benefits .. lowers unemployment.
Aside from the facial absurdity of such a proposition, that only someone like Krugman or Reich could say with a straight face, here are the study factoids which supposedly back this up.
- Unemployed workers who received unemployment insurance were more likely to have been proactive in seeking work than those who did not receive UI, devoting more hours to job search and examining job postings.
People receiving UB are required
to seek work. This says nothing useful at all. UB in fact pays people to seek
but doesn't pay them to find
. If in fact you do find, you lose the benefit. Unless you're out of savings, UB can fund be a nice work vacation.
- Approximately four out of five unemployment insurance recipients said they were willing to accept a pay cut in order to get a new job, compared with two out of three who were not receiving UI.
People who do not accept UB between jobs are typically not involuntarily unemployed. IE I left my previous job because I knew I had either a job lined up or very good prospects. If I do not seek UB, I probably don't need them. If I was disemployed tomorrow, I guarantee you I would not expect to get a job at lower pay. Now if I turned out to be wrong
in that estimation and took UB, then I'd be in the "willing to accept lower pay" statistic.
- Of those unemployment insurance recipients who found a new job, 59 percent took a pay cut in order to secure new employment.
Same answer as previous.
These 'smoking guns' are essentially just tautological statistical observations, that do nothing to prove any point whatsoever. Anyone with high school statistics should have immediately realized this data did nothing for her case.
However it's well trodden ground that extending UB increases unemployment. In fact Germany solved a years long unemployment problem by simply sharply cutting UB duration.
Which is not to say UB are bad per se, especially if they are paid for by the recipient beforehand, but what they do not
do is help the economy. They slow the economy by taking labor out
of the economy, thus driving labor costs up, thus making marginal business go under, slowing business starts, and increasing the incentive for automation.
Another general critique of both economists and the host, talking about GDP.
boost GDP by increasing benefits. The Heritage chap could have pointed this out, but he won't. Wait doesn't this contradict the rest of my post?
No. GDP includes government spending. The absurdity of UB helping the economy can be demonstrated simply by the case where GDP is increased by UB. If you put everyone on UB for a year, and what the heck, doubled their previous pay, GDP that year would skyrocket
. Of course the next year you'd probably have a currency collapse, if it even took that long, but if UB, or any government spending really
helped the economy, then we could put everyone on the government payroll, and be rich rich rich!
GDP is a bullshit metric.
|This is what democracy looks like
More people believe in straight up creationism than evolution.
If you're a democracy fetishist this poses you with an ethical problem, if a democracy fetishist can be said to have ethics. If you believe the majority makes something right, then creationism must be right. If you believe creationism is wrong and evolution must be forced on people, then you should immediately give up any pretense of being a democratist, you're a totalitarian.
Personally I do think evolution theory is sustained by evidence and I do not believe in creationism. The way to get people to understand however is not force. The way is to allow them to control the resources spent on education. If they have to decide on whether their child is indoctrinated into creationism when they
are paying most parents will opt to use the majority of resources to ensuring their child has skills to thrive. Neither creationism nor socialism will be taught, because none of these things help the child. It's with the leverage of political power that the temptation to teach this crap comes in. Policy
is the problem because policy
means public resources get to be used to indoctrinate many other
peoples' children. Now it becomes tempting.
You don't need to indoctrinate your own kids, you may do that at home for free. You won't pay to indoctrinate others, either. But if you can use what you perceive to be other peoples' money
to do so, now we're talking.
With the influx of a hispanic population that is largely Christian, they will rightfully claim a voice, and vote in the schools curriculum. Public schools will become more
Public schools are indefensible economically, but now we see they are indefensible morally as well.
|Tuesday, November 13th, 2012|
|47 States petition to withdraw from the States United
Read it and cheer!
Of course it's hopeless. Merely asking
your abusive husband, or master, to 'allow' you to have a divorce or freedom has probably never worked in the history of humanity.
However it's a lovely sign that the true patriotic spirit of Americans, and the idea of government by consent, is not dead quite yet.
Still hopeless or not, 3 states now have reached the threshold that calls for a response from the White House. Almost certainly more will come. I also loved the idea of revoking citizenship of anyone who signed the petition. Punishment for wanting a divorce is.. a divorce hmm? Awesome!
|Monday, November 12th, 2012|
This post about the paradoxes of socialism
got me thinking.
People are always on about socialism or communism. I am actually far more worried about the rhetoric of socialism and communism than the systems themselves. The systems themselves are chimeara and unicorns. They only exist in the mind of the marxist. I don't fear them, per se, anymore than I fear dragons. I fear democracy
and the fascism it creates.
Democracy is of course built from the same stuff as communism, the idea that the bigger gang gets to steal, enslave, and kill the smaller gang. Democracy is collectivism. Democracy is inherently immoral.
However, as a practical
matter all societies tricked into believing in collectivism, via government 'free' socialized education, become fascist. The USA being the prime example. Even in NK or Cuba or the USSR there were oligarchs who effectively DID own property to make the system function, to run the various market sectors that needed to function somewhat
, even if not well.
You can't expect someone, even if well meaning, to be able to fix a problem without giving them 1) control and 2) interest. So you give* them a factory and workers and say, "make stuff". Usually they fail. But if they succeed, somehow, you do not replace them!
So there is always property, even in nominally 'communist' states, it's just that 1) only a few people own property, and 2) the rest of the people become effectively property of the few property owners.
This demonstrates the irony, that no marxist or maoist would ever admit to, that when property, or capital, becomes
the slavery they insist it is by definition, it is only the case because
only some are allowed to have property, and the rest already are
It's certainly true I can starve people in a collectivist regime by disallowing them food, but that is because
I have already the temporal power
to disallow them from doing something I do not approve, like growing their own food, or fleeing my tyranny. When Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians or his own people or Mao starved millions he also had to not let them escape
. The people were already their property to
Maoists would argue Mao starved people because he actually 'believed' in Marxism and that he could centrally plan** an economy. But ultimately he had to recreate the feudal system to feed anyone at all. The feudal system is fascism. Progressivism is fascism. China today is not communist (no one may own property), nor capitalist (everyone may own property) . China today is the same as it has been throughout most of its history, feudal/fascist/progressive.
In fascism a few effectively own property but it is all subject state control
or ultimately redistribution. In our 'modern' fascist/progressive state the means of production is redistributed to concessions (ie corporations) via democratic processes. In return the peasants get some goodies. They effectively 'tax themselves' to give themselves 'free' chits to be able to consume products from the cartels created by that same democratic process
Beautiful isn't it!
Of course the regulations that create the cartels are 'for the public protection'.
All democratic states must become fascist, feudal, progressive. And of course they have. Progress in the political context should be understood to mean, progress towards
feudalism. Some nations have kinder gentler fascism, but so far this is largely the case due to fiscal legerdemain; borrowing against future production of the unborn, who are unable to participate
in the democratic process that is enslaving them in vitro. I'm pro-choice, but progressive
pro-choice people should reconsider their policy. They are murdering the slaves that will supposedly pay for their present profligacy.
In one way Marx was right, the kind
of property that is owned is important. Now of course Marx actually meant people should be property, but that aside, if you may not own the 'means of production' you are a 'slave of capital' but this only occurs because the system, via statutory
regulation, through democratic
process, impedes you from doing so.
It takes little time anymore for a market sector to get itself regulated such that competition is impossible or effectively so. Does the regulated industry ultimately care about appeasing the regulators? Not really, because the taxpayer
pays for the regulator, and the regulation itself limits possible competition. The FDA is revealed to be the cartellizing agency protecting the concessions of Monsanto, Proctor and Gamble, et al. The Fed is revealed to be the cartellizing agency protecting Wall Street. Etc, etc.
* - This 'meritocracy' of placing oligarchs by virtue of being effective
slave masters only occurs once your regime has succeeded in otherwise destroying the economy, in the beginning of course you place people in sinecures in return for political favors.
** - One decent way of looking at all of this is from the planning perspective. The reason why free people in voluntary association do not form organizations past a certain size, is because they cannot at a certain size, compete with smaller ones. 'Planning' only gets you so big. (there are fascinating evolutionary parallels to this) To become any larger you must becomes less efficient
, but less efficient doesn't survive in a free society. Therefore society must not be free